Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Hong Kong is totally a democracy, but the People's Republic of China wants you to remember that they pick the candidates. Now go vote   (miamiherald.com) divider line 48
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1381 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Aug 2014 at 7:18 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-31 06:40:01 PM  
How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

www.chinadaily.com.cn
 
2014-08-31 07:19:51 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?


because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?
 
2014-08-31 07:20:49 PM  
How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.
 
2014-08-31 07:21:36 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

[www.chinadaily.com.cn image 500x243]


Because the chinese would have thrown a truly monumental hissy fit if we didn't.
 
2014-08-31 07:23:26 PM  
"Hong Kong Phooey" probably would have been better.
 
2014-08-31 07:24:02 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

[www.chinadaily.com.cn image 500x243]

Because the chinese would have thrown a truly monumental hissy fit if we didn't.


that's an understatement.
 
2014-08-31 07:28:25 PM  

kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.


But in the US there are 2 groups that pick the only electable candidates, not 1 group, so see the US is better. That way they can divide and conquer the population, pitting them against each other, as well as pick the office holders. Hoe Lee Crap.
 
2014-08-31 07:28:33 PM  

kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.


It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.
 
2014-08-31 07:30:01 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

[www.chinadaily.com.cn image 500x243]


Being a colony of a country 6000 miles away was so much more democratic.
 
2014-08-31 07:30:54 PM  

tkwasny: But in the US there are 2 groups that pick the only electable candidates


Voters pick the candidates. A two party system may not be perfect, but a wide spectrum of people fit within those two parties. Unfortunately, the overall slant of our parties is more right-leaning than many other democracies, but it's nowhere near the same as one all-powerful central government picking the hand-picking the candidates with no primaries.
 
2014-08-31 07:31:51 PM  
I work with a girl who grew up in Hong Kong. They look down their noses at the rest of the Chinese people. This will not sit well with them.
 
2014-08-31 07:43:52 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.

It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.


The problem with our system is that it requires huge amounts of cash to get elected and to get reelected.  If you don't vote the way the Chamber of Commerce wants you to, you're not getting any money.  Same thing with the RNC and the DNC, you have to play ball or you're out of the party.  At the local level people can agitate, but when it comes to the US Senate, you'd better be on the team 100% or you're going nowhere.
 
2014-08-31 07:44:07 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.

It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.


Really?

Do you honestly believe that?

That our 'candidates' aren't simply the ones their corporate sponsors chose to be elected?  The only difference in our system and theirs is that rather than the government choosing who enters/wins, the corporations choose them.
 
2014-08-31 07:45:17 PM  
Modern democracies are just games of three-card monte.
 
2014-08-31 07:47:19 PM  

charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?


It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.
 
2014-08-31 07:51:44 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: shower_in_my_socks: kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.

It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.

The problem with our system is that it requires huge amounts of cash to get elected and to get reelected.  If you don't vote the way the Chamber of Commerce wants you to, you're not getting any money.  Same thing with the RNC and the DNC, you have to play ball or you're out of the party.  At the local level people can agitate, but when it comes to the US Senate, you'd better be on the team 100% or you're going nowhere.


The thing is, if you are free to run for an office if you have the money to self fund or get like minded individuals to back you.  You are free to get on the ballot if you meet certain requirements (usually a set number of signatures or affiliation with a party that got votes or something).  The government does not ban you from appearing on the ballot so if you want to be the kiddie diddler party, you can be on the ballot. You can be a write in candidate even if you don't meet the minimal requirements and if you get the most you are in  For Hong Kong, China is picking all the people allowed to be selected.  There is no other way to be approved.  It is like a Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un type election where you are free to vote for a Chinese backed candidate, whichever one you want.  There is no alternative method for people to appear on the ballot to be selected.
 
2014-08-31 07:52:36 PM  

charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?


They should have given it to Taiwan.
 
2014-08-31 07:54:57 PM  

kroonermanblack: shower_in_my_socks: kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.

It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.

Really?

Do you honestly believe that?

That our 'candidates' aren't simply the ones their corporate sponsors chose to be elected?  The only difference in our system and theirs is that rather than the government choosing who enters/wins, the corporations choose them.


You sound Communist.
 
2014-08-31 07:56:43 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.


So they should've backed off the treaty because...?
 
2014-08-31 08:02:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?


Because of the overthrow of the government the treaty was made with.
 
2014-08-31 08:02:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?


Nor was it the same Britain that made the treaty, the British being vastly weaker and the Chinese vastly stronger; politically, economically and militarily, than the earlier versions.
 
2014-08-31 08:07:27 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?


Who's celebrating it?

Well, other than the Chinese I mean.

---

Hong Kong didn't have democracy under the UK. They just introduced it prior to handing it over to piss of China.
 
2014-08-31 08:08:47 PM  

leevis: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

They should have given it to Taiwan.


The UK doesn't recognise Taiwan as the ruler of China though.
 
2014-08-31 08:09:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?

Because of the overthrow of the government the treaty was made with.


Let's be clear: you're speaking from a position of utter ignorance.  I know the former US Consul-General to Hong Kong.  The hand-over in 1997 was never in any doubt.  Britain could not have backed out.  The truth is that China wouldn't have gone to war over Hong Kong, they would have taken it back with a phone call.  "Hi, we just closed off the water supply to the city from the mainland and have sealed the border.  Let us know when the handover can go forward.  Thanks."
 
2014-08-31 08:09:58 PM  

leevis: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

They should have given it to Taiwan.


Could you imagine how that would have gone?
 
2014-08-31 08:11:18 PM  

charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?


Their treaty said they'd return it to Taiwan.
 
2014-08-31 08:11:38 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?

Because of the overthrow of the government the treaty was made with.


You mean the Qing Dynasty, which was overthrown by the Kuomintang, which was shattered by the warlords, who were overrun by the Japanese, who were destroyed by the US and by the Soviet intervention, that re-established Kuomintang control of the country, until the Communists drove it into exile?
 
2014-08-31 08:17:12 PM  

This text is now purple: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

Their treaty said they'd return it to Taiwan.


Nope.
 
2014-08-31 08:23:17 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: InterruptingQuirk: Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?

Because of the overthrow of the government the treaty was made with.

Let's be clear: you're speaking from a position of utter ignorance.  I know the former US Consul-General to Hong Kong.  The hand-over in 1997 was never in any doubt.  Britain could not have backed out.  The truth is that China wouldn't have gone to war over Hong Kong, they would have taken it back with a phone call.  "Hi, we just closed off the water supply to the city from the mainland and have sealed the border.  Let us know when the handover can go forward.  Thanks."


Congratulations on your uber-connected bad self. I'm not questioning the pragmatic reality that China would have just taken it. But we celebrated it with and perpetuated the notion that the treaty remained honorable after the the dissolution of the Qing dynasty, as another person pointed out.
Basically, why did we spend the prior ~80 years acting as though that treaty was going to be respected with this completely different entity?
 
2014-08-31 08:30:22 PM  

Podna: leevis: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

They should have given it to Taiwan.

Could you imagine how that would have gone?


The Beijing Chinese would have thrown a temper tantrum and then shut up pretty quick when threatened with some nasty trade sanctions and a couple of aircraft carriers were moved into the area.
 
2014-08-31 08:37:10 PM  

pippi longstocking: Modern democracies are just games of three-card monte.


I actually believe this. We've replaced clubs with arrows, arrows with bullets, and bullets with dollars.
 
2014-08-31 09:05:00 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: h


Does that mean you feel debts countries/regimes make should be wiped if the country/regime is overthrown?
 
2014-08-31 09:16:24 PM  

Felgraf: InterruptingQuirk: h

Does that mean you feel debts countries/regimes make should be wiped if the country/regime is overthrown?


Excepting some duplicitous game where people pretend to have their whole country thrown into a state of mass chaos merely to avoid paying the debts they probably weren't going to pay back anyways? Sure.
 
2014-08-31 09:18:09 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: XveryYpettyZ: InterruptingQuirk: Mrtraveler01: InterruptingQuirk: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

It wasn't like it was the same China in 1897 that they made that treaty with and the China they handed Hong Kong off to in 1997.

So they should've backed off the treaty because...?

Because of the overthrow of the government the treaty was made with.

Let's be clear: you're speaking from a position of utter ignorance.  I know the former US Consul-General to Hong Kong.  The hand-over in 1997 was never in any doubt.  Britain could not have backed out.  The truth is that China wouldn't have gone to war over Hong Kong, they would have taken it back with a phone call.  "Hi, we just closed off the water supply to the city from the mainland and have sealed the border.  Let us know when the handover can go forward.  Thanks."

Congratulations on your uber-connected bad self. I'm not questioning the pragmatic reality that China would have just taken it. But we celebrated it with and perpetuated the notion that the treaty remained honorable after the the dissolution of the Qing dynasty, as another person pointed out.
Basically, why did we spend the prior ~80 years acting as though that treaty was going to be respected with this completely different entity?


Why does the United States act as if the treaty governing the disposition of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is still in force, even though the government with which it was made no longer exists?  Sure, Cuba can insist the treaty is illegitimate until it's blue in the face, but there's nothing they can do about it.  Sound familiar?
 
2014-08-31 09:24:07 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: Why does the United States act as if the treaty governing the disposition of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is still in force, even though the government with which it was made no longer exists? Sure, Cuba can insist the treaty is illegitimate until it's blue in the face, but there's nothing they can do about it. Sound familiar?


Sounds identical and equally egregious.
 
2014-08-31 09:28:18 PM  

kroonermanblack: That our 'candidates' aren't simply the ones their corporate sponsors chose to be elected?


Of course there is too much corporate money in American politics, and far too many politicians are in corporate pockets. Campaign finance law is in need of massive overhaul. But to say that every candidate was hand-picked by some CEO is as ridiculous as claiming that the Jews run everything.

Here is what the American equivalent of China would actually look like: Tomorrow the Democrats announce that they are taking over the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court permanently; there will be no more primaries; all candidates will be hand-picked by Obama and Pelosi and their successors for the rest of time; anyone who disagrees too loudly will disappear until they change their minds.
 
2014-08-31 09:35:50 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Of course there is too much corporate money in American politics, and far too many politicians are in corporate pockets. Campaign finance law is in need of massive overhaul. But to say that every candidate was hand-picked by some CEO is as ridiculous as claiming that the Jews run everything.


Setting aside the jew-bash, what makes you think congressional and senatorial candidates aren't 'vetted' by corporations, who then donate to the war chest, with explicit and implicit notations on what to vote for and when every time a vote comes up?  They do this through a wide variety of public and private channels of white and grey legality since they wrote the farking rules.

In the US system, money makes the election. And frankly, there's no way you can self fund and beat corporate sponsorship (because that's what it is).  Show me someone who rose to power without ANY corporate sponsorship. Just one, in the last 10 years.
 
2014-08-31 09:43:48 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: kidakita: How is that any different than our system here in the US? Our "candidates" are picked for us too.

It helps to be connected here, but to say our candidates are "picked" for us in the same way that a totalitarian government picks the people it wants to run is ridiculous.


The Guild ... practiced the ultimate democracy.  You didn't need intelligence, social position, beauty or charm to hire it. You just needed money, which, unlike other stuff, was available to everyone. Except for the poor, of course, but there was no helping some people.
 
2014-08-31 09:45:21 PM  

kroonermanblack: Setting aside the jew-bash


Saying that blaming everything on the Jews is ridiculous is a Jew-bash? Might wanna read that again.


kroonermanblack: Show me someone who rose to power without ANY corporate sponsorship. Just one, in the last 10 years.


Is that really the litmus test? NO money from any business? So if Elizabeth Warren raised $44M, and her biggest donors were Universities, but .08% of that $44M came from Google, she's now OWNED by a corporation? Please. I've already stated that we are in need of major campaign finance reform and that there is too much corporate money in American politics. But there are anti-corporate money politicians serving in our government who are proposing changes to the law, and that number seems to be climbing. But our system, corrupt as it is, is still nowhere near the level of a centralized, anti-free speech, repressive system that chooses candidates based on the current leadership's wishes.
 
2014-08-31 10:47:41 PM  
Leevis:
The Beijing Chinese would have thrown a temper tantrum and then shut up pretty quick when threatened with some nasty trade sanctions and a couple of aircraft carriers were moved into the area.


Which shows you know exactly jack and shiat about the Chinese. Their articles of faith are Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong.  There is zero question of those places belonging to China in their mind. And they would go to war with anyone to make sure HK went back in 97 - even at the cost of their economy.

Even if Taiwan had gotten it from the UK, Beijing would have cut the water from the Mainland.  Supplying 6 - 7 million people would be a bit tricky.
 
2014-08-31 11:22:10 PM  

This text is now purple: charlesmartel11235: InterruptingQuirk: How did we all just sit back and let one country hand over a city to another country which was diametrically opposed to the natural order of that city. . . and celebrate it as a great day in history?

because the british took it by force and made a treaty that they would return it?

Their treaty said they'd return it to Taiwan.


No it said China.
 
2014-08-31 11:28:18 PM  
This is a really dangerous precedent Beijing is setting and it's going to spark all kinds of social unrest in Hong Kong. Two upsides of their heavy-handed treatment of Hong Kong, though, is that young people are much more democratic and politically involved than the older generation and are willing to push for what they want, and it also shows the Taiwanese exactly what lengths the PRC will go to to keep control, and exactly what their promises are worth.

I live in Shanghai and make a point to follow all the news, especially dissident or foreign media, about China. Some days I get very depressed about the crackdowns going on here under Xi. For anyone interested, chinadigitaltimes.com is an excellent resource for what really goes on under the hood in the PRC.

香港,堅執不允!不顧人民死活的政府早晚要被人民推翻!
 
2014-09-01 12:58:26 AM  

kroonermanblack: shower_in_my_socks: Of course there is too much corporate money in American politics, and far too many politicians are in corporate pockets. Campaign finance law is in need of massive overhaul. But to say that every candidate was hand-picked by some CEO is as ridiculous as claiming that the Jews run everything.

Setting aside the jew-bash, what makes you think congressional and senatorial candidates aren't 'vetted' by corporations, who then donate to the war chest, with explicit and implicit notations on what to vote for and when every time a vote comes up?  They do this through a wide variety of public and private channels of white and grey legality since they wrote the farking rules.

In the US system, money makes the election. And frankly, there's no way you can self fund and beat corporate sponsorship (because that's what it is).  Show me someone who rose to power without ANY corporate sponsorship. Just one, in the last 10 years.


Michael Bloomberg rose to power primarily on his ability to self-fund and spend enormous amounts of his own money to run New York for over a decade.  I don't know how much other money supported him if it would meet your criteria but that is a fairly high level politician who seemingly used his own money to win.  Meg Whitman spent 144m in a failed attempt to become the governor of California which was almost totally self-funded.  It is possible to do although it takes an enormous amount of cash for almost any political office.
 
2014-09-01 07:27:12 AM  
deathnoodleblog.files.wordpress.com
....and...and...THEN....I told them they would still be a...ahaha...STILL BE ABLE TO VOTE! AHAHAHA!!
THEY FARKING BOUGHT IT!!  AHAHAAAAAA!
 
2014-09-01 08:30:19 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: I work with a girl who grew up in Hong Kong. They look down their noses at the rest of the Chinese people. This will not sit well with them.


In all fairness, they tend to look down on everybody. There are derogatory terms for all types of outsiders, including the ah-chans.
 
2014-09-01 10:17:34 PM  

H31N0US: shower_in_my_socks: I work with a girl who grew up in Hong Kong. They look down their noses at the rest of the Chinese people. This will not sit well with them.

In all fairness, they tend to look down on everybody. There are derogatory terms for all types of outsiders, including the ah-chans.


Everybody in China does that. Beijing people look down on non-Beijingers, Shanghainese look down on non-Shanghainese (and have hilarious slang terms for "outsiders"), everyone from Guangzhou looks down on everyone from the north, everyone from the North looks down on everyone from the south. The Taiwanese all feel (in my opinion justified) pity for everyone from the Mainland. It's a musical chairs of hatred and mutual distrust!
 
2014-09-01 10:25:43 PM  

Kuroutesshin: H31N0US: shower_in_my_socks: I work with a girl who grew up in Hong Kong. They look down their noses at the rest of the Chinese people. This will not sit well with them.

In all fairness, they tend to look down on everybody. There are derogatory terms for all types of outsiders, including the ah-chans.

Everybody in China does that. Beijing people look down on non-Beijingers, Shanghainese look down on non-Shanghainese (and have hilarious slang terms for "outsiders"), everyone from Guangzhou looks down on everyone from the north, everyone from the North looks down on everyone from the south. The Taiwanese all feel (in my opinion justified) pity for everyone from the Mainland. It's a musical chairs of hatred and mutual distrust!


My wife went to Hong Kong with a friend whose family lives there and learned that they call the mainlanders a word that directly translates as "big greens". What is up with that?
 
2014-09-01 10:50:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Kuroutesshin: H31N0US: shower_in_my_socks: I work with a girl who grew up in Hong Kong. They look down their noses at the rest of the Chinese people. This will not sit well with them.

In all fairness, they tend to look down on everybody. There are derogatory terms for all types of outsiders, including the ah-chans.

Everybody in China does that. Beijing people look down on non-Beijingers, Shanghainese look down on non-Shanghainese (and have hilarious slang terms for "outsiders"), everyone from Guangzhou looks down on everyone from the north, everyone from the North looks down on everyone from the south. The Taiwanese all feel (in my opinion justified) pity for everyone from the Mainland. It's a musical chairs of hatred and mutual distrust!

My wife went to Hong Kong with a friend whose family lives there and learned that they call the mainlanders a word that directly translates as "big greens". What is up with that?


I don't know about Cantonese, but in Mandarin, the word Mainland is "大陸," pronounced "dalu," while the word "big green" is  大綠. Different character and different tone. Near as I can tell that's what she heard. My Taiwanese friends and I always talk about "大陸人," or "Mainland people" in particular. Hong Kong people usually just call them "locusts."
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report