fyfpoon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:00 pm, netvegetable <dontemai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:50:01 -0700, fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 10:39 am, netvegetable <dontemai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:32:06 -0700, fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> So occupation of Tibet is natural,
>>>>> because Tibet has of course always been a part of China. Now you may
>>>>> scream hysterically and yell, "Math! Prove it!", well what's the
>>>>> rush, why don't you let me show you.
>>>>> http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004866.php
>>>> But what if Tibetans don't want to be part of China? Shouldn't they
be
>>>> allowed to have their own state?
>>> But what if the natives in Hawaii don't want to be part of the USA,
>>> shouldn't they be allowed to own the whole of Hawaii and afterwards
>>> lease the beaches to the tourists and with the tax dollars they earn
>>> they can have white women, ****ch and booze?
>> Well if the people in Hawaii want to secede and form their own
>> government, more power to them. Why not?
>>
>> Now, why shouldn't the Tibetans be allowed to have their own state?
>
> Why should the people in Kowloon of HK not be allowed to have their
> own state and their own currency?
>
That's right and I think Quebec should be allowed to leave with exactly
what they
came with.
|
