2014年7月10日 星期四

氣頂人語

兩則時事新聞,令我氣頂。

1.「英國的首相沒有經過公民提名,美國總統就非一人一票直接選出....」(施永青:C 觀點  對佔中的預期)

氣頂人語:英國首相,是由在大選中獲勝的執政黨的領袖當然擔任,誰做黨領袖當然是黨員推選;不過所有國會議員都是公民提名,在各選區全民普選的。

美國總統,容許獨立人士參選,不是公民提名是甚麼?美國的州有大有小,各個州有代表人口多寡的「選舉人票」,贏得多「選舉人票」的總統候選人當選,而每個州都是全民投票的。


澳洲的城市選市長,很多都有幾丁友至十幾人報名,獨立參選,搞到像選票一幅布咁長。雖然獨立參選市長能夠獲選的,百中無一,有些候選人得票少至一百幾十張,大多情況總是代表政黨參選的人獲勝,但公民參選、投票和被選,是平等享有的權利。

2. 聖公會主教鄺保羅 嘲七一遊行者

圖片來源
氣頂人語:鄺主教,你講聖經中的耶穌,訓斥7.1遊行的人不以耶穌的「沉默不言」為榜樣,參與者羊群心態,心靈沒有平安,不懂用腦分析,不問情由經常要「發聲」。

你譏笑遊行人士「心靈沒有平安」,卻沒有追本溯源,對施行暴政、違反公義,令人心靈不平安的執政集團,真的「沉默不言」,這完全不能令人信服。

你講耶穌,雖然我只是一個離教者,我就用聖經來駁你。

你說耶穌謙卑溫柔,被捕時不反抗,默默上十架----那是他立心犧牲為世人贖罪的大計劃,沒有這一段,還有日後發展出來的基督教,你還有這個主教做嗎?

你可以想像耶穌在被捕之時,與羅馬兵鍊鋪勁,然後死於亂刀之下的scenario嗎?

你現在是叫香港人,應該學耶穌不要出聲,任人魚肉?你當聖經有詳細記載,耶穌被捕殺害之前,在世上遍行公義,積極發聲、斥責偽善的法利賽人,勇於站在最前線的行為,通通是「流」的嗎?

「你們不要想我來是叫地上太平;我來並不是叫地上太平,乃是叫地上動刀兵。」(馬太福音第10章34節)




27 則留言:

  1. 這類人是行業中有地位的人 , 唔係肥C9 , 所以不應是理解力有問題 , 一個係政協 , 一個在大陸有大把生意 , 諗落都係過唔到名利關 , 而且他們有能力走佬到外國 , 即所謂離地 , 放長雙眼 , 佢地等天收

    回覆刪除
  2. One more information added: Jesus was furious about people using the temple to trade and he turned over the table of those traders in the temple - the holy place. Jesus knows when was enough and enough to stand up against the mainstream.

    Rosemary

    回覆刪除
  3. 不同政見沒問題,但如施先生和鄺主教這等有社會地位和智慧的人,都說這些明顯不符常識的話,足見香港社會問題嚴重。

    回覆刪除
  4. 按照(人)大主教講法,好似耶穌係個欺善怕惡的人,面對強權俯首就擒,不敢反抗;而對平民小販,則抽鞭驅趕.

    回覆刪除
  5. 一黨專政行先, 什麼民主, 投票都假架啦! 切忌勞氣! 人家接order做野, 冇自由意志架! 亞公要捧長毛做特首時, 佢地一樣義無反顧, 飛身撲出黎, 做好奴才本份. 689 都睇西環面色做野, 點話得事播!

    回覆刪除
  6. Mike Chan下午12:50

    睇下依家香港呢班基督徒高官所作所為,真係陀衰耶穌。

    回覆刪除
  7. 氣頂得幾多?

    宋小莊 -北京大學法學博士
    “在香港目前只有選委票才是決定誰能當選特首的唯一標準。這與美國以選舉人票決定誰當選總統的道理是一樣的。
    2000年民主黨候選人、副總統戈爾比共和黨候選人、得州州長小布什在全國多得了53萬張普選票,但在佛州小布什卻比戈爾多得了數百張普選票。美國的選舉人是按各州普選票以「贏家通吃」(「贏家通吃」是指一個總統候選人只要取得一半以上的普選票,該州的全部選舉人票都歸他。)決定的,小布什多得數百張普選票決定他全取佛州的全部25張選舉人票。美國的選舉人票只有538張,誰取得270張,誰當選。(比香港選舉委員會共有1200張票,誰取得601張,誰當選,圈子更小。)如不計算佛州的25張選舉人票以及人口極少州的選舉人票,戈爾以249對246張選舉人票領先,但一計算佛州,小布什卻先奪得270張選舉人票而當選。在美國歷史上,這種「錯誤的勝利者」(即普選票少而當選)的總統,前後有四次。
    在美國這樣的所謂「民主」國家,也不是以普選票、更不是以民意決定的,而是以選舉人票決定誰當選。在香港實現普選前,也是以選委票決定誰能當選行政長官的。”
    "一個總統候選人只要取得一半以上的普選票,該州的全部選舉人票都歸他。"
    "香港目前只有選委票才是決定誰能當選特首的唯一標準。"
    "這與美國以選舉人票決定誰當選總統的道理是一樣的"

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 大陸的法學博士 , 只是文棍 , 他們說的不能當真

      刪除

  8. 看美國人怎樣說的:

    How the President of the United States is Elected

    Start with the Constitution. The basic process of selecting the President of the United States is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and it has been modified by the 12th, 22nd, and 23rd amendments. Many additional steps have been added over the years, by custom and by state law -- the process has changed quite a bit over time.

    Who Can Run? The President and Vice-President are elected every four years. They must be at least 35 years of age, they must be native-born citizens of the United States, and they must have been residents of the U.S. for at least 14 years. (Also, a person cannot be elected to a third term as President.)

    How Do the Political Parties Choose Their Candidates? That's up to the political parties. Most political parties hold conventions, which are large meetings attended by "delegates." Some delegates are selected by state "primary" elections, some are selected by state caucuses (very much like primaries, except with public voting instead of secret ballots), and some are chosen for their prominence in the party. A majority of delegate votes is needed to win the party's nomination. In most cases, the delegates let their chosen presidential candidate select a vice-presidential candidate.


    Candidates for President and Vice-President Run Together. In the general election, each candidate for President runs together with a candidate for Vice-President on a "ticket." Voters select one ticket to vote for; they can't choose a presidential candidate from one ticket and a vice-presidential candidate from another ticket.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The Electoral College. The national presidential election actually consists of a separate election in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia; in these 51 elections, the voters are really voting for "electors" pledged to one of the tickets. These electors make up the "Electoral College." (In most cases, the names of the electors aren't written on the ballot; instead the ballot lets voters choose among "Electors for" each of the tickets, naming the presidential and vice-presidential candidates each slate of electors is pledged to.)

      Each state has the same number of electors as it has senators and representatives (there are two senators from each state, but the number of representatives depends on the state population in the most recent census). The District of Columbia, although it isn't a state, also participates in presidential elections -- it currently has three electors.

      The People in Each State Vote for Electors in the Electoral College. In most of the states, and also in the District of Columbia, the election is winner-take-all; whichever ticket receives the most votes in that state (or in D.C.) gets all the electors. (The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska. In these states, just two of the electors are chosen in a winner-take-all fashion from the entire state. The remaining electors are determined by the winner in each congressional district, with each district voting for one elector.)

      The Electoral College Votes for the President. The Electoral College then votes for President and for Vice-President, with each elector casting one vote; these votes are called electoral votes. Each elector is pledged to vote for particular candidates for President and Vice-President. In most elections, all the electors vote in accordance with the pledge they made; it is not clear what would happen in the unlikely event that a large number of electors violated their pledge and voted differently.

      Normally, one of the candidates for President receives a majority (more than half) of the electoral votes; that person is elected President. That candidate's vice-presidential running mate will then also receive a majority of electoral votes (for Vice-President), and that person is elected Vice-President.


      If There's No Electoral College Winner, the House of Representatives Chooses the President. In the rare event that no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, then the President is chosen instead by the House of Representatives, from the top three presidential vote-getters in the Electoral College; each state delegation in Congress casts one vote. (The Vice-President would be chosen from the top two vice-presidential vote-getters by the Senate.)


      This is bizarre! Does it really work this way? Yes. There are many arguments pro and con the Electoral College, but this system does guarantee that the person elected President has substantial support distributed throughout the U.S. The Electoral College has also been a major factor in the United States' long-term political stability.
      http://www.enchantedlearning.com/vote/presidential_elections.shtml

      刪除
    2. 簡單來說,美國的選委是有民意授權,他們決定誰「當選」。
      香港的選委是中央指派,無民意授權,他們決定誰能「參選」。
      這個分別,天南地北。

      刪除
    3. Chris,
      請看我貼在下靣有關美國選舉人票的操作(民意授權). --zpdrmn

      刪除
  9. 1. We are only selecting a mayor for Hong Kong. Thus comparing it to US Presidential election is a logical fallacy. Obviously all US city mayors are "公民提名" (?) & "一人一票" elected. Therefore 施永青 was misled (?) by 中共's (or his own?) 語言偽術 and is following 中共's (or his own?) "carrots".

    2. Jesus 「沉默不言」 is to fulfill one of the many prophecies of his death. If he violated such 「沉默不言」 prophecy during the persecution, he wouldn't be the prophesied "Messiah" in Old Testament, and there would not be Christianity today.

    In The book of Revelation, didn't Jesus 動氣 about 七教會 & John 慼慼 (after knowing what is to come in this world) ? But were they 「心靈沒有平安」? Thus 鄺某's saying committed a logical fallacy.

    回覆刪除
  10. Raymond下午3:37

    時窮節乃見!

    回覆刪除
  11. end of days near, man; bull shits and more...everywhere, man!!!

    回覆刪除
  12. 當年人民對共產主義有憧憬, 以為脫苦海, 點知上賊船. 而家船上做奴隸. 俾番人民當家作主, 執政黨咪要收檔? 睇689都知佢地幾小家架啦! 點會咁順攤.

    回覆刪除
  13. 【維基百科】Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem "First they came 。。。。".

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.


    Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.

    He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau.

    His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.

    His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.

    回覆刪除
  14. //在香港目前只有選委票才是決定誰能當選特首的唯一標準。這與美國以選舉人票決定誰當選總統的道理是一樣的//
    I would be very surprised if mainland China lets HK copy the American system exactly. 選委 would just like dummies and pick whoever the people elect. They don't really make any decision. The people make the decision collectively by voting.
    選委票決定誰能當選特首=/=美國以選舉人票「決定」誰當選總統. --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 中文:
      毎州的選舉人票是這樣投的: 做選民的傀儡, 即是那個州的選民選誰, 選舉人票就投給誰. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    2. 若選舉人不這樣做, 政治後果自負. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    3. electirial college 不是去按比分例給候選人而是勝者通吃
      小州得三至五張選舉人票 加利福尼亞州單獨有五十幾張
      勝出者全取五十幾票 好過勝出幾個小州
      上次 小布殊 和戈爾 就是 戈爾 全國票多過 小布殊
      但因 佛羅里達州 全部選舉人票歸 小布殊 結果 龔手相讓 總统之位。

      刪除
  15. Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin cannot be compared to the HK present chaotic political situation. The Great Rev. Kwong of SKH has not even known the gist of Christianity! It's really ashamed!

    回覆刪除
  16. 但是为何香港当年没有像其他英殖民地一样走向民主道路,而甘愿接受自己殖民地身份呢?香港所有法律和官员都受英政府设立和指派,港督不必对任何华人负责,白人社会地位高人一等,哪有什么民主可言?但其时香港人并无怨言。有人说是因为当时大陆打到七彩血流成河,香港却能给人一份安稳,努力的话还可以有发展空间,相较之下条件已经相当不错,港人担心如果追求民主香港会被英政府交回大陆接管,所以甘愿做二等公民,而且当时大陆逃难为香港带来许多资本以及廉价劳动力,经济得以良好发展,人人有工开有饭食,相较于当时一穷二白的大陆不知好到哪里去。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 香港人對民主訴求素來不高,就算是現在,很多還是沒多大興趣登記做選民和投票。
      當年港英政府只有櫥窗式的民主,但是政府施政比較仁慈和公道,高官的品德遠勝今日的特區官員,而「白人優越」的情況,不是大陸人想像的嚴重。
      社會階層的流動比較自由,很多人白手興家,買得起房子,成為中產甚至致富。
      今日香港的怨氣,不單是因為沒民主,而是沒民主制約之下,這個特區政府之亂來一通,官商勾結、處事不公,影響民生到忍無可忍的地步。

      刪除
    2. ....跟住又一定會有人撲出嚟話,英殖時都冇普選,你哋又唔出聲?係囉,就係想話你哋知, 個時幾國泰民安至得。大家有平等機會,肯做就得。 個時個政府幾可靠,毋須人民監管,我信得過交嘅稅會用得其所,唔會俾人飲茅台飲咗去,舞獅舞咗去囉。 個時我信有咩危險可以報警,警察叔叔會幫我,而唔係會揼我架。

      諗真我算幾幸褔,可以經歷香港嘅黃金時代,個人認為係七、八十至九十年代初。個時仲後生嘅我,最大的擔憂係考試唔合格,放工同邊個男朋友去街啫,點解而家啲學生要憂國憂民嘅?

      近幾次大型社會運動後,社會分歧越見嚴重,香港急速沉淪。689太嘅潑婦罵街,富二代以拙劣的邏輯思維獻醜,制服部隊罰抄表心跡,白頭佬更來一個東施效顰式簽名活動,建制議員下三濫式地玩弄權力,都係個句,水平低,費事同佢地一般見識。

      但到咗最上面個啲龍頭企業,所謂宗教領袖呀都出嚟講嘢就真係好恐怖。為咗媚共可以得到嘅好處可以去到幾盡? 家下個議會好似街市咁,假學歷嘅人可以做議員,呃錢貪錢嘅可以甩身,開會可以唔跟程序,為咗維護某些人嘅利益就咩法案都可以監粗嚟。跟住仲出黎窒你班小市民,簡直係道德淪亡,要幾無恥有幾無恥。仲問返你咩係良心,頂。

      一班所謂社會上嘅領袖為咗護主而自眨身價,無恥地盡力演出,毫不要臉。成個社會的道德標準被拖垮。 最慘係仲有人 buy,好似我有啲朋友咁,好似個班聽主教講嘢有份笑個啲。

      好難受,唔係有無普選,係香港的墮落。
      (http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-12-2014/17756)

      刪除
  17. 心靈沒有平安又好,氣頂又好,一味嚮到嘩嘩嘩除咗發洩吓重有咩用?全香港人上晒街又點?打仗呀?有兵咩?殺敵一萬自損三千,香港有幾多籌碼?
    強弱懸殊,需好好籌劃,團結力量。但係一個二個淨係識對號入座,扣人帽,然後開始對罵!
    想用香港對冧中國,對唔成,但係就冧咗香港!

    回覆刪除