我不是來為民進黨講話的,但是我希望大家在看事情的時候,可以用同一套標準,不然這個社會真的是會烏煙瘴氣.......
高雄捷運的泰勞事件演變至今,已經沒有理性探討的空間了,甚至成為立法院被癱瘓的主因(當然,我知道就算沒發生這件事,泛藍的還是會找一堆理由就是不讓謝長廷上台報告),而我也認為,謝長廷當了六年多的高雄市長,說高雄捷運的事情跟他一點關係都沒有是說不過去的,但是到底他該負什麼責任,不該無限上綱.......
如果沒有證據顯示,他在這裡面扮演上下其手,或是明知弊端叢生卻不加以制止,他應該只有負道義上的責任,或者說是政治責任,因為「人不是他殺的!」,如果這樣也要他道歉,我今天看到另外一條新聞,按照這樣推演的邏輯,馬英九也應該道歉!
為什麼?因為台北市捷運的包商,亂到捷運廢土在淡水河裡面,嚴重污染了淡水河,高雄捷運公司還是個私人公司歐,照法律規範他是可以不受高雄市政府管轄的(合約裡另有規定是另外一回事),但台北市捷運局可是公家單位,捷運局必須對包商負百分之百責任歐!那台北市長是誰?可不就是我們偉大的馬主席?那麼,同樣是捷運惹出來的事,如果泛藍要謝長廷先道歉再上台報告,台北市的大家長馬英九先生是不是也該道歉呢?但很奇怪的是,媒體在報導這則新聞時,似乎都沒提到馬英九應該負責任這件事,這是完全的雙重標準!
我不是要比爛,我也覺得謝長廷絕對該負起應負的責任,但是倒什麼歉,是道義上的歉?還是他真的做錯事了?這應該要講清楚!而泛藍用這個理由來癱瘓國會,根本不符合比例原則!回到我之前提到的,高雄捷運的事件,誰決定用BOT方式進行的(現在還在各說各話,其實我也看不清楚到底是謝長廷還是吳敦義決定的!),他就該負最大的責任!所以還沈醉在BOT大頭病的人,趕快醒醒吧!(據說新光本來要去標台北車站雙子星大樓的BOT案,但現在打退堂鼓了!)BOT不是萬靈丹,這應該是我六七年前就提過的事了.......
高雄捷運的泰勞事件演變至今,已經沒有理性探討的空間了,甚至成為立法院被癱瘓的主因(當然,我知道就算沒發生這件事,泛藍的還是會找一堆理由就是不讓謝長廷上台報告),而我也認為,謝長廷當了六年多的高雄市長,說高雄捷運的事情跟他一點關係都沒有是說不過去的,但是到底他該負什麼責任,不該無限上綱.......
如果沒有證據顯示,他在這裡面扮演上下其手,或是明知弊端叢生卻不加以制止,他應該只有負道義上的責任,或者說是政治責任,因為「人不是他殺的!」,如果這樣也要他道歉,我今天看到另外一條新聞,按照這樣推演的邏輯,馬英九也應該道歉!
為什麼?因為台北市捷運的包商,亂到捷運廢土在淡水河裡面,嚴重污染了淡水河,高雄捷運公司還是個私人公司歐,照法律規範他是可以不受高雄市政府管轄的(合約裡另有規定是另外一回事),但台北市捷運局可是公家單位,捷運局必須對包商負百分之百責任歐!那台北市長是誰?可不就是我們偉大的馬主席?那麼,同樣是捷運惹出來的事,如果泛藍要謝長廷先道歉再上台報告,台北市的大家長馬英九先生是不是也該道歉呢?但很奇怪的是,媒體在報導這則新聞時,似乎都沒提到馬英九應該負責任這件事,這是完全的雙重標準!
我不是要比爛,我也覺得謝長廷絕對該負起應負的責任,但是倒什麼歉,是道義上的歉?還是他真的做錯事了?這應該要講清楚!而泛藍用這個理由來癱瘓國會,根本不符合比例原則!回到我之前提到的,高雄捷運的事件,誰決定用BOT方式進行的(現在還在各說各話,其實我也看不清楚到底是謝長廷還是吳敦義決定的!),他就該負最大的責任!所以還沈醉在BOT大頭病的人,趕快醒醒吧!(據說新光本來要去標台北車站雙子星大樓的BOT案,但現在打退堂鼓了!)BOT不是萬靈丹,這應該是我六七年前就提過的事了.......
文章標籤
全站熱搜

親日的就少裝中立. 你從以前寫的文章就沒中立過, 現在抓出個淡水河這 種完全不相干的事在鬧. 無恥喔. 什麼叫做不符合比例原則? 什麼比例原則? 民進黨教的? 還是日本人發明的?
哈日跟親日,是不一樣的 你不想看就不要看, 幹嘛我罵馬爺爺就抓狂? 淡水和為何不相干, 捷運局的包商歸捷運局管, 捷運局是台北市政府的, 台北市長是馬英九, 沒關係嗎? 多念點書吧, 先生, 不要亂到別人版上撒野! 不中立你就不要看啊, 難道你要管制言論歐? 要管制就管制你自己的言論就好了! 現在還想管制言論才是無恥吧, 不過中國可能蠻適合你的, 因為那邊管制言論........ 就是愛打馬英九....... 馬英九出來道歉! 道歉道歉!!!!
That's why I don't want to read and see any thing that related to policy. I had a friend who just came back from Taiwan, she would definetly disagree with your comments. A lot of people I heard told me that they are not really blue or green, as long as it's logical. When I watched politic so far (not very closely of course, becuase I don't really care), there is no logic in it. I am always quite when people are talking about this kind of topic. (In fact, I will try to leave as soon as people start it) I doubt many people really know insider "secrets" anyway. But, based on what I read about your articles, you are definetly more toward "green" than "blue". Please don't yell at me. Be honest, I don't really care who is the "emperor". As long as people has power and money, they start corrupting. Honest people usually can't suvive in the political world.
我不同意你的看法, 我也不覺得我不誠實, 但我也不會對你大吼大叫的, 人還是要有是非的, 對就是對, 錯就是錯, 你要不要統計一下我寫的東西罵藍的多還是罵綠的多? Be Scientific, Don't Get Lost! 不過綠是執政黨, 被罵多一點也是應該的! 倒是我只要罵馬英九就有人抓狂, 這是我覺得比較奇怪的地方, 這個社會還搞個人崇拜嗎? 人有了權力就會腐敗, 這我同意, 不然綠怎麼會被我罵呢?
我覺得政治信仰和宗教信仰差不多,只有信不信,也没有太多道理 可言,致於你要信什麼那就跟你的成長背景有很大的關後,每個人 成長背景不同,信仰也不同,所以信基督教的人沒事不會跑到媽祖 廟去傳教,信媽祖的人也不必到教堂誦經,如果有興趣或感到好 奇,到對方的廟或教堂也無妨,但基本的尊重和禮貌還是該保持 的。
I don't do scientific statistical analysis when I read articles, and I didn't read all of your articles anyways. What I got out from your articles that I have read are: (1) when you criticize "green", your tone is not has harsh. Sometime, you even appoligized before you started criticizing. It's understandable, because your boss is "green", right? And you still have a specially feeling toward green. (That's what I got from reading your articles, because I really don't know you after we had parted so long. I can't tell you which articles either, because I forgot things easily) (2) I felt that when you criticize "blue", you use more harsh words. It's obvious you don't like a person so much. It's also understandable. Someone who like the person definetely won't like your criticizen. That's where the "war" started. I am not an expert. I just told you what I felt when I saw those typing words on screen.
But since you are a scientist, you need to be scientific, words always get misunderstanding, and you may understand English well, but since you use English so long, you certainly get the possibilities and it's high that you don't get what I said in Chinese, Give you an example: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/dare0926&article_id=2085047 I said, 阿扁,你狗屁不通......is that not harsh? or 阿扁的狗屁不通,主要在於你不承認的理由你不敢講,講了一個 五四三,風馬牛不相及的理由來搪塞,想說騙騙沒有仔細去想的 人,然後塑造一種氣氛,好像這是為大家好,幹嘛啊,都什麼時代 了還搞這種愚民政策!你就直接了當講,好聽點講是說,大陸跟我 們是敵人,所以你不承認他的學歷,難聽點講,老子就是討厭大 陸,所以不爽承認,這不就好了!幹嘛拐彎抹角,胡講一通?這不 是心虛就是沒知識,阿扁,你真的遇到中國就抓狂然後沒輒嗎? 切....... is that not harsh? I think you have a halo effect so you don't see I criticize green, and you think I am green so when I criticize blue you will enlarge 10000 copy of my criticize, people usually think what they think and refuse to admit what they have made wrong consideration, though he has found the evidence that he is wrong, I can understand this....
看看上面的回應好像都偏離主題了~ 我的感覺是媒體對馬英九比較友善,對謝長廷則否.. 昨天看到周錫偉和羅文嘉的新聞,感覺上(就記者報導的語氣和內容 而言),記者報導羅文嘉的新聞感覺就比周友善多了~ 因為羅文嘉以前和媒體的互動都非常良好,也不乏許多記者和主播 朋友(從他的部落格上看到的),所以媒體在報導羅的時候比較友善... 而馬英九是媒體的寵兒,記者大們對他當然是比較和善的囉!不好 的事情比較不會扯到他頭上~
Sorry. I didn't mean to make you unhappy (at least that's what I felt from your responses.) I think you misunderstood what I meant when I typed in English. I will wait until I can type in Chinese again. You sound very "harsh" to the president, which it's hard for me to watch as well, even though I don't like the president either. "Harsh" doesn't mean bad all the time. It's just no the way I like to communicate with. It may work in the political worlds, who knows? You will be the one to tell me if that's the way should be. I just express my feeling about what I read from your articles. If you don't like it, I will say no more. Sorry again. I hate written in English. If you think written in English make me "highly", you don't know me very well. I HATE English all my life, and I still don't like it. If I think greatly about English, why should I bother to install Chinese typing (which have no use for my work or my daily life) and to creat a
It's OK, Forget about it......