政客政棍靠得住, 豬乸都會上樹, 口中越挂以民為主, 上咗位變咗佢係"上主"!

看看, 這位某位傳媒、學者、政客、乜乜運動者所吹噓的民主女腎的今天面目!

看看, 這二三年中華民國臺灣省的混亂、人民的無助, 尤其這水災,這以民主為招牌的政黨,是名副其實嗎? 民主! 啍!對, 你選我上台後, 你是民, 我是上主!短短半任未過, 人民已經六神無主, 生活已經難已維持,任用擦鞋仔, 完全不知羞恥, 有人曰, 咁, 你下界唔好"損佢"咪得咯! 開玩笑? 破易立難, 再修正, 絕不易事, 而且, 選舉工具好多時同真正民主往往相返, 何解, 人民的眼睛是否真的雪亮…?



今時今日的寶島大統領所作所為, 國父嘔血, 國人頭痛, 其行為作風, 尤其正字上的幼稚荒謬, 跟其未上台時的理論多多, 意識形態式的推、吹、煽、駡、騙及亂發支票, 正正是替現在某些人日吹夜吹的所謂民主選舉明明白白的顯示出這一人一嫖制度, 若果沒有人民的理性及明辨抗騙的質量, 對民主了解的多少, 分別黑白的能力的說話, 這制度是絕對是砸石頭打自己腳的一塊大石, 看看中華民國及美國的今天, 這些大統領的表現亦另一方面對一人一票的機制的一種侮蔑!

中華民國中了什麼蠱毒, 國民(愚夫愚婦的一人一嫖)嫖出一個禍國殃民再加倭寇奴婢,再加禍害中華民族的"遲稀"太后做中華正統的民國大統領, 再加一個"尿水清"宰相, 真的天乜乜也!

選一個高知, 高學歷却比市井更無四維八德的人, 你二千幾萬人是否真的瞎了!


是否真的有投胎? 不過這個投胎是荒唐荒謬!
一個是"遲稀", 一個是"尿得清"太監, 這中華民國怎能繼續?
無望矣, 一人一嫖, 嫖出這乜乜!
民主跟選舉的相關問題

選民是理性的嗎？
今時今日西方的選舉方法是真的民主嗎?
Are voters rational?

選民是理性的嗎？
Democracy in America

論美國的民主

Nov 6th 2006

11月6日2006
by The Economist | NEW YORK

“經濟學人”紐約版
ECONOMISTS tend to agree that voting is irrational act; the odds of one's vote affecting the outcome are tiny. What, then, does this suggest about the thought processes of those who vote? The rationality of voters is an interesting, if uncomfortable, area of inquiry among economists and others, such as Michael Huemer, a philosophy professor, who weighs in thusly:
經濟學家們傾向於認為投票是不合理的行為；投票影響結果的幾率很小。那麼，這對那些投票人的思維過程有什麼啟示呢？選民是否理性, 是經濟學家和其他人如哲學教授邁克爾·休默(Michael Huemer)關注的一個有趣、但卻令人不快的課題。
Perhaps the most striking feature of the subject of politics is how prone it is to disagreement—only religion and morality rival politics as a source of disagreement. There are three main features of political disagreements I want to point out: (i) They are very widespread. It isn’t just a few people disagreeing about a few issues; rather, any two randomly-chosen people are likely to disagree about many political issues. (ii) They are strong, that is, the disagreeing parties are typically very convinced of their own positions, not at all tentative. (iii) They are persistent, that is, it is extremely difficult to resolve them. Several hours’ of argumentation typically fails to resolve political disputes. Some have gone on for decades (either with the same principals or with different parties over multiple generations).
也許政治主題最突出的特點是分歧的可能性有多大--只有宗教和道德上的對立才是產生政治分歧的根源。有三個主要特徵我要指出的是，(i)政治分歧非常普遍。這不僅僅是少數人在一些問題上意見不一致，而是任何兩個隨機選擇的人都可能不同意多種不同的政治觀點。(ii)政治分歧每每是非常強大，也就是說，持不同意見的政黨通常非常相信他們自己的立場，而不是暫時性的。(3)他們是堅持而不會退讓的，也很難解決。就是說，幾個小時的爭論通常無法解決政治爭端。有些已經持續爭執了幾十年了(要麼是同一死硬原則，要麼是多代人不同的黨派鬦爭。)。
This should strike us as very odd. Most other subjects—for instance, geology, or linguistics, or algebra—are not subject to disagreements at all like this; their disputes are far fewer in number and take place against a backdrop of substantial agreement in basic theory; and they tend to be more tentative and more easily resolved. Why is politics subject to such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements? . . . I contend that . . . irrationality, is the most important factor, and that [miscalculation, ignorance, and diversity of values], in the absence of irrationality, fail to explain almost any of the salient features of political disagreement.

我們會覺得很奇怪。大多數其他學科--例如地質學、語言學或代數--根本不存在類似的分歧；它們的爭論在數量和數量上都要少得多。這是在基本理論上達成實質性共識的背景下，它們的分歧往往是比較在初步的和更容易解決的。為什麼政治分歧是如此廣泛、強大和持久？協議？。我認為，非理性[錯誤計算、無知和價值觀的多樣性]是最重要的因素，除了非理性的這因素, 人們無法解釋一切的有著顯著特徵的政治分歧。
Moreover, he argues that irrationality is devilishly difficult to overcome:

Normally, intelligence and education are aides to acquiring true beliefs. But when an individual has non-epistemic belief preferences, this need not be the case; high intelligence and extensive knowledge of a subject may even worsen an individual’s prospects for obtaining a true belief...The reason is that a biased person uses his intelligence and education as tools for rationalizing beliefs. Highly intelligent people can think of rationalizations for their beliefs in situations in which the less intelligent would be forced to give up and concede error, and highly educated people have larger stores of information from which to selectively search for information supporting a desired belief. Thus, it is nearly impossible to change an academic’'s mind about anything important. . .

此外，邁克爾·休默教授他認為，非理性是極難克服的：

通常，智力和教育是獲得真正信仰的工具。但是，當一個人偏執於有”非認識論”的信仰時，情況就不一定是這樣了：有些人在運用高智力和廣泛的知識確認某一課題時, 有時甚至可能惡化了這課題的認知...原因是有抱有偏見的高知人會誤用了他的智力和信念作為使他的偏信合理化的工具。高知高智的人比較普通人會被迫放棄並承認錯誤的情況下，反而為他們的信仰製造他們認為的理性，高知及高智等受過高深教育的人則有更大的空間有選擇地去搜索他們信念所需的資訊, 去支持他們所認為正确的理念。因此，幾乎不可能改變一個高知高智的人者對任何重要事情的(偏執)看法…

看看"半獨裁者"怎樣為人民, 怎樣牵挂人民, 怎樣愛人民!
所以唔係政治制度, 而係為政者本人!以及他用的什麼人!
經國先生當年年齡比這女的還大, 健康亦不皆, 看看他, 這女的及那男的還有臉見人嗎?



看看"半獨裁者"怎樣為人民, 怎樣牵挂人民, 怎樣愛人民!
所以唔係政治制度, 而係為政者本人!以及他用的什麼人!
經國先生當年年齡比這女的還大, 健康亦不皆, 看看他, 這女的及那男的還有臉見人嗎?