samsung

why you guys are so serious? we all know lik for some time la why bother?

ricrick

民主的本質及意義就係要包容其他唔同意見及主張，如有分歧就通過協商、談判從而取得共識(絕大多數認同).
Wh ...
Prelude 發表於 2010-7-5 02:27

錯，議會中的反對黨是用來檢察政府，找出問題所在，由政府負責協商
再者，主子要奴才做是，奴才無得say no
你認為低聲下氣，搖頭擺尾，共產黨會接受"反對"的聲音？下世罷
言行激烈，係代表問題的嚴重，係代表立場的硬度，係代表強烈的不滿，亦不代表你不可發表意見

sheep

一激即中

peter236

why you guys are so serious? we all know lik for some time la  why bother?
samsung 發表於 2010-7-5 09:11

Lik pretends to be expert on various issues, but he is just a sor jai.

Lik

Lik pretends to be expert on various issues, but he is just a sor jai.
peter236 發表於 2010-7-5 14:21

Never pretended to be an expert on almost anything wor? Just that it's quite obvious that I am a lot smarter than you are~

-Lik
p.s. Oh wait, that really isn't saying much since you're such a dumba$$~

Prelude

I repeat again since you all skip the main point.
民主的本質及意義就係要包容其他唔同意見.

Calling me a dog for different view is not 包容, keep in mind I am not the government, why do you have to go against me in a harsh way to show your so-called "seriousness".  You just like to attack WHOever has a different view than yours.   And you call yourself so 民主?
Where is 包容其他唔同意見?   You are just lying to yourself la, you know you are so bias and can't accept anything different than your limited knowledge.

Do I love China government?  No
Did I say 64 is right?  No
Do I get benefit from China and HK government?  No

Then why do you attack me?  
Simple, you just like to attack people and like to win on internet.

Ok, I let you win.

mcjohnjohn

錯，議會中的反對黨是用來檢察政府，找出問題所在，由政府負責協商
再者，主子要奴才做是，奴才無得say no
你認為低聲下氣，搖頭擺尾，共產黨會接受"反對"的聲音？下世罷
言行激烈，係代表問題的嚴重，係代表立場的硬度，係代表強烈的不滿，亦不代表你不可發表意見
ricrick 發表於 2010-7-6 01:38

其實你講得好有point~ 不過, 現實是否如此完美? 呢個"不代表你不可發表意見"係唔係真係貫徹實行? 小弟有懷疑law.

ricrick

民主的本質及意義就係要包容其他唔同意見

民主是人人平等，才可包容，但e家話事權係邊個到? 包又點，吾包又點？跟本無論點，都無力量可以左右大局
嘈，都係得個嘈字，吾嘈，都係無人show 你，所以，緊係要嘈爆佢，起碼佢覺得煩，起碼可以清熱氣

mcjohnjohn

民主的本質及意義就係要包容其他唔同意見

民主是人人平等，才可包容，但e家話事權係邊個到? 包又點，吾包又點？跟本無論點，都無力量可以左右大局
嘈，都係得個嘈字，吾嘈，都係無人show 你，所以，緊係要嘈爆佢，起碼佢覺得煩，起碼可以清熱氣
ricrick 發表於 2010-7-6 11:12

其實某程度上我係認同ricrick生既觀點.
可惜我覺得社民連有陣時唔只係嘈, 而係過火. 舉例:
1. 話人癌上腦...
2. 人地普選聯搞緊活動, 佢地可以hijack 人地個台...

我真係頂唔順law.

soli

lol.. what a joke

do u know women were not allowed to vote?
do u know black ppl were not allowed  ...
ricrick 發表於 2010-7-5 00:16

我第二個post就提到馬丁路德金﹐1963年以前﹐好多黑人都仲未有投票權﹐但當時美國被世界稱為民主發達國家。

Democracy grows on contradictions, and one of these is about the question of who exactly belongs to the demos.On the one hand, general suffrage is seen as a defining characteristicof democracy; on the other hand, suffrage never extends to all thosewho are ruled. Drawing the lines is also known as the problem ofinclusiveness.  Who should be excluded from taking part in elections? This is one of the toughest questions of democratic theory.

“suffrage never extends to all thosewho are ruled”﹐呢個就係現實。

身份﹑種族﹑性別﹑年齡﹑財富﹑教育程度etc 都可以係限制選舉同被選舉權既理由﹐從來未人人平等過。
也許加拿大既民主制度﹐參與權既限制係少D﹐但只係少D﹐並唔係無。
加拿大人若以此批評香港既民主制度﹐在我看只係五十步笑一百步。

大陸連咩叫投票都唔知
唔知有即係唔駛有同唔需要有?

同理﹐1歲既BB不會投票﹐唔知咩叫投票﹐好正常。但不許1歲BB投票就係另一回事﹐何況係17﹑16﹑15﹑14﹑13歲既孩子?
雖然羊仔咩都唔識﹐但都隱若知道有野唔妥﹐唔知唔識唔代表唔駛有。

民主制度被選舉既人即使係有篩選﹐亦係正常﹐以現代對民主既定義﹐絕非假民主。