|
|
|
|
|
 Sean Hannity |
|
2009/05/02 01:30 |
em.... Lets not bring talk show hosts in to this. I trust their opinions as far as I can throw them.. not too far.. but when Finals are over I will go back read the blog posts....... Thank you....
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-05-06 13:18 回覆： |
|
You are considered as a possible "rightwing extremist" by DHS as a Tea Party supporter. Welcome to the right wing club and enjoy your vote in action.
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-05-02 12:12 回覆： |
|
I was trying to give you an example inconsistent with your statement: "Reagonomics... but from all of the talks that I have
heard from it.. such as radio talk shows...many liberals and
conservatives don't think highly of it."
I like truth and good logic. I don't abandon any opinion because the person who said it. Hannity says things sometimes I agree, but not always. I make my own independent judgment, and that's what everybody should do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are so cynical |
|
2009/04/30 13:38 |
I supposed you have some more years on me, so I respect your opinion. But I am optimistic. I think all of this well all work itself out at the end.
I regret voting for obama because I don't see change domestically.. yet... I felt that he is just following Bush and Clinton's path... However, I think on foreign issues, so far he is doing a pretty good job....
I am one of those people that doesn't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford a health insurance and it sucks. I like universal health coverage.. I think it will work! I don't have proof but it would be great if it did...
As for the people who works hard for their money... Obama said he wants to tax the rich.. i.e those people who makes more than 200,000 a year and that is probably only 10% of the population.. I would assume majority of them are.. atheletes, stars and people that inherit their family business and money.. i.e Paris Hilton (god I hate her)
But for us poor folks, what happens when there is no one that can help us?
I think american society is structured very differently from Chinese society where we can always find help with loyal friends and definitely family. But here I see that family sometimes won't help other family members out... and friends turn on you because of money. Its sad!!
What happens to those people who has no one that can help them to get on their feets?
I didn't grow up in U.S in the era of Reagonomics... but from all of the talks that I have heard from it.. such as radio talk shows...many liberals and conservatives don't think highly of it.. do you know why? A lot of people say that it was the worst mistake that Reagan ever made.... *shrug*
P.S did I emphasize enought tha I love George Carlin....?
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-05-01 12:25 回覆： |
|
Thanks for respecting my opinion but you don't really have to. I make mistakes often. I would recommend respect truth, and any logic that does make sense.
Before getting to my answers, I have some reading assignments for you. Just to help our discussion:
與歐巴馬相反的雷根經濟學，成功挽救經濟衰退 http://blog.udn.com/martinique/2743511
資本主義和社會主義：甘乃迪和歐巴馬 http://blog.udn.com/martinique/2654000
金融海嘯起源之一：ACORN，社會寄生蟲 http://blog.udn.com/martinique/2684066
問題不是資本主義 http://blog.udn.com/martinique/2350912
“茶派對“：美國人民的覺醒 http://blog.udn.com/martinique/2861671
Here is response from your reply:
All of this will work it self out.. HOW?
I still don't get your answer: What was the "way things work in Washington" that you did not like that made you vote Obama? Why were you proven wrong?
Bill Clinton signed Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make cheap loans to poor people, that later became root cause of this financial crisis. Bush tried to correct it in 2004 but was rejected by Democrats controlled congress. Obama will make more loans to people like Acorn, 85 billion is already allocated, to be paid by people like your children and grand children. So he is following Clinton's path, not Bush's.
If you can't afford insurance, that means, you need cash, and guess what? You gotta earn it! If you use your vote to get that cash, that means you are not voting for a leader. You vote for cash, and that's not voting. Although many people voted Obama for the very same reason, but that's just dead wrong. This government is make everybody depending on government, not people themselves.
Tax the rich means solialism. Paris earned that money, no matter how, that's her money. You can't just take it from her. Most people in Obama's high income category are those who work very hard and achieve, including small business owners. The new tax law will stop those business from creating new jobs. Because all small business will do all they can to make less than 250000 per year.
People who don't have money need to find a job have to use charity first, then friends and relatives. Maybe government can come in and help them find a job. But can't just give them freebees. If so, who will want to work? Almost like you are an idiot if you work hard. The best deal is you sit there and do nothing. I agree people should help each other, and I donate a lot of $$ each year, volunteer hours in building new house for poor people thru habitat for humanity. I think I am a very good man, BUT that's totally voluntary, can't be mandatory.
Reagon believes in people, not government, that I totally agree. Sean Hannity said in tea party that he is "Reagan conservative", and people and Atlanta were cheering. What did Reagan do wrong? People who do not like Reagan are those believe in government, not people, like most Democrats. You want to stimulate economics, you just have to let people keep what they earn.
Yeah you said you love love love Carlin. I get it. Hope he's a democrat so you can wear your T-shirt. Cynical- I think I just try not to be gullible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Response |
|
2009/04/29 23:25 |
I voted for Obama was because I thought he could bring a change of attitude and the way things work in Washington. Of course, I have been proven wrong. I do believe in Universal Healthcare, but not free. I was thinking more along the lines of Universal Insurance Coverage, where health insurance is affordable.
As for college tuition, Of course I want it for free. Is it realistic? No.
But, I am lucky that I go to a local University that has a pretty good engineering program and I only pay 2500 a semester. I think education is a priviledge not a right.
Yes I have heard of Marxism, because that is what Socialism is based on. I understand that Obama is pushing towards a more socialist society. Honestly, I am ok with implementing certain socialist element into our government. I think everyone can benefit from it. But, to be realistic, I probably won't be saying this 10 years from now when I am making more than 100,000 a year.
As for the housing crisis, I don't believe that people should buy what they can't afford. But, maybe I am being way too idealistic, but shouldn't we help those people who has lost their jobs?
What I have noticed here in Albuquerque, is that people are selling their housees because they can't afford it. But the Apartment Complexes are raising their prices to target these families and people. Of course, it is the principle of supply and demand, but people got rid of their house because they can't afford it, now apartments are raising the rent price, how are they going to survive? on the streets? I don't know if there is a solution for them. Government intervention seems like a good way to go for now. Until these people get back on their feets. What do you think?
P.S I know you disagree with me. But I enjoy your writing and your insights.
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-30 13:13 回覆： |
|
What was the "way things work in Washington" that you did not like that made you vote Obama? Why were you proven wrong? Do you regret that you voted him?
For "Way things work in Washington", my answer is it's getting a lot worse. USA becomes liberal supermajority: Whitehouse, Senate and the House are all dominated by democrats, so they can almost pass anything on their agenda, including "tattoo removal" in "economic stimulus package". Obama yesterday said "he does not want rubber stamp". Yeah right. Like I would expect him to say "it's all my stamps now".
You like affordable Health insurance, but we all know medicare in USA is super expensive. So who is going to pay for the difference? the "evil rich"? that means Socialism.
What make you think Obama is pushing Socialism? Who will benefit from Solialism? Remember government does not generate any money. The only thing government does is spending wealth generated by people.
You won't support solialism if you make 100k/yr- so you totally understand people who achieve will pay. To me that means you support socialism because it can help you put your hand in other people's pocket to seize their money. After graduate you better don't work too hard, otherwise you money will be seized. I think the most evil and dangerous message Socialism is sending. Socialism is basically Capitalism without accountability.
I agree people get help to find a place to stay. They can ask for help for their friends, relatives, even charity. But I don't agree government handing them free cash. Government should not play charity. Again, government does not generate any wealth- only people who work do. That is money people earn by working hard. Ultimately, those people need to find their job, fight for their life quality, not seeking free cash from government, or threatening banks to give them cheap loans.
I don't agree government to spend out of the economic crisis. I think the solution is in Reagonomics- Using private sectors to generate real job opportunities. In Reagan era, 16 million jobs were created by reducing tax ONLY, no government spending. Obama spent 3.4 trillion to "create and maintain" 3 million jobs, and Biden said there is 30% chance of failure. Obama yesterday asked 1.5 billion to research swing flu vaccine. I saw on news that Taiwan is ready to do the same, and the cost is 1.5 million, maybe NTD. Government spending has never been efficient. So the less they spend, the better.
This is what we are on the same page: Education is a privilege. And I would likt to acknowledge your blog- very nice. In particular I like your pictures in Balloon show, that makes me excited. My only problem is you "Date Democrats Only". You sure you can't do better than that? Thanks for like my writing.. come back and see me often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| torture vs beheading |
|
2009/04/29 05:14 |
|
which one you would prefer? Beheading or torture? I hope American know what they are doing on the next election!!
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-05-02 12:14 回覆： |
|
very simplified.. but yeah. that's the deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| One more question |
|
2009/04/29 00:04 |
|
Do you think it is ok to use torture techniques and still criticize other countries for human rights abuse?
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-29 11:08 回覆： |
|
假設回到2002年，你是布希總統，你的ＣＩＡ部下告訴你抓來的恐怖份子什麼都不說，要不要刑求看看？你打算同意，因為你的國家可能隨時有下一個911。這時，你會因為怕有人用人權問題來罵你而不做嗎？
你的問題我目前無法回答，而且我不確定那些人權報告裡面寫了什麼。若要真的回答你的問題，必須把那些報告一篇篇翻出來看。這是兩回事，必須分開檢討。
It's "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"，not "torture". The Liberal media term is designed only to make you mad.
I have questions for you too.. Appreciate if you can answer: Why do you support President Obama? What made you support him last year when you voted? What did he actually accomplish to make you think he is the more proper president candidate? I read your blog, in an article you said "now we can get something done". What exactly is that "something"? Do you think government should provide free healthcare to everyone? Do you think college tuition should be free? Do you support anyone who works hard should get a house for his/her American dream no matter how much he earns? Have you heard the word Marxism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 只許州官放火的美國佬 |
|
2009/04/28 01:34 |
|
對付恐怖份子不能用常規手段，這點我同意，但是虛偽的美國人卻長年舉著人權大旗，自居為道德仲裁者，對其他國家打分數，發布哪個國家人權評比不及格的的成績單，並以此作為經濟制裁的手段。試問，如果今天刑求犯人的國家是中國，各界八成是槍口一致，口誅筆伐，美國人每年老是發布調查報告，中國人權狀況惡劣、某國人權狀況不及格，甚至連台灣這種可以當面跟總統嗆聲的國家，人權分數也經常在及格邊緣徘徊。而美國境內每年發生的種族岐視事件多如牛毛，其中不少是執勤的公僕虐待有色人種的案件，美軍在世界各地犯下的人權案件更是不遑多讓、罄竹難書。所以，你老美要用啥手段去審問犯人，全世界沒人敢講話，但也不要厚顏無恥到天天批評別人的人權狀況，非洲種族屠殺，生靈塗炭、血流成河，除了在索馬利亞搞了個烏龍的黑鷹計劃外，也不見美國佬出過一兵一卒去保護那些難民。難怪美國戰力天下無敵，因為俗語有云「人不要臉，天下無敵」
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-28 10:09 回覆： |
|
你的回應只有前兩句與本文有關。
至於美國對台灣的人權報告，我的建議是，當有人說你哪裡不好，你就要仔細的聽，有錯則改，沒錯就不要理他。自己作對不對自己最知道，不用管別人怎麼說。不然你就學大陸也發表一篇美國人權報告出出氣，可是我不覺得那對台灣有什麼好處。美國對台灣的人權報告，因為我沒看過，所以沒有評論。
另外，情緒性用語請避免使用，例如“厚顏無恥，不要臉“，而且你對任何人的任何指控都必須提出證據，例如“種族歧視，人權案件“。本部落格的言論自由是用來追求事實與真理，不是用來說話比大聲。這裡不是立法院，也不是民進黨的造勢場合，大聲不會讓你天下無敵，只有事實才會。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| chill out! |
|
2009/04/28 00:05 |
Of course it is just a gut feeling. But what else can a politician do?
I have seen it done so many times. From local election to federal. It is annoying at its best.
All of this hooblah, it is just going to go away just like Gitmo is not an issue anymore. Where do you think they are going to store the prisoner's now that Gitmo is closing? Probably in another secure location. There are so many things that CIA do, that us as citizens don't even understand. Maybe I have watched way too many spy movies, but do you think that the torture techniques are going to go away?
That is not beneficial towards the country whatsoever.
They are just going to keep it as secret as possible.
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-28 00:23 回覆： |
|
|
所以那是你的推測，而此推測與你的感覺相符。謝謝回應。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 回應您的第二個問題 |
|
2009/04/27 20:27 |
|
我會做 ! 即便我可能會因為如此受到良心譴責一輩子...或我的上帝不讓我進入天堂...。 我相信這是一個相當嚴峻的掙扎，是天人交戰的一個試煉。我會不會刑求錯人，我會不會間接殺了一個人，我是不是讓我的部屬都背負殺人的罪惡，而我們是不是在這個過程又摧毀了另一個膚色不同的家庭...這些，都是可能的。 有時候，多說什麼都沒有意義，因為彼此的出發點並不相同。｢刑求｣的本質是不符合正義、道德與人權的...這無庸置疑。而因為刑求或直接的殺人手段而殘害了另一條生命...這種｢罪｣本質上也沒有什麼討價還價的空間，也無法被原諒。 充其量，我只能很自私的說這是一個選擇。在不是你死就是我亡的賽局中，我只能在我僅有的實力考量下，選擇保護我所想保護的對象，而必然的，就會犧牲到對我不利的對象。 被道德良心譴責、被人權主義者譴責、被律法懲處...或許我只能認了。但我滿確定的...當有歹徒威脅我家人生命時...如果情況緊急而無法等待正常管道的救援，那麼只要我有足夠的能力，我必會手刃歹徒以保護我的家人。即使，這歹徒也不是軍人。 這事兒也沒什麼無限上綱的空間。這只是一種選擇。無須特別乞求原諒也無需將審判汙名化...這只是一個正常的人面對危難時...很正常的一個選擇。至於在這樣的情境中能夠做出別的選擇的朋友...我對他們的智慧與超凡入聖的人性感到折服。
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-28 00:00 回覆： |
|
犧牲自己，照亮別人，正是政治家的基本素養。了不起，令人敬佩。
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-28 10:21 回覆： |
|
|
我在猜，我們這樣的對話，很可能就是七年前白宮裡發生的對話。雖然很多人不喜歡，布希總統大概是在做他該做的工作。如果真是這樣的話，布希政府唯一缺的，就是告訴大家你說的這段話，讓大家了解政府的苦心，取得民眾對政府行動的諒解，也可避免反對黨見縫插針。布希應該請你當白宮發言人。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 人權應一致保障 |
|
2009/04/27 14:02 |
世界人權宣言
聯合國大會一九四八年十二月十日 第217A(III)號決議通過並宣佈
第一條
人人生而自由，在尊嚴和權利上一律平等。他們賦有理性和良心，並應以兄弟關係的精神相對待。
美國人的屁股與恐怖份子的屁股是一樣的。
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-27 23:44 回覆： |
|
|
美國人的屁股與恐怖份子的屁股當然一樣。可是三千個美國人的生命，跟幾個恐怖份子的屁股還是一樣嗎？如果是三千個台灣人呢？如果裡面還包括你關心的人呢？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nah... |
|
2009/04/27 11:45 |
Honestly,
CIA is going to do what its going to do. I don't think the torture techniques are going away, it is just going to be kept under the radar. Politicians are going to openly condemn it for votes and votes only. But Obama is going to condemn it to change the perception that it has on the world. But it doesn't mean it is going away! It is just going to be kept under secret, no one knows.........
Nothing is going to change unless it really cause problems. Maybe I am naive, I don't know, but I think all of this CIA crap is just for show to the voters and to the international community.
|
|
阿卡迪亞斯基(martinique) 於 2009-04-27 12:04 回覆： |
|
你認為還會繼續刑求，證據在哪？那你是說歐巴馬只是在晃點我們？這是你自己猜的，你的感覺，還是你有什麼內線消息？要問清楚，這個茲事體大。“ＣＩＡ crap“？你怎麼確定ＣＩＡ的刑求一定是壞的？這跟過去七年的安全真的沒有關係？前副總統錢尼要求歐巴馬政府公佈更多ＣＩＡ
備忘錄，以說明刑求對美國安全有十分積極的效果，可是到目前沒有回應。這些資料你都沒看過，怎能知道刑求就是壞的，而且以後會不會用還知道？
政治人物只愛選票，這我大概同意，但我也看過例外。例如網友金刀如果以後從政，一定是個有理想的政治家。
|
|
|
|
|
字體：小 中 大
