. . . in order to please Communist China. From Taiwan's China Post:
. . . ruling Kuomintang (KMT) Deputy Secretary-General Chang Jung-kung, who handles the party's ties with China, warned [the mayor of the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung] of the risks of screening [a film about Chinese Uigher leader, Rebiya Kadeer].
He said the mayor should give top priority to the public interest of her city, and should “think carefully” if the move affects Kaohsiung's [influx of Chinese tourists].
Mr. Deputy Secretary-General, free speech IS the public interest of Kaohsiung. And Taiwan too, you miserable butt-wipe.
So you are a believer of free speech huh?
Why are you deleting divergent comments then?
Who is the happy double-face butt-wipe then?
*
*
Apples and oranges, Komrade. I OWN this blog; Chung of the KMT doesn’t OWN the Kaohsiung theater.
I can understand why you’re sore — you tried to hijack my comments section & I responded by asserting my property rights. Just as surely as I would if you pitched a tent and tried to squat on my front lawn for several days.
1) As owner of this blog, it is my right to determine my own editorial policy. And on your own blog, that right is yours as well. As such, I reserve the right to delete ad hominem comments at will.
2) When people post multiple identical comments, I delete ’em. Reading the same message that has been cut and pasted five times is just plain boring to read, no matter how clever it seemed the first time you wrote it.
3) When comments are off subject, they too, may be deleted. Not that I mind an interesting segue or two, but when the subject of a post is “Religious tyranny” and someone DEMANDS that I expound at length on my opinion of the Vietnam War, I can tell that they’re trolling.
4) Comments which descend into imbecility may also be deleted. Because they, too, are an insult. An insult to everyone’s intelligence.
“The Dalai Lama & Mullah Omar of the Taliban are both the same, and who are we to judge?” is an perfectly splendid example of this. It only proves that one doesn’t need to be deliberately run over by one of Ma Ying-jeou’s stormtroopers in order to be considered brain-dead.
http://foreignerinformosa.typepad.com/the_foreigner_in_formosa/2009/05/taiwan-deathrace-2009-or-how-taipeis-notsofinest-ran-over-two-senior-citizens-at-a-scheduled-protest.html#comments
[“Who are we to judge?” Have it your way. You need a babysitter, and your choices are Mother Teresa or a pedophile priest. Better flip a coin to decide which one will tuck your kids in tonight — because who are YOU to judge?]
not good to add fuel to anti-american sentiments.
no one happier than BL.
*
*
Sorry Jim, but I knew I’d enough when my friend here equated the D.L. to a guy who ordered women shot in the head in a soccer field for teaching young girls how to read.
The language used in this blog is indicative of the level of reflection and differentiation of the discussions here. Criticizing what seems to be questionable policy is one thing, calling somebody names is disqualifying the commentator … just below standard.
*
*
I beg to differ. “Below standard” is a politician or a political party who / which dismisses fundamental democratic freedoms as simply another “policy choice”. A “policy choice” to be bartered away for a few pieces of silver tossed their way from the Butchers of Beijing.
The language I used was admittedly a bit harsh and intemperate, no doubt.
But you contend that harsh language alone is enough to make an opinion false? Surely you’re smart enough to know that’s patently false:
“Adolf Hitler was a %@*!. And here’s one reason why…”
It’s the reasoning that follows, and that alone, which validates or invalidates an opinion.
Thanks for stopping by. And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got blog posts to write.
Did Chang Jung-kung say, verbatim: ‘Let’s Throw Free Speech Under The Bus’?
*
*
*
The quote’s given in the body of the post, and the title sums it up in plain English.
Because not everyone understands Quisling.