正如心理學家或名嘴李奧（Lehrer）在『公視台』請到的兩位女政治溝通學家所言﹕每件事﹐在每個人觀﹐幾乎都有不同看法評價。
奧婆馬在辯論時的的『笑』﹐在太婆看是『冷血痞子笑』﹐在紐約時報名記者布魯克看﹐就是冷靜﹑泰然自信﹐有領袖風度﹔反之﹐馬坎表情﹐是有情有義﹖還是毛躁而有侵略性﹖
伊娘列﹗搞啥學術術語分析﹐還是如歪市長要求的『高中化』﹐一句台灣話『一種米養百種人』﹐不就有一個無人可辯的結論﹐放諸四海而皆準嗎﹖
昨夜十一點半至凌晨一點半﹐觀老美國會眾議長『賠了兮』（Nancy Pelosi）女士﹐接受查理。羅士訪問。感觸很深﹐一早蒐尋﹐對此一採訪﹐連個鬼文件都尚未成文﹑成影碟﹔只見一些老美（引用的網站﹐其主持人或網民﹐絕對高出聯網的水準）﹐在那兒用哲盡理﹐就摘錄幾則供參。
太公一早花三小時﹐急著找有關此談話的文件報導。只是很惋惜的﹐看來觀去﹐有人提到議長是一天內﹐方被告知『七千億法案』的必要性﹔卻無人提到賠了兮議長兩個極關鍵的談話﹐以為歷史作實踐見証的言辭﹕
【一】當天下午三點﹐就『七千億法案』事﹐賠了兮回電話給破筍﹐盼緊急聯絡重要國會大老﹐最早隔天清晨九點會商﹔破筍『騷性』已發﹐回說『屁尿半天不能忍﹐要她馬上見面﹐公幹決事。』
【二】在『七千億法案』被眾院第一次拒絕前﹐賠了兮說明民主黨的立場﹐盼布希加入『照顧一般人水電匠Joe 』的補助條文﹐有利通過﹔布希回說﹕『您去說服他（按指財長破筍）﹐再來告訴我。』這是布希有充分授權的長官風格﹖還是『美國小馬』﹐也有不拈鍋的手﹖太公弗知﹐也留給他人解答﹐太公的重點﹐不在於此﹐而在﹕
（Ａ）在最後十月三日﹐眾院第二次投票﹐通過史上最大七千億凱子花錢法案前﹐依賠了兮的回憶陳述﹐聯儲會主席笨拉圾﹐能接納考慮她所提『資本投資』（capital investment）﹐態度較開放﹐破筍則完全拒絕﹐堅持該款﹐是要用在向銀行購買壞帳（bad assets）。
她說﹐在法律通過後﹐七千億撥款法案的主旨﹐的確在讓破筍買爛貸款呆帳之類的壞頭寸。破筍一直沒有改變這個接觸決事的approach﹔但是今天﹐她很高興﹐破筍改變心意﹐轉變取向﹐事情總算回到她們民主黨最初的構想﹕『購買銀行股東利益』（take equity position to invest: to take stakes in banks）。
（Ｂ）當然﹐在這兒﹐賠了兮是故意有點扭曲﹐將其原先說詞“Buying bank stocks”﹐弄成『資本投資』。國人看出二者之異乎﹖如果您觀念清楚﹐知道何謂股市的ＩＰＯ及“After Market”﹐您知太公何謂﹔也知現在破筍的新策﹐並不是賠了兮原先談判時所要的『投資』立場。但這也是枝節﹐重要的是﹐又是何種因素﹐讓堅強的破筍態度軟化呢﹖
太公在主欄文﹐有一個推理﹕『這非醇酒美女能成﹐只有一棍棒喝方可』﹔在撰主文當時﹐太公是依自己學識﹑經驗﹑情勢﹐作出哲理推斷﹐不符現代科學實証研究法則。而今聞賠了兮談話﹐事實証實有人給破筍一頭悶棒。
誰給那一棍呢﹖有多少人呢﹖在何時給的呢﹖太公不是零零七﹐不知道詳情細節。但是﹐最少太公知道﹐那持棒人﹐絕對不是來自國人自己膨風﹐『成世界經濟火車頭』的中國。【註﹕北京老大哥胡﹑溫哥﹐主張和平崛起﹐與人為善﹐提供二千億共襄盛舉﹐都來不及﹐那會如太公扮黑臉呢﹖】
依賠了兮昨晚最新的查理。羅士談話﹐太公至少知道一個黑臉人﹐蓋賠了兮明白指出﹐就是英國首相布朗。
唉﹗太公長嘆﹕天下烏鴨一般黑﹐老中老外一般心﹕洋和尚會唸經喔﹗
I heard Nancy Pelosi excuse herself of all responsibility for everything going on in our economy. She even made a comment that she only found out how bad things were ONE DAY before it was all going to hit the fans. I sure would hate to be one of her constituents if she has been so clueless these past 8 years. She also avoided the question of whether or not the Wall Street big wigs should be punished for this crisis. Is it to save face with her donors? She did nothing but play the blame game and made herself look ignorant in the process.
We have a serious problem, there is no leadership in Washington and he two candidates do not offer a solution to that problem.
Pelosi seemed to hedge Charlies query about punishing the irresponsible parties, with the effect that we need to solve the immediate problem. Charlie let her off. The lobby is too powerful. The venal whores are all in bed together. We the taxpayers and our progeny will be billed for the CDSs in excess of $150 trillion(?). Which if that is the size of the true 'net-cost' it is obviously impossible, which says it has to go dishonored, which says total collapse for years while trust and a new system is rebuilt.
Charlie Rose interviews Nancy Pelosi and there are only 14 comments!!! Charlie didn't ask her about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their ties to the economic meltdown. Not a word from Charlie on Chris Dodd's sweetheart loan from Countrywide, and all the campaign contributions to Obama and Dodd by Fannie Mae. What happened to real journalism and its responsiblity in protecting the citizenry of America. Do these political egos like Pelosi demand certain questions not be asked? MMMMM I wonder. Journalism, as we knew it, is DEAD!
Was surfing the channels and came across the Charlie Rose interview of Pelosi. It was the first time I had ever seen her interviewed. I now have even more fear about the future of this great country. The woman needed a couple of valium to quiet her down, she speaks in talking points, flails and wrings her hands, and gives the appearance of a total nervous wreck. Can you imagine her third in line to the Presidency? It won't be God damn America; it will be God save America! Rose also failed to ask her about her low approval rating of 14%, why she never includes nuclear power in her energy plans, two years of Democrat control of Congress with no accomplishment, her personal investments in Pickens' wind turbines, and where in the hell all of the money is coming from to pay for all of her proposals. Add to that the $trillion Obama plans to spend! She says it is a moral responsibility to curb global warming because it is God's planet, yet she finds it just fine to abort babies at will....I found her to appear on the verge of mental meltdown..God save America!
I have written in before that Charlie's programs are exceptional and greatly needed. This long interview tonight was so important - I can't empahsize enough the value of this interview with Pelosi to thinking Americans. We need this information NOW and this is the reliably best place to look first for it!! It seems many do not realize our government was designed to work about the way it is working. It's messy and hard. Nancy's right - if it is not bipartisan it is not sustainable. She's right - I don't recognize in this GOP the party I grew up with either. I'm a 70 year old veteran of corporate America. I have the luxury of spending 4-5 hours a day on state and national politics. Up to now the citizens have not been pulling their weight and the special interests had a void to fill. Shame on us. NPR - never let anything hamper the team that brings us this program. We need it every day.
Unfortunately Bernanke is completely wrong in his understanding of the Depression, and I rather doubt, if Friedman were still alive, he would agree with this course of action, at least the Friedman of the 1960-70s would. Rather than buying stock in the banks, the Treasury could have bought the bank's bonds. Surely that would have been better. Also you simply cannot "prevail" and "be number one" in a free-trade system. Nobody can. Free-trade stems from the old Physiocratic idea of circular flow. What goes around, comes around. It doesn't work if some of it is siphoned off. All the rest of the world expects of us is to pay our bills. Doing that is the best road to world peace, as well as, prosperity. The neo-cons are, indeed, not old Republicans, they are old Democrats, and they'll be just the same if they go back. I have to say in regard to politics that we would be better off as a NO party system. There are too many "parties" in Washington already.
Ms Pelosi seems to have her talking points memorized and is reciting them. Does she have a clear idea about the financial crisis? In my opinion, she has about as clear an idea as to the causes and possible fixes for the financial solution as she does about Global Warming and the impending energy crisis. Nancy Pelosi said, "I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels." -'Meet the Press' transcript for August 24, 2008, interview with Tom Brokaw http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26377338/page/3/ Her solution to everything these days? Obama the Messiah. (Question: does using a full can of hairspray each and every day cause your brain cells to evaporate? Or does the hairspray helmet keep them contained?)
Very disturbing, a complete lack of accountability for the role of congress in the current economic downturn and more partisan political half-truths and blatant lies. Fact: Clinton pressured banks into loaning to subprime borrowers raising concerns published as early as '99 which fell on deaf ears in Congress, some would argue especially among democrats but that's not the point, they all did nothing. Many financial 'experts' have stated publicly that this is the root cause of where we are today. I would really appreciate an elected official with the character to stand up and say "we've done a disservice to the american people and we apologize" but instead they continue to focus on pointing the finger at the other side at the expense of our nation. There must be a few of them that actually care more about the future of our nation than about their side winning the next election but it would take too long to sort them out from the rest of the crooks. Fire them all!
I have two areas of questions ; 1) The problems have hit many groups, but most of all those ready to retire. We have lost the equity in our homes and for the last 8 months the inability to sell our homes. What special financial steps or bank loans are being organized for home owners over 60? 2) There seems to be a question of criminal negligence in these financial dealings. ...We neeed to ask not only politicians -and a lot are lawyers -but legal people in this field if they will appear?
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
回應給：
