From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Action-9201.appendix
Organization: MITRE
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:12:53 GMT


> >3) This bill will hurt U.S. more than C.G.  If this bill get passed, U.S.
> >will lose 80,000 jobs to CSS. Think of that how many jobs can be saved by
> >selling F-16 to Taiwan and selling F-15 to Saudi.  Because this is election
> >year, Clinton try to use this case to embarrass Bush.  That is the only
> >chance to get the bill passed.  Oterwise, I do not think either Bush or
> >Clinton would sign it.  "Saving face" is not only Chinese problem, it is
> >also U.S. problem. 
>-------------------- 
> 	This is ridicurous.  "Jobs" are "lost" only when they are being shipped
> out of this country (like auto plans to Mexico).  There is no job loss if
> the job is taken by some people instead of others here.  After all, the
> socalled "jobs" really means government tax and residential incomes.  It
> doesn't make any difference here.  Only that more immigration.
---------------------
I can not find "ridicurous" in my dictionary.  It might be a typo of
"ridiculous".  If so, my suggestion is not use this word in your
discussion, because it is not very polite.  Don't forget 5Jian3 4Mei3.

If I follow your logic that "Jobs are NOT lost", I can not understand why
U.S want to limit immigrants number? Can you tell me why?
=====================

> >2)  Political issue is not black and white usually.  It is gray, light
> >gray, or dark gray.  Yes, I don't like the word "protection" and some
> >sentence in the bill.  However, in gneral, this bill favors both C.G. and
> >CSS.  That is the reason I am not against it. 
>-------------------- 
> 
> 	But I thought it *is* black and white to be honest.  Especially when
> your word or action affects your country's interest.
> -------------------
In the real word, it is not simple.  It does not means that you can chose
PEACE or A-BOMB only.  You still can chose other weapon, rifles, guns,
tanks...It is the same, a bill or law can not satisfy everybody.  That is
why we need comprise.  I think the former CCP leader's (Zhao) case is
another example.  You can not say he is totally right or wrong.  The CCP
central political bureau have to comprise.
=====================
> >3)  Unificatoin is strength.  You can break one chopstick easily, but you
> >can not break a bundle of chopsticks.  How to unify CSS is more important
> >than polarize CSS.  That is why I am very disappointed to see some
> >D(Dog)-figher fighting over how to distribute the pie instead of make the
> >pie bigger.
>-------------------- 
> 
> 	There is something more important than strength.  That is purpose and
> principles.
>--------------------
Any principles could be changed by time.  It is very clear that Mao's
principle is much different than Deng's.  Principle should serve people,
not people should serve a principle.  Don't you agree?
===================== 
> >
> >Even I do not fully agree with you, I still respect your view point,
> >because you pointed out the deficits of this bill which are neglected by
> >most of CSS.
>-------------------- 
> 	I happen to believe the moral (or the lack thereof) of this bill is
> more important.
> 
> 
> 	 Eddie
>---------------------
There is a joke in U.S.  A person walked into a court, and the judge asked
him what he needs.  He sayed "I want find moral."   The judge answered
"then, you should go to a church."  Yes, the function of court is to
enforce laws, and these laws were compromised by different interest groups.
 It does not means these laws must be moral.  If you insist that moral is
very very important, congradulation, you are a good candidate for priest.
(just kidding!)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china