黃毓民-不要拿民主的代用品來欺騙我們! 的

Lik

Lik

What's Fart Sai C?
ACC-HE 發表於 2010-6-9 14:54

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Lik

I believe 黃毓民 is clearly aware of the reality in his heart, but he just wants to gather 政治資本 for his own benefits.
rockypath 發表於 2010-6-9 15:19

呢啲咪叫做以小人之心度君子之福囉～

當然，你又點能夠去 expect 啲小人有君子之能呢？

-力

Lik

1. 所謂溫和派, 呢廿年最成功就係7.1遊行, 咁先迫到阿爺收返23條.
2. 政改方案和上次被否決的有d 改動, 並唔係一式一樣, 不過有d 情況好似仲衰過上次. (如區議會功能組別)
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-6-10 02:00

1) 7.1係民陣（民間人權陣線）搞嘅，而嚴格來講，民陣並唔係乜野政治組織，更唔能夠話佢係溫和派（因為各方泛民嘅人都有份參與），所以03/04 嘅 7.1 逼到阿爺收返 23條同埋攪到阿董落台，功勞都唔能夠歸功班垃圾溫和民主派。正確來講，果陣嘅功勞係屬於香港人自己嘅。而正因為 7.1嘅功勞唔屬於班垃圾溫和民主派，所以MJJ你無法否定垃圾溫和民主派做咗廿年都係得個桔呢句說話。

2) 而你第二點就更加肯定咗ricrick所講，話特衰政府儸個一式一樣、五年前已經被否決咗嘅方案出來係毫無誠意、逼港人食屎呢個事實。

-力

Lik

第一, 黃毓民將中國比成法西斯國家，將中國共產黨比成法西斯；

第二，他要求結束一黨專政，還政於民；

第三，他的目的是要暴露專政主義者的猙獰面目；

第四，呼籲香港人６月２３號去立法會示威 (目的是支持否決政改方案或是支持結束中國法西斯的一黨專政？)。
rockypath 發表於 2010-6-10 16:30

Whoa~ I'm surprised you actually managed to correctly identified those 4 points! I didn't know you have a brai... opps...

The next question should be, are the first 3 points correct and appropriate? Of course they are! And because they are, #4 is just the next logical step you ought to do to support points #1 - 3.

毓民 cannot dictate nor control how Grandfather reacts and responds because Grandfather is the one that controls and determines how he reacts and responds to the others. Had Grandfather wanted to, he can easily ignore what 毓民 says and press ahead with his own agenda. The only thing that is holding him back from doing so is that Grandfather still cares for his own face in the international community, so he doesn't want (dare?) to thoroughly piss off people in Hong Kong. In other words, he really doesn't give a damn about what 毓民 says. The ones he is really sort of weary of are the people of Hong Kong.

If 毓民 had any self interests in Hong Kong's political matters, he wouldn't haven't kicked started the 5-region resignation / de factor referendum. He and the LSD easily gave up $1M in doing so.

-Lik

Lik

Do you mind to tell us clearly what the GOAL we want to achieve is? Is “香港實現雙普選” the goal or “推翻中國共產黨結束一黨專政” the goal?
rockypath 發表於 2010-6-10 22:46

If a logical and sane person have any sort of understanding in both the HK and Mainland political climate, and more importantly, how the two interact with one another (eg. how in a lot of ways, Mainlanders are taking after almost precisely the same actions from HK folks), he'll eventually come to the understanding that Hong Kong will not have true democracy until the day Mainland China has that as well. As such, the two goals are really one and the same.

If you knew any Chinese history at all, Cantonese folks (and in particular, HK folks) have always been leaders and revolutionaries. The most well-known and recent one is Dr. Sun Yat Sen. Living on the coast, Cantonese folks have always been more open-minded and receptive of fresh ideas. It's really in our blood.

毓民 is asking for dual general election because that's what the CPC has promised and agreed to when the Basic Law was drafted. Unfortunately, Grandfather will not grant Hong Kong what has already been promised because it is afraid the rest of China will take after Hong Kong and make similar demands. And when they do, that'll spell the end of the CPC's rule.

That's what their motive is. Simple, greedy, and power-hungry as that.

-Lik

Lik

In what way these two issues – “香港實現雙普選” and “推翻中國共產黨結束一黨專政” can be two the same one? Can you explain to us?
rockypath 發表於 2010-6-10 23:25

Learn to read la, Moron~

Unfortunately, Grandfather will not grant Hong Kong what has already been promised because it is afraid the rest of China will take after Hong Kong and make similar demands. And when they do, that'll spell the end of the CPC's rule.

That's what their motive is. Simple, greedy, and power-hungry as that.

咁你視基本法同一國兩制如廢物?
“香港實現雙普選”同“推翻中國共產黨結束一黨專政” 絕對係兩樣野啦! ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-6-10 23:36

Given the current realities, 一國兩制 simply does not exist in HK. Affairs internal to HK that have no bearing on national security and foreign policies -- such as the abolishment of functional constituencies -- are not decided by LegCo, but are instead dictated by 西環 and Grandfather. Tell me how 一國兩制 exists and functions in HK?! Convince me how the Basic Law is relevant at all?!

-Lik

Lik

Basic Law:

第2條：香港特別行政區實行高度自治，享有行政管理權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權。
第18條：全國性法律除列於附件三者外，不在香港特別行政區實施。任何列於附件三的法律，限於有關國防、外交和其他不屬於香港特別行政區自治範圍的法律。凡列於附件三的法律，由香港特別行政區在當地公佈或立法實施。

Now tell me, is the abolishment of functional constituencies a matter of national defence, foreign affairs, or matter not related to SAR internal affairs?

Don't forget that HK is a part of China. Even China enforce the 一國兩制 in HK, for some important cases, the final 話事人 is still China.
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-6-11 00:07

Did I ever deny that HK is part of China? I am simply going by the Basic Law stated in black and white. Beliefs and "interpretations" such as yours is why the democratic process is not moving forward in HK.

-Lik

Lik

Do you naively believe 香港政治體制的變動 is solely Hong Kong’s internal matter?
rockypath 發表於 2010-6-11 01:26

If Vancouver wants to reform its city council structures, why would the provincial or federal governments stick their nose into such municipal matters?

From a policy point of view, the functional constituency is strictly a matter that concerns nobody other than Hong Kong. Of course, everyone knows why Grandfather wants to stick his hands into this because he pretty much controls the will of the functional constituency. And again, that deviates from what "one country, two systems" is supposed to mean.

-Lik

Lik

越黎越似之前同LYK 呢"擺佈經"人仕講野... quote 段"經文"出黎玩野, 但係其實係要睇哂成本聖經先work 架law.

而家普選就由1997之後已經知道係阿爺話事啦! 如果係完全香港人話事, 97 已經普選左啦.
呢個係現實... 講完.mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-6-11 01:25

Funny how you say the entire Basic Law needs to be taken into consideration because if you were to do that, then the Basic Law clearly stated that there will be a gradual progression towards a complete generally elected legislative council, with the understanding that the amount of direct representation (via elected LegCo members) will be increased in phases. At first, that appointed members would be replaced by directly elected members. To proceed further, the next phase is obviously the gradual elimination of functional constituency seats. Otherwise, how else could you achieve a LegCo body that is entirely elected by  direct election?

-Lik