On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:07:11 -0700, 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?
>
First, are you going to answer my question, or do you want to for some
reason? Why shouldn't the Tibetans be permitted to have their own state?
--
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
|
