谢谢

谢谢

谢谢

毕业？我早就大学毕业了。

本人近日和洋人结婚了，现在决定不再掺和中国的事情，后半辈子做洋人了，并且会脱离华人圈。

我希望2047网站封锁我的账号，我以后也不会在任何平台上用中文讨论事情了。

非常感谢2047站长、管理员以及各位网友对我的帮助和关心。

如果给这个孩子签发中国护照，等于向社会大众承认了驻美大使有私生子。

傅晓田在中国还有家人，中共有一千种方式让她闭嘴的。

她肯定不敢承认自己的儿子是秦刚的种儿

反正美国政府也不可能拿着她儿子和秦刚测试DNA

近日，我的一个好朋友在加拿大结婚，我去当见证人了。

加拿大的结婚程序是：两个人要先去办结婚许可（网上办或者线下办都可以），当天就能办成。

然后联系一个持有执照的主婚人，以及再找两个见证人，也就说，结婚必须五个人才能成功。

最后在向政府申请结婚证。

我觉得这套程序非常繁琐，也非常麻烦。

在中国，结婚只要两个人去民政部门拿着证件登记就可以了。

为什么加拿大的结婚这么麻烦？而且还莫名其妙的出了一个毫无必要的主婚人这个职业。

为什么加拿大不能和中国一样，两口子直接在政府部门登记签字就行了。

美国的结婚程序和加拿大也差不多。

你们怎么看这件事情？

我觉得，涂鸦应该重罚。但是政府也应该多设置一些合法的涂鸦地点。

渥太华如果随便找一面墙涂鸦，会被罚款的。但是政府设置了几处可以合法涂鸦的地点。

你说得对。我一直很讨厌涂鸦这种东西，人没有权利在墙壁上乱画。

你不是旅英华人，而是华裔英国人，你已经是英国公民了。

“旅英”是旅居在英国的人，也就是没有英国国籍但有英国居留权的外国人。

为什么中文不是？

我有一个想法，不成熟的想法。

我觉得，象形文字比拼音文字更落后。

因为象形文字，本质上就是画画，是一种视觉上最直接的体现。

但是拼音文字，是一套人为创建的符号，用这套符号来描述各种东西，这是需要比象形文字具有多得多的逻辑和思考。

你觉得我的理论有道理吗

中共在意识形态上不是反西方的嘛。那么应该在课文里面尽量说欧美的坏话啊，为什么会有夸赞西方人的课文？况且这些课文还都是杜撰的假故事。

你们对这怎么看？

即使在民运最巅峰的时候，也没有几千万美金。几百万是有的。

如果美国政府认为民运没有利用价值，那就不应该救他们到美国，让他们死在牢房里。既然想救他们，那就让他们在美国能获得体面，而不是让他们在美国过叫花子的日子。西哈努克如果被安排到北京刷厕所，你不觉得很荒唐吗？帮人就帮到底，不要帮半套。

觉得刷盘子让粉红耻笑，可以放弃绿卡，自愿回国当烈士。

回不起。中共已经不让这些人入境了。

①美国政府给民运的资助是很少的，美国国家民主基金会给的钱是杯水车薪。民运早期大部分资助是国民党给的。

②魏京生的教职不是因为学术成绩差，而是因为本来就是访问学者性质的工作，基本就是一两年的任期，时间到了就停止了。

③如果美国政府认为民运没有利用价值，那就不应该救他们到美国，让他们死在牢房里。既然想救他们，那就让他们在美国能获得体面，而不是让他们在美国过叫花子的日子。西哈努克如果被安排到北京刷厕所，你不觉得很荒唐吗？帮人就帮到底，不要帮半套。

很多中国异议人士流亡到美国之后，根本找不到正经工作，只能做一些很低端的工作。比如余志坚到美国之后就刷厕所活着，高智晟的妻儿做Airbnb，王若望靠老婆做保姆活着。还有大量的民运组织是做政治庇护移民公司活着。

异议人士在美国活的很差，只会让粉红耻笑，让粉红觉得反共的都是叫花子。

因此，美国政府要不就别营救这些中国异议人士，让他们死在共产党的牢房里面当烈士。要不就花钱把他们养起来，至少让他们过一个体面的美国中产生活。

美国政府要不就别帮助，要不就帮人帮到家。帮一半，还不如别帮。

西哈努克当时在中国流亡的时候，周恩来是每年给他五百万人民币，让他来组建流亡政府的。周恩来可没有让西哈努克在北京刷厕所。

讲白了，当年美国应该取消六四绿卡，但是把一两百个民运人士花钱养起来。

任何立法都不得和宪法相抵触。

宪法应该规定普世价值的人权，如果议会的立法不得和宪法相抵触。

你是真的徐思远吗？

塞浦路斯是希腊人和土耳其人拼接的国家。

塞浦路斯宪法第一条规定：总统必须是希腊人，副总统必须是土耳其人。

阎明复的女儿阎兰在2020年出版了一本英文书叫《阎家：处于中国历史上一个世纪的核心的家族》（The House of Yan: A Family at the Heart of a Century in Chinese History）

这本书有一章都是在讲六四的。这是英文原文：

I was still in Geneva in 1985 when I heard that my father had been appointed by the party’s Central Committee to the position of leader of the United Front Work Department, then to the position of secretary to the Central Committee.

By coincidence, Mikhail Gorbachev became the new secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that year. Soon after starting his new post, Gorbachev stated that he wanted to improve relations with China.

Deng Xiaoping had several reservations regarding this wished-for rapprochement, all of them military. First, there was the presence of Soviet troops in Mongolia, as well as on the Sino-Soviet border. The Soviets were intervening in Afghanistan and supporting the Vietnamese forces in Cambodia, an unacceptable situation in the eyes of Beijing.

Deng Xiaoping was able to lay down a whole set of conditions because China was in a position of strength. The economic reforms implemented by Deng in 1978 were bearing fruit, whereas the Soviet economy, in decline since the late 1970s, was forcing the USSR to give up its arms race with the United States.

After the retreat of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, Deng gave the green light for Gorbachev to make an official visit to China between May 15 and 18, 1989. The symbolism was strong enough that Yan Mingfu—who was, in some way, the living memory of the history of Sino-Soviet relations —took part in the ceremonies in his role as secretary of the Party’s Central Committee.

As it happened, Hu Yaobang had died from a heart attack the previous month in Beijing.

As the Party’s secretary-general, Hu Yaobang had been a reformist, but he had been dismissed in 1987 following student protests whose democratic aspirations he seemed to share. Hu Yaobang was particularly admired because, in the wake of Mao’s death, he accomplished the reintegration of hundreds of intellectuals and leaders fired during the Cultural Revolution, as well as the posthumous rehabilitation of the regime’s victims, including my grandfather. Then, in 1979, he had done the same for rightists.

The day after his death, spontaneous protests all over the country forced the government to organize a state funeral on April 22, 1989. In Beijing, however, the fervor did not die down. In Tiananmen Square, it became impossible to carry out the ceremonies planned for the Soviet leader’s official visit. Tiananmen Square was filled with students who had begun a hunger strike, so it was decided to prepare a reception at the airport instead. Gorbachev was welcomed on May 16 by Zhao Ziyang, the party’s secretary-general, and by Deng, in the Great Hall of the People. I followed the event on Swiss television.

What the television footage did not show was that the central government had asked my father to negotiate with the students in Tiananmen Square, to convince them to move away after four days of their hunger strike.

One wonders why the government did not send the education minister to Tiananmen Square that afternoon. Particularly since my father had been ill for some time, regularly hospitalized with high fevers. In fact, he left for Tiananmen Square in an ambulance from the hospital where he had been admitted with a temperature of 102.

Barely had my father arrived in the middle of the angry crowd when the leader of the student movement asked everybody to calm down. What happened next was told to me by a friend of mine, Caroline, who was a student at Peking University at the time. At that moment, she was sitting close to my father’s feet.

Before passing the megaphone to my father, the movement’s leader told the protesters that Comrade Yan Mingfu had come as a friend, that he was a genuine communist. “I can promise you, he is one of us.” My father took the megaphone and began speaking: “First of all, your determination and the spirit of your demands has touched the entire country. Be assured that your demands for reform, freedom, and an end to corruption have been heard, and I have no doubt that the Central Committee, as well as the People’s Assembly, will take them into account. But those demands are not worth paying for with your lives. As a humanist, let me tell you that you cannot sacrifice yourselves. As the representative of the Central Committee, I can promise you that—once you have suspended your hunger strike and started classes again—there will be no reprisals against you.” And to persuade the weakest among them to go to the hospital, and the others to go back to their classrooms as soon as possible, he offered himself as a hostage, as proof of the government’s good faith, assuring the students that their demands would be considered and that negotiations would begin. Despite this, the students decided not to vacate the square. My father left.

Later, he would say that it was lucky that Deng was hard of hearing because he would not have been happy to hear the students yelling while he was welcoming Gorbachev in the Great Hall of the People.

While the square was still occupied by protesters and hunger strikers, Gorbachev’s official visit continued, notably at the famous Great Wall of China. When a journalist asked him for his impression of this edifice, Gorbachev replied that the wall was magnificent, before adding, “But there are too many walls between people.” The journalist took the bait, “Does that mean you would like to bring down the Berlin Wall?” The response was serious: “Why not?” As for the protesters who were still occupying Tiananmen Square, Gorbachev chose his words carefully: “The USSR, too, has certain ‘hotheads’ who wish to change socialism overnight.”

It was from that moment that my father disappeared from television screens, and that the reporting focused less on Gorbachev’s visit than on what was happening in Tiananmen Square.

In Geneva, I spent all my free time glued to the television—until June 4, 1989, when I saw the pictures of the tank advancing toward a young man. That image seared itself into my memory.

I followed the events that came next through the young Chinese people who left the country. One year later, in Paris, I saw my friend Hirondelle, who told me that, on that fateful day, she had been walking toward Chang’an Avenue, after leaving the State Council residence where she lived. The avenue was filled with tanks and military trucks. The loudspeakers broadcast the words, “Attention. All rebels will be shot. Stay in your homes.” Despite the warlike tone, Hirondelle could not believe this was true. Was it possible that Chinese soldiers would shoot at the crowd? Suddenly, a young man started running toward her. From a nearby tank, a soldier fired. The boy was hit. He collapsed, bleeding. The loudspeaker announced, “Do not remain outside. If you do, you will suffer the consequences.” Hirondelle was not sure she had really understood. This is a nightmare, she told herself, and her whole body started trembling. She did not move as the tanks went past. Then, gathering her strength, she ran home and made the decision to leave Beijing.

The day after these events, my father was dismissed. He was not the only one: Zhao Ziyang, too, was dismissed, along with two other Central Committee secretaries.

That November, six months after Gorbachev’s visit to Beijing, the Berlin Wall came down.

The next month, in Malta, Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush officially proclaimed the end of the Cold War.

By December 1991, the USSR had ceased to exist.

As for my father, his exile would not last long. In 1991, he was appointed vice-minister of civil affairs.

这英语很简单，不会英语的用翻译软件看一下就行了。

我很惊讶她会写六四，并且还写了军队杀人的事情。

阎明复的子女愿意站在学生的立场上写六四，我很敬佩。

傻逼。想当五毛就直接承认，玩这种拉偏架、扣帽子、谣言现行的下作手段实在是恶心。你这种披着反共外衣的反民运的五毛狗才是最恶心的。操你妈逼。

你的逻辑是：如果支持某项事业的时候自己无法直接得利，那就不应该支持。

那么我就要问了，你在这里骂民运，看来你是能得到好处呗。既然你骂民运能得到好处，说明你就是和中共勾结呗。你已经不打自招了，你就是五毛狗。

本网站不能骂五毛狗吗？还是那句话，你如果想舔共，大大方方的舔，真的别玩这种阴招，太恶心了。拉偏架死全家。

五毛狗什么恶事都能做，我就不能骂五毛狗？你可恶心。

她咒骂民运你不管，我反驳它你就来管我。

你想舔共就大大方方的舔，玩这种拉偏架的阴招实在是恶心。

冒充反贼的佐藤琴子在咒骂民运。

我驳斥它的东西都被删了。

本站管理者，你如果看不上我，请把我封号，别玩这种删帖的下作手段。

我反感郭文贵是因为郭文贵打击民运。郭文贵如果不打击民运，而是天天对中共的侨领进行骚扰、威胁、恐吓，我就支持郭老板。

如果真的是美国法院认定老魏是强奸犯，那么到时候再和老魏切割也不迟。

但目前美国法院没有做出这种裁决，你怎么就未审先判了？

王丹也说了，欢迎去法院告他，既然李援军已经告了，那就看台北的法院怎么判呗。

你这混账逻辑不就是三人成虎嘛。

韩国宪法明确规定：

你怎么知道魏京生当年是性侵而不是女人主动投怀送抱？

你怎么知道王丹是的确性侵而不是李援军在造谣？

所有号称自己被民运人士性骚的人，都拿不出确凿的证据，完全就靠一张嘴，我凭什么要相信他们？

这也就是为什么我厌恶metoo。很多metoo例子，所谓的受害者都拿不出确凿证据，完全靠一张嘴，并且还搞有罪推动，本质上和文革大字报没什么区别。

永远都要用最坏的恶意来揣测中共。因此对中共官员，我们要有罪推定，比如张高丽就是强奸犯。但是对异议人士，我们要无罪推定（只要没有被民主国家的法院判定有罪的就都是无辜的），毕竟中共镇压异己的手段是无所不用其极的。

陈光诚先生转发了我的推特，表达对我的支持

https://twitter.com/chenshijie2015/status/1667831553777455104?s=20

你去问问美国亚裔公民，他们觉得平等吗

请问美国亚裔哪里不平等了？解释一下。

穷国给富国单方面免签，这是很正常的现象，很多国家都这么做。中共不是做的最过分的。

至于两岸之间，本来就不应该是平等的，因为是大陆想统一人家台湾，不是人家台湾想反攻大陆。

中国大使馆竟然用翻译软件来写外文内容。

大使馆这么不专业。

我惊呆了。

http://cf.china-embassy.gov.cn/fra/lsfw_11/202304/t20230425_11065360.htm

中国政府的网站上规定：

中华人民共和国旅行证是护照的替代证件，发给不便或不必持用护照的中国公民。

旅行证和护照有什么不同？

因此，只有中国公民才能获得中国旅行证。

我看到中国驻英国领事馆的网站规定的是：如果一个孩子的父母都是没有英国永居的中国公民，那么这个孩子拿中国护照；但是如果父母一方是英国公民，另一方是没有英国永居的中国公民，那么孩子拿旅行证。

这一点我认为很奇怪，很莫名其妙。

既然国籍法规定其具有中国国籍，为什么还要在护照和旅行证这个问题上差别对待？

日本宪法序言规定：国家主权属于国民。

但是日本的国家元首确实世袭罔替的天皇。

既然主权在民的国家元首是世袭制和终身制的，人民不能撤换他，也不能选举他，这是很奇怪的。

君主立宪制和共和制是有本质区别的。

在美国这种共和制的国家，国家主权是人民的，国家权力也都属于人民。人民通过宪法授予政府行使国家权力（宪法没有给政府的权力都由人民保留），政府的权力是人民给的，人民有权利撤换任何官员，政府要为人民服务。

在英国这种君主立宪制国家，国家主权是君主的，国家权力都是君主的。君主通过宪法让政府代表自己行使国家权力，同时人民的权利也是君主通过宪法授予的，人民没有权利撤换君主（宪法没有给政府的权力和公民的权利都由君主保留），政府也是为君主服务的。

所以日本的宪法在逻辑上是有问题的。日本应该修宪规定国家主权属于天皇，公职人员都要对天皇效忠，检察官以天皇的名义起诉任何人，天皇不用遵守法律。

废除户口制度，伤害最重的是北京、上海、天津的普通百姓，大城市的权贵子女是不用高考上大学的。

废除户口制度，得利的是全国非大城市的普通百姓。

我举一个最极端的例子。

这就类似于中华民国总统和台湾陆配一起庆祝中华人民共和国国庆节。

半导体只有台积电可以做，中国大陆不买不行。

未来，中共只会从台湾买其他地方买不到的东西。任何能在其他地方买得到的东西都不会从台湾买了。

习近平不可能这么做，蔡英文也不会相信习近平的承诺。

我说一句狠话吧

如果习近平给蔡英文说，只要你们台湾政府把在台湾的中国民运、法轮功、疆独、藏独、港独统统都杀掉，我就立刻承认台湾是独立国家并且允许台湾加入联合国。

我觉得，吾尔开希肯定活不过今晚的。

如果大陆人民与台湾人民无法成为朋友，我们应当自立自强地尊重这个事实，不要以德报怨。既然大陆人的民主、自由和人权与他们无关，台湾的独立又与我们有什么关系？

台湾人反共是因为共产党反台独，不是因为共产党迫害人权。台湾邦交国里面独裁者多了去了，我也没见到哪个台湾人指责自己的邦交国没人权。

如果明天习近平说：我支持台独。

台湾人立刻就不反共了， 台湾政府甚至可能会公开拥护习近平。

① 绝大部分台湾人绝对不接受中华人民共和国占领台湾。

② 中华人民共和国政府肯定不承认中华民国，更不会承认台湾共和国。

③ 中华人民共和国政府在短期内不会垮台。

因此，基于上述三点，两岸问题目前无解，不可能达成任何政治共识，只能是政冷经热。

今天，台湾政府基于国家安全理由用违宪违法的的行政措施开除大陆人的“中华民国国籍”，而台湾人民容忍了。那么明天，下一个当权的台湾政府也可以用国家安全理由剥夺台湾人民的身体自由。如果你考察纳粹德国和苏维埃俄国的暴政史，或者反思以下“动员戡乱时期”台湾警总的行为，你不会对这个结论感到惊讶。

今天中华民国宪法对两岸关系的规定已经不符合绝大部分台湾人的根本利益了。但由于中共的压力，导致台湾人不敢修改宪法。

如果没有中共的压力，台湾人肯定会很快修宪规定中国大陆人都是外国人，并且会让陆委会并入外交部。

因此，目前陆委会违宪撤销大陆人的中华民国国籍，这其实是符合台湾绝大部分人的根本利益的，所以当然不会有台湾人去反对，也不会有台湾人去告到司法院。

但是侵犯人身自由可就不一样了，这直接侵犯了台湾人的根本利益。如果蔡英文政府制定侵犯中华民国国民人身自由的法律，那么肯定有人去告到司法院，最后司法院会宣布恶法违宪。

想剥夺中国大陆人的中华民国国籍，这必须修宪。

现在陆委会的行政令是和宪法抵触的，是无效的。

如果有人去告到司法院，大法官可以宣布这无效的。

我联系一下老魏，他和李察基尔关系好，看看李察基尔能不能给编程随想呼吁一下。