沙文

咁您代表教廷賠番多少俾我, 意思意思嘛

beebeechan

咁您代表教廷賠番多少俾我, 意思意思嘛
沙文 發表於 2010/7/1 13:07

開個價黎
睇下你值幾多

沙文

呢個辦法睇唔到我值幾多嘅
因為您特登俾一仙黎踩我, 以為踩到我
但您唔知湯漢俾幾多我嘛, 所以您只能得到N+0.01, 但您唔知N=?, 咁我值幾多就始終係一個謎

beebeechan

我諗住俾一千萬你架喎,
一千萬修補屎渠

beebeechan

你都知你條渠唔值錢
你都唔敢, 唔好意思開價

beebeechan

努力點記憶下童年有邊個神父掂過你, 現在又幾高層過dee仲正
屈得就屈, 一下好采俾你屈番一, 二千萬呀呵!
怪唔知呢幾年dee人既記憶特別好左咁

沙文

回復 24# beebeechan
我一早睇穿您根本冇誠意啦, 1,000萬?夠我駛一日定一個禮拜呀?

Nomad

老實,鏟除呢?不覺得有必要。
反正星座,風水,土地神山神,全都有人說是迷信,我倒不反對這種群體去辦學耶。
不過,要用納稅人的錢來傳教,變相要平民向教會交稅,就是名副其實的違憲囉。
嘛,反正我往後大抵都會留在美國當美國人,我有我享受我的憲法權利,香港人喜歡怎樣剥削自己的宗教自由,跟我無尤(不過若有他朝阿爺看不過眼來鏟起教會時,可別跟人喊無辜)

說起香港也怪,一堆本身就不尊重平民的憲法權利的群體,反而特別喜歡說民主。

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
我一早睇穿您根本冇誠意啦, 1,000萬?夠我駛一日定一個禮拜呀? ...
沙文 發表於 2010/7/1 13:48

所以咪叫你開個價
你認為你值幾多先

beebeechan

嘛,反正我往後大抵都會留在美國當美國人,我有我享受我的憲法權利,香港人喜歡怎樣剥削自己的宗教自由,跟我無尤(不過若有他朝阿爺看不過眼來鏟起教會時,可別跟人喊無辜)

Nomad 發表於 2010/7/1 16:16

一方面口中大嗌民主
另一邊廂又盼望有個獨裁者來鏟除你眼中不想要的東西

順你者就講民主?

狹義民主咋

淚兒

順你者就講民主?
狹義民主咋 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/1 21:14

    係呀 ,幾似上帝嘛

Nomad

一方面口中大嗌民主
另一邊廂又盼望有個獨裁者來鏟除你眼中不想要的東西

順你者就講民主?

狹義民主咋 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/1 21:14

哈哈,期望?
別以為自己天天希望別人下地獄,別人就是同樣凡想法,
一邊喊自由一邊期望被奴役的人的將來,其生與死我根本毫無興趣
這個神權特別行政區日後是小王國又好,是阿爺直轄又好,
細菌不擴散到內地,就大吉大利。

不過,是自己既然一直理所當然地享受著踐踏別人的自由而得的特權
到有一天別人踐踏自己的自由時也不要去做哭喪狗。
不過呢,似你一樣的人,會明白就神奇囉 - 嘛,尼釆不就說過了。

當然,我記憶中共產黨從來不會讓別人去威脅他們的統治地位。

沙文

回復 29# beebeechan
都話您這個方案解决唔到我值幾多這問題嘛
除非您已找到湯漢俾我的賠款figure
您賠$1, 就係湯漢賠+1
您賠$1000萬, 就係湯漢賠+1000萬

dye

美國有White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whi ... orhood_Partnerships

教會也免稅。

Nomad

所以老早就有人指布殊公器私用,撕毀憲法。在美國各大大學老早就是共識耶。
另:

Safeguards on faith-based organizations

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

    * They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
    * Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
    * FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).

dye

但係，法庭點判呢?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hei ... Religion_Foundation

FFRF 輸咗。

公器私用又點?撕毀憲法又點?你都冇權告佢。

憲法只係一紙公文，最後有冇用要睇人，而响USA，人多數都係基徒。

Nomad

任何法律都只是一紙公文,任何地方都有貪贓枉法。我可沒有天真到以為只有共產黨和中國才是如此。

不過,無權告嗎?不就是告了,敗訴就是。而且,你似乎沒有留意後面QUOTE出來的三條:
   * They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
    * Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
    * FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).
當然,同樣為了監管OFBCI的資金運用,奧巴馬才成立了監察panel。
(同樣,我可沒有說中國才有人治問題)

至於似香港一樣,面對商家投資,大學擴張就四面紅旗,對於向宗教團體變相交稅就啞口不提的現象,可能內地都不會做到如此誇張。

又或者,香港民主特別偉大,所以香港所有教會學校是三條犯齊也沒關係吧。

dye

法庭點判呢?  

"In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the Foundation did not have standing to sue and ordered the Appeals court finding reversed."

or 無權告

原因見判詞。

---------------
之前也有類似先例

VALLEY FORGE COLLEGE v. AMERICANS UNITED, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=454&invol=464

"Respondents do not have standing, either in their capacity as taxpayers or as citizens, to challenge the conveyance in question. Pp. 471-490. "

一樣輸，一樣因為無權告

原因見判詞。

(呢單嘢政府將舊軍用醫院送俾教會開學校)

Nomad

都是那幾點,
一. 任何地方都有貪贓枉法(而布殊利用的是OFBCI作為Executive Order而不是Law成立的漏洞),不見得美國沒有
二. OFBCI都有以上三條作保障,而在套用香港,是所有的教會學校,都是三條全犯
三. 奧巴馬時代已經正在成立監察組織專門監視有關的資金運用和服務情況
四. 在美國這件事老早就由布殊吵到現在(反正布殊到現在已經是種國恥),香港人對於自己的教育制度,又做過甚麼,表達過甚麼?

dye

都是那幾點，

一. 沒有「貪贓枉法」。是法律上不能告。原因見判詞共3個要點。
"OFBCI作為Executive Order而不是Law成立的漏洞"?, 相反

"Alito stated "Respondents set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur if Flast is not extended to discretionary Executive Branch expenditures. For example, they say, a federal agency could use its discretionary funds to build a house of worship or to hire clergy of one denomination and send them out to spread their faith. Or an agency could use its funds to make bulk purchases of Stars of David, crucifixes, or depictions of the star and crescent for use in its offices or for distribution to the employees or the general public. Of course, none of these things has happened, even though Flast has not previously been expanded in the way that respondents urge. In the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in. And respondents make no effort to show that these improbable abuses could not be challenged in federal court by plaintiffs who would possess standing based on grounds other than taxpayer standing."[7]