|
|
|
|
|
 |
文章評論 |
 |
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-30 15:15:23 |
|
|
（先向一草博致歉和致謝，借用貴寶地多多！） gmuoruo兄，交換至此，我想我們可以“Agree to disagree”。 Dan Rather 被CBS逼辭固然是“鐵板釘釘”的歷史事實，但卻一丁點兒不能說明究竟內幕如何。“替罪羊”或“捨車保帥”是歷史上永遠的戲目。 Killian documents雖然被證實是偽造的，這是否是個設局並沒有被任何人肯定或否定。儘管如此，文件所提出的小布希在National Guard受到一些特殊對待，例如未完成訓練要求等等，現在都證明是“鐵板釘釘”事實存在的，我就在這裡再引一次的： Bush had completed five years, four months, and five days toward his six-year service obligation.In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. 至於是不是Dan Rather 未經查證就報道，請看下面的段落： CBS investigations prior to airing the segment[edit]Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[37] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[38] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[39]On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[40] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[41] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[42] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[43] Dan Rather在CBS前後共43年包括24年CBS Evening News 主播，多次獲 Emmy Awards， Peabody Awards, 和若干大學榮譽學位，如果他真是不稱職的，恐怕連2年4個月也做不下來！ 對重要事件的報道是媒體人義不容辭的責任，不能因為報道可能對某一政黨或公職人員有負面影響就認為是故意跟他們過不去甚至惡意攻擊。例如Dan Rather對Abu Ghraib的非法非人道的酷刑的報道就不能說是跟小布希過不去吧？ |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-30 15:15:06 |
|
|
（先向一草博致歉和致謝，借用貴寶地多多！） gmuoruo兄，交換至此，我想我們可以“Agree to disagree”。 Dan Rather 被CBS逼辭固然是“鐵板釘釘”的歷史事實，但卻一丁點兒不能說明究竟內幕如何。“替罪羊”或“捨車保帥”是歷史上永遠的戲目。 Killian documents雖然被證實是偽造的，這是否是個設局並沒有被任何人肯定或否定。儘管如此，文件所提出的小布希在National Guard受到一些特殊對待，例如未完成訓練要求等等，現在都證明是“鐵板釘釘”事實存在的，我就在這裡再引一次的： Bush had completed five years, four months, and five days toward his six-year service obligation.In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. 至於是不是Dan Rather 未經查證就報道，請看下面的段落： CBS investigations prior to airing the segment[edit]Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[37] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[38] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[39]On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[40] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[41] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[42] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[43] Dan Rather在CBS前後共43年包括24年CBS Evening News 主播，多次獲 Emmy Awards， Peabody Awards, 和若干大學榮譽學位，如果他真是不稱職的，恐怕連2年4個月也做不下來！ 對重要事件的報道是媒體人義不容辭的責任，不能因為報道可能對某一政黨或公職人員有負面影響就認為是故意跟他們過不去甚至惡意攻擊。例如Dan Rather對Abu Ghraib的非法非人道的酷刑的報道就不能說是跟小布希過不去吧？ |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-30 15:11:08 |
|
|
（先向一草博致歉和致謝，借用貴寶地多多！） gmuoruo兄，交換至此，我想我們可以“Agree to disagree”。 Dan Rather 被CBS逼辭固然是“鐵板釘釘”的歷史事實，但卻一丁點兒不能說明究竟內幕如何。“替罪羊”或“捨車保帥”是歷史上永遠的戲目。 Killian documents雖然被證實是偽造的，這是否是個設局並沒有被任何人肯定或否定。儘管如此，文件所提出的小布希在National Guard受到一些特殊對待，例如未完成訓練要求等等，現在都證明是“鐵板釘釘”事實存在的，我就在這裡再引一次的： Bush had completed five years, four months, and five days toward his six-year service obligation.In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. 至於是不是Dan Rather 未經查證就報道，請看下面的段落： CBS investigations prior to airing the segment[edit]Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[37] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[38] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[39]On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[40] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[41] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[42] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[43] Dan Rather在CBS前後共43年包括24年CBS Evening News 主播，多次獲 Emmy Awards， Peabody Awards, 和若干大學榮譽學位，如果他真是不稱職的，恐怕連2年4個月也做不下來！ 對重要事件的報道是媒體人義不容辭的責任，不能因為報道可能對某一政黨或公職人員有負面影響就認為是故意跟他們過不去甚至惡意攻擊。例如Dan Rather對Abu Ghraib的非法非人道的酷刑的報道就不能說是跟小布希過不去吧？ |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-30 14:56:09 |
|
|
（先向一草博致歉和致謝，借用貴寶地多多！） gmuoruo兄，交換至此，我想我們可以“Agree to disagree”。 Dan Rather 被CBS逼辭固然是“鐵板釘釘”的歷史事實，但卻一丁點兒不能說明究竟內幕如何。“替罪羊”或“捨車保帥”是歷史上永遠的戲目。 Killian documents雖然被證實是偽造的，這是否是個設局並沒有被任何人肯定或否定。儘管如此，文件所提出的小布希在National Guard受到一些特殊對待，例如未完成訓練要求等等，現在都證明是“鐵板釘釘”事實存在的，我就在這裡再引一次的： Bush had completed five years, four months, and five days toward his six-year service obligation.In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. 至於是不是Dan Rather 未經查證就報道，請看下面的段落： CBS investigations prior to airing the segment[edit]Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[37] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[38] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[39]On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[40] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[41] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[42] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[43] Dan Rather在CBS前後共43年包括24年CBS Evening News 主播，多次獲 Emmy Awards， Peabody Awards, 和若干大學榮譽學位，如果他真是不稱職的，恐怕連2年4個月也做不下來！ 對重要事件的報道是媒體人義不容辭的責任，不能因為報道可能對某一政黨或公職人員有負面影響就認為是故意跟他們過不去甚至惡意攻擊。例如Dan Rather對Abu Ghraib的非法非人道的酷刑的報道就不能說是跟小布希過不去吧？ |
|
|
|
作者：gmuoruo 回復 求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-26 00:33:43 |
|
|
求真知 博，Dan Rather CBS逼辭職，這是鐵板定丁的歷史，我的記憶在這個要點上完全無誤，但你都還要求我來“提供確鑿的證據證明他要負多大的責任“，我怎有辦法讓人“心服口服”？本文拿 Dan Rather 當權威，但卻故意漏掉這件最重要的事，我提醒一下讀者就夠了。 既然做不到 100% 準確，為何還要把 CBS 的“信用”消費在小布什年輕時代的極毛蒜皮的小事上？小布在 2000 年就已當總統，美國人對他年輕時的事已做判斷，Dan Rather 為何四年之後還要窮追不捨？結合 Dan Rather 採訪老布什時違背事先約定而突然襲擊的事，我說他“更是和布什家有私仇的樣子”的推測很合理的。如同推論 CBS，CNN，紐約時報是左媒一樣，CBS 從不承認，但明眼人誰不知道？ 最後，不管是否反越戰，2004 年時小布什的政績如何，媒體都不應該像共黨宣傳部那樣來編故事，搞臭人的方法來“指導”民眾。 以“為了美國和世界的好”當理由來做新聞媒體是極權國家的思維。在自由社會，新聞的職業道德本該是客觀報道事件，而非當政委來指導民眾。 |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-25 13:53:03 |
|
|
gmuoruo兄， 既然要人心服口服，就應該言出有據，少憑記憶或推想，特別是舉手之勞就查得到的事件。您說對不對？ 媒體雖然要求公證，事實上誰也做不到100%。您提的這幾件事，比如：“Dan Rather 更是和布什家有私仇的樣子”，更像是個人推想。 至於“Dan Rather 本人的責任”，如果您能提供確鑿的證據證明他要負多大的責任，願拜讀。 反越戰，不應該肯定嗎？小布希的政績還有爭議嗎？CBS在這些事件上如果說有傾向，難道不是為了美國和世界的好嗎？ |
|
|
|
作者：gmuoruo 回復 求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-25 13:18:41 |
|
|
求真知博，事發的具體時間我是憑記憶，顯然比我記得的更早，但當時的效果是媒體的注意力一下子都轉向小布年輕時的往事， Kerry 的氣勢大漲。 至於Dan Rather 本人的責任，他是CBS新聞部的領軍人物，沒有他的熱心，底下誰會亂來？這也是為什麼事發後他也逼辭職的原因。 你若多了解 CBS 和 Dan Rather 的歷史，就知道 CBS 一直是左媒晚間新聞的旗手。Walter Cronkite 的反越戰 agenda 對美國在越戰時敗共產革命有過重大貢獻，而 Dan Rather 更是和布什家有私仇的樣子，曾在晚間新聞時段採訪老布什時違反事先約定，公開他難堪。而小布什的事到了 2004 年早是舊聞，雞毛蒜皮的事，他還當着黨爭武器追着不放。 而那些文件的真假極易判斷：是用 Microsoft Word 打印出來的。但Rather 雖逼辭，但還是不肯承認文件是偽造的，由此可見他的政治立場對他的新聞職業道德傷害有多深。 |
|
|
|
作者：公孫明 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-25 09:53:36 |
|
|
民主黨過去一二十年間受到幕後操控集團的擺布，用公器購買黑西裔選票進行愚民以奪取政權，胡作非為，徹底變質，才是右派抬頭的關鍵。 |
|
|
|
“政治正確”這詞，自出現到目前為止，有其特定含義。尚不適於作“全靠人們的理解和定義。一個時代有一個時代的“政治正確””這樣的擴展，會造成討論中的概念混亂。 若用“一個時代有一個時代的‘政治正確’”，則須加上“當今時代”、“六十年代”、或“八十年代”的“政治正確”，現還無必要特意引向這樣的累贅吧。 |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 23:15:20 |
|
|
回gmuoruo兄： 您不會以為Dan Rather 自己一個人準備這個報道吧？CBS這麼大個主要電視台，Dan Rather 這個擔綱主角，沒有一個團隊在幕後是不可想象的。怎麼應該是Dan Rather一人擔全部責任？ The man who delivered the copies, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard and outspoken Bush critic, claimed that he burned the originals. Burkett admitted lying to CBS and USA Today about where he had obtained the papers and eventually expressed doubts of his own about their authenticity. CBS播出這條新聞是September 8, 2004，大選是在11月份，這哪裡是您說的：“他急忙忙地在大選前幾天向全美國公告”？而且在九月20日，CBS就公開承認所報有誤，正如有擔當的媒體應該做的，離大選還有一個多月！ CBS and Dan Rather initially defended the documents and the report,[63] but on September 20, 2004 less than two months before Election Day, CBS News stated that it had been "misled" and that it could not authenticate the documents and should not have used them. |
|
|
|
作者：gmuoruo 回復 求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 19:48:55 |
|
|
當然不是他本人製造的，但是他急忙忙地在大選前幾天向全美國公告。他騙了沒錯，但如果不是他願意被騙，那麼低級的假文件能騙誰？ |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 19:38:39 |
|
|
回gmuoruo兄： 已經說了，不是他捏造的，也給了連接。您可以移步去看一下嗎？ |
|
|
|
作者：gugeren |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 19:37:49 |
|
|
那位神經外科醫生、共和黨候選人之一Ben Carson被川普任命為住房部部長。他明顯是有色人種的後裔： http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/ben-carson-may-be-the-perfect-trump-hud-secretary.html 另外，川普還任命了2位女部長。 |
|
|
|
作者：gmuoruo 回復 求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 19:32:53 |
|
|
小布什的Air National Guard的服務文件至今找不全，所以 Dan Rather 就幫忙製造一些在選前幾天公布？紐約時報大概是從他那學來的，選前找人來指控川普在頭等艙性侵女人。 民主社會該害怕的不是川普，而是喪失職業道德的媒體。 |
|
|
|
作者：求真知 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 19:05:57 |
|
|
Dan Rather 是公認的最傑出的新聞人之一，不是一天兩天，而是24年！（如果不計被迫提早退休）。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather 所謂的 Killian documents事件，根本不是Dan Rather捏造的，是否被設計爭論至今。如果說對當年的事件不熟悉，隨手都可以查到。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy 小Bush在Air National Guard的服務文件記錄至今找不全。不少他自己說參加過的訓練被證明不實。 Bush had completed five years, four months, and five days toward his six-year service obligation. In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. |
|
|
|
自己的一些想法： 1】那時（《人權法案》公布前）種族歧視還盛行時，人們當然不會真地說，種族歧視就是“政治正確”，因為它不符合美國憲法精神和《獨立宣言》“人生來平等”；但是那時人們就是認為白人至上、其他少數族裔低等是正常的，是政治上正確的，特別是在那些以前蓄奴的南方州里。 2】什麼是“政治正確”？全靠人們的理解和定義。一個時代有一個時代的“政治正確”，可以完全不一樣，甚至完全相反。 3】種族歧視不像服裝的流行，過一段時間後，不流行的衣服會再重新復出。種族歧視一旦被唾棄，就永遠不得翻身了，就像皇權貴族那樣，永遠被人們拋棄了。可能人們會對某些具體族裔的個人有一些偏見，但不太會對整個族裔或人群都產生歧視的。估計那些年輕人就是發生這樣的種族歧視問題吧？他們還沒有那麼了解這個世界呢。 4】因此，抽象地談論政治正確，還不如直接談論反種族歧視，談論平等、民主、自由，那樣還清楚和容易得多。 |
|
|
|
作者：gmuoruo |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 14:27:25 |
|
|
Dan Rather 的履歷一定不能少了 2004 年總統選舉前幾天造假陷害小布什這最重要的一條，也因此害得 CBS 不得不逼他辭職。 為了政治而喪失職業道德是民主社會最大的危害，也是這次主流左媒被美國選民拋棄的最大原因。 要看看紐約時報的 Jessica Leeds 謊言怎麼收場，也許川普寬宏大量，放他們一馬？ |
|
|
|
作者：無雲夜空 |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 14:13:33 |
|
|
歧視會被宣傳教育或政治正確遏制，但是目前還無法消除，甚至有抬頭，倒退也是正常的。歧視的消除有賴於被歧視民族或種族的復興、貢獻、融合等的成功。 |
|
|
|
誰都知道有過“白人至上、黑人和少數族裔低等”的年代，離現今不過數十年。可那曾被普遍稱為政治正確，還是用的其他名稱？ |
|
|
|
“政治正確這詞從出現以來，與“平等民主自由思想的宣傳和培植”，基本上是在同道上。” 兩者不等於的哦！ 理由在下面： “那時的“政治正確”，反倒是白人至上、黑人和少數族裔低等。” 那時，主張“黑白（人）平等”才是異類；白人主張“黑白平等”也要被同儕覺得是叛徒之類的人。 可以找找反映當時情況的電影和書籍看看。 |
|
|
|
不指望會有什麼能“保證種族歧視現象不出現”。 政治正確這詞從出現以來，與“平等民主自由思想的宣傳和培植”，基本上是在同道上。 |
|
|
|
“據悉The Southern Poverty Law Center has received reports of over 700 incidents of harassment with over 40% occurring in K-12 and college settings.” 相信，成年人即使有種族優越感，想弄種族歧視那一套，他/她會知道等待他/她的會是什麼結果。 這才是這種問題主要發生在年輕人身上的原因吧？年輕人可能還沒有考慮得那麼遠，那麼細。 |
|
|
|
但是，但是，“政治正確”能保證種族歧視現象不出現？ 要保證種族歧視現象不再出現，還是要靠平等民主自由思想的宣傳和培植。 證明： 當年馬丁路德金他們取得平等權利的勝利，靠得並不是什麼“政治正確”。那時的“政治正確”，反倒是白人至上、黑人和少數族裔低等。 |
|
|
|
難道如今不是反“政治正確”喧囂塵上？而反種族主義是政治正確的頭條。 據悉The Southern Poverty Law Center has received reports of over 700 incidents of harassment with over 40% occurring in K-12 and college settings. 當然我也相信種族主義終難得逞重來。 |
|
|
|
作者：gugeren |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 09:17:26 |
|
|
當然，像Dan Rather那樣對種族主義保持警惕是對的，但是也不需要弄到草木皆兵的程度。 |
|
|
|
作者：gugeren |
|
留言時間：2016-11-24 09:14:42 |
|
|
應該相信，現在已經不是拘禁日裔美國人的時代，不是麥卡錫時代，也不是黑人當年爭取平權運動的時代。 絕大多數的現代美國人，從幼兒園起，就接受平等民主自由精神的薰陶。他們視種族主義為怪物，認為種族主義是人類的天敵。 看吧，時間將證明我的這個結論的正確！ |
|
|
|
|
