China's Blueprint For Global Power

[remake it + 288]

Just now, Otis11 said:

(All of these words were actually quoted from remake it. Now, honestly they're taken way out of context because remake it would never say this, but I didn't even have to change the order! Shockingly.)

The difference is that what you posted in entirety can be revisited by anyone (unless you edit/delete) and the context is clear, whereas you actually make statements which have no truth such as

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED CHINA HAS ONLY EXISTED SINCE 1912. I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY STANCE AT ALL. PERIOD. 

 

[Marcin + 519]

5 hours ago, Otis11 said:

The FACTS (not opinions) are that China has never in history controlled all of their current lands, yet they are using the argument of 'historical territory' to expand. This is a LIE. There is no opinion in this statement. The Chinese Government is LYING to the international community (and their own populace) as DEMONSTRABLE FACT.

Again, this is not a matter of semantics. This is not opinion. This is FACT.

@Otis11 If you say so, I can only agree with you,as I have no knowledge about this topic. I do not know Chinese history in that detail. I have not known that China is using 'historical territory' argument to claim all current territory.

I was following this thread  about 10 days ago, but stopped, and today I have returned and was trying to understand what was the discussion about. I have noticed that there are heated comments. So I have written something that I thought is conciliatory and focuses on present situation. Now I understand that the topic is historical context of current Chinese territory. I have no knowledge to take part in this discussion. I like history, but European history.

My interests are focused on current geopolitical situation, and fascinating pursue of hegemony and conflict of US vs China and how this conflict impacts all other countries.

[Otis11 + 551]

MIC. DROP.

(Btw, I don't go back and edit/delete posts. My words stand as written. The few exceptions have all been within minutes of the original posting to do something small like fix a typo, but not to change meaning. Just in case that was in doubt.)

6 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Otis11 If you say so, I can only agree with you,as I have no knowledge about this topic. I do not know Chinese history in that detail. I have not known that China is using 'historical territory' argument to claim all current territory.

I was following this thread  about 10 days ago, but stopped, and today I have returned and was trying to understand what was the discussion about. I have noticed that there are heated comments. So I have written something that I thought is conciliatory and focuses on present situation. Now I understand that the topic is historical context of current Chinese territory. I have no knowledge to take part in this discussion. I like history, but European history.

My interests are focused on current geopolitical situation, and fascinating pursue of hegemony and conflict of US vs China and how this conflict impacts all other countries.

And my apologies Marcin if I read more into your statement than you intended. This has been the exact 'discussion' for the last 6-ish pages.

Remake it keeps changing his tune every time I bring up facts. At this point I've brought up so many facts all I have to do is keep referring back to posts I've already made. He can walk away if he likes, he can continue to argue if he likes, but I'm not going to let him off the hook until he either admits he's wrong (never going to happen), just leaves (possible), or cites fact and has a reasoned discussion (preferred, but I'd also like to win the lottery. Sadly, I don't have high hopes for either). I refuse to let him slide out of this with a 'agree to disagree' post - mainly because I honestly offered and tried to have an honest discussion and understand his side, and after I laid out multiple thought out points, he resorted to lies and personal attacks.

[Otis11 + 551]

Oh, sorry, I missed the real zinger:

Now who is lying?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hey China, how's that blueprint for global power working out for you?

Chinese Bank On Verge Of Collapse After Sudden Bank Run

First it was Baoshang Bank , then it was Bank of Jinzhou, then, two months ago, China's Heng Feng Bank with 1.4 trillion yuan in assets, quietly failed and was just as quietly nationalized. Today, a fourth prominent Chinese bank was on the verge of collapse under the weight of its bad loans, only this time the failure was far less quiet, as depositors of the rural lender swarmed the bank's retail outlets, demanding their money in an angry demonstration of what Beijing is terrified of the most: a bank run.  ...

 

... Zhang was a happy customer: he learned that when dealing with a collapsing Ponzi scheme, only those who pull their money first stand to recover anything. It's those who foolishly believed the government's propaganda that all is well, who will be far, far angrier when they realize that it's gone... it's all gone.

 

[remake it + 288]

43 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hey China, how's that blueprint for global power working out for you?

Whoever you are referring to might know that individual deposit accounts up to 500,000 yuan (US$70,000) are covered by China’s central bank nationwide deposit insurance system, so what is your point?. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Remake it keeps changing his tune every time I bring up facts. At this point I've brought up so many facts all I have to do is keep referring back to posts I've already made.......  after I laid out multiple thought out points, he resorted to lies and personal attacks.

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Now who is lying?

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. 

I need a lie down.

#remakefacts

#remakehistory

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Remake it keeps changing his tune every time I bring up facts.

Completely untrue - your posts are quite clear and actually contradict your claims as shown in linked posts referring to the actual words you use, which are not taken out of context.

[Guest]

Hopeless XI - Return of the Horse***t

That's 11, not Xi ... but both apply 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Otis, you may as well just give it a rest, you’ll never have a reasoned debate with someone who deals in helical logic...

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

 Sadly, I don't have high hopes for either). I refuse to let him slide out of this with a 'agree to disagree' post - mainly because I honestly offered and tried to have an honest discussion and understand his side, and after I laid out multiple thought out points, he resorted to lies and personal attacks.

You confuse your errors of logic with "personal attacks", so here's some facts:

THE PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Chapter I. General Provisions 

Article 1. The Republic of China is composed of the Chinese people. 

Article 2. The sovereignty of the Chinese Republic is vested in the 
people. 

Article 3. The territory of the Chinese Republic consists of 22 
provinces, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Chinghai. 

 

And from a Law Professor expert on China

"... the succession of imperial dynasties that ruled the country from the third century B.C. until 1912 had gradually developed a large collection of sophisticated statutes that described the structure, principles, functioning, and interrelationships of the various agencies of the empire, and these were supplemented by customs, traditions, and precedents."

[Guest]

XII

Frozen yoghurt

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Xie xie ni!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Otis I did warn you!

You cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to listen to basic facts and cannot then lend credence to their own opinions by presenting a cogent argument.

He will twist your words, take them out of context, and then divert.

It is a game to him so just stop, accept you have factually demonstrated the truth to everyone except him and try another thread.

By the way I admire the fact you a willing to listen to a differing view and potentially change your mind, on this occasion no need pal!

[remake it + 288]

38 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Otis I did warn you!

You cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to listen to basic facts and cannot then lend credence to their own opinions by presenting a cogent argument.

He will twist your words, take them out of context, and then divert.

It is a game to him so just stop, accept you have factually demonstrated the truth to everyone except him and try another thread.

By the way I admire the fact you a willing to listen to a differing view and potentially change your mind, on this occasion no need pal!

It is a fact that China's territory at 1912 was greater than the China of today, and this information has already been linked in this thread, so if you have a different version of reality present that instead of adding to the stream of untruths from a cast of the historically ill-informed. 

[Guest]

XIII

Can't believe this is still going, page after page about territory and borders. Let's face it. China are still bitter about this 'century of humiliation' nonsense that was waaaay longer than a century, and they're doing all they can now to make up for it, and will claim any lands as their own, whether current day or they're planning to invade, and say it was always theirs, despite little things like history and facts. 

Their whole anniversary was '' bom bom bom, here comes Xi in a tank la la, bom bom everyone salute please it's Xi, bom de bom, ooh there's some more tanks, yay, bom de bom, war yay, obedient winston wooh, bom de bom ''.

(the bom de bom is like a brass band lol)

Here's a tip for the Chinese here. Taking over the world, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. We did it and started giving it all back, it was too easy. So get over yourselves. No one cares. Just Pooh. And he's a clown. 

#freetibet #confuciusturningingrave #yawn

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

18 minutes ago, remake it said:

It is a fact that China's territory at 1912 was greater than the China of today, and this information has already been linked in this thread, so if you have a different version of reality present that instead of adding to the stream of untruths from a cast of the historically ill-informed. 

Is it really??? where is your evidence and links????

You seem to have ignored my previous post on page 7 see below

I presume you must be blind and if so I understand why you cannot grasp basic facts!!

I seem to have fallen into the very trap I warned Otis of lol

You are clearly winding everyone up here for your own amusement or you are stupid beyond belief

  On 10/30/2019 at 8:46 AM, remake it said:

How about you tell us what you mean by China because prior to 1912 there were just lots of dynasties, and a history lesson with dates is pretty pointless given you can just google whatever you want to know.

So are you saying the date Otis has asked you for is 1912?

Map for 1912 directly below , map of current China at the bottom 

Clearly less territory in 1912!

Case closed!

[Guest]

bom de bom Xi yay tank bom, it is a fact bom ooh tanks bom 

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I seem to have fallen into the very trap I warned Otis of lol

HAHAHAHAHAHH

#Hopeless

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

bom de bom Xi yay tank bom, it is a fact bom ooh tanks bom 

HAHAHAHAHAHH

#Hopeless

Silly me eh!

[Guest]

It's hilarious, he sucked you back in ...

Like Godfather III  🤣

#bombomdebom

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

It's hilarious, he sucked you back in ...

Like Godfather III  🤣

#bombomdebom

I know he pressed the right buttons for a reaction, couldn't help myself

I should practice what I preach! 🤣🤣🤣

[Guest]

Trust me, just block and read others' comments. So entertaining ...

When I unblock to read out of curiousity it's exactly the same shit it was like 4 pages ago  😂

Bom de bom 

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

You are clearly winding everyone up here for your own amusement or you are stupid beyond belief

Potentially both

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

57 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

It's hilarious, he sucked you back in ...

Tis good to heed ye olden internet advice to refuse to provide sustenance to uncouth, unhandsome beings who dwell below bridges and who earn their keep by interfering with travellers by demanding a needless toll for safe passage over said bridge. 

Tis good advice indeed, which, if followed copiously, may result in happiness (see definition of "happiness" below, image taken of a page of the book "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Gwinett Bierce published in 1906.)

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Rob,

The term ‘stupid’ is a bit harsh and not really politically correct (which I am at ALL times...). Perhaps you could have used the term ‘mentally challenged’ or ‘factually intolerant’ instead. If you go for the cryptic approach, ‘frozen yogurt’ is useful, we will know what you are getting at...

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Douglas I am your in your debt for putting me straight on the political correctness

I will of course abide by the terms you state in future

sincere apologies

wont happen again😉