平西王子发声明了

beiwang002

李宇春 发表于 2012-10-5 21:07
下到死棋还不认输就没意思了
薄熙来的屁股肯定是不干净的，徐明为什么被逮捕协助调查？薄的夫人为什么要 ...

你既然这么相信新闻联播，很好啊。薄在东北如何，王在东北如何东北人最清楚。这些年以来主政大连的官员你可以去问大连人哪个最好，你问100个，可以看看支持比例。或者在重庆问问也可以，我去重庆次数不少，直接间接都问过。

王不是300万么，怎么成400万了。当年王在东北打黑时我也在东北，我想说的是王石提着头以及一家老小的命在干这个，只要往稍微放人一马，立马一千万送给王，你信么？当年90年代王的人头就是500万，他家人的命也过百万，王被枪打刀扎的几次差点没死了，长时间昏迷已经准备追悼会了，这样的人你让我相信他收人几百万，反正我是不信的。

其实你这个分赃不均的说法很好啊，很合情理。开始西西河上就有人出主意说用这个剧本，这个剧本漏洞少多了。

beiwang002

另外为什么这么多公子们只有毛少将和瓜瓜最出镜，经常要被人拿到显微镜下来看。为什么某些公子就很少见。
毛少将看上去有些傻，似乎也真傻。那么毛的聪明的后人呢？远新不傻，结果呢，可见还是傻的好。
对于瓜瓜，海外今天报道开一辆法拉利，明天报道其实是一辆保时捷，价值数万美元；今天和晓丹，明天和洪博培女儿，今天住月租2500一月的，明天住3000一月的。
哪怕这些都是真的，3000美元一月的公寓、八万美元的车比一个县长公子如何？比色总如何？比大春哥如何？

舆论都是被控制的，你看到的只是别人让你看到的而已。
那些被洗脑了还以为很清醒的人很多。





敏感部分已编辑，剩下看大意吧。

beiwang002

上楼很危险，10min后我自己编辑

rapidfire

真有相信薄熙来是再世包青天的傻逼？

精神病人

已报警

beiwang002

rapidfire 发表于 2012-10-5 22:05
真有相信薄熙来是再世包青天的傻逼？

中央委员、政治局委员这种在政治上还有可能再往上时都会小心谨慎，不想被抓住小辫子的。你真以为他们是靠受贿的？
某私募基金一直走在政策最前沿，投资几千万，回报过百亿套住无数股民的笑而不语。

北京的陈是受了各种国内外友人馈赠的酒、钢笔等礼物未交公，作价50多万的，王雪冰一天就给國镓赚几亿美金的最后因为朋友送的几块手表作价100万RMB判了10年，上海陈是200多万。

笑三烽

beiwang002

这人好幼稚啊，

薄西来作为政治局委员，封江大吏，红二代，而且有机会作主席和总理的人。

如果不是问题太大了无论什么样的政治斗争，GCD都不愿意爆出来的，而且爆出来的只能是冰山一角。


这是会影响到GCD统治根基的。 想想看，一个能当总理主席的人居然是个杀人放火，贪污收贿，乱搞男女关系的恶棍？

什么样的政治斗争会让GCD不惜动摇统治基础去掰到薄西来？

不要忘记了下一任主席跟薄西来一样都是红二代。

GCD爆出来的只能说是薄西来一部分问题。

songboss

大半夜看到一个sb 晕死

笑三烽

王竝軍是载染着红顶子的警察，打黑扫黑他才有机会升职。你以为他谁的钱都敢说？ 黑老大送点钱就不打了？这些人的钱都是些把柄，只有部分低B警察才会去收黑社会的钱。

北京亲戚收房子你以为是什么远房亲戚啊， 不是儿子就是老婆或者弟弟。 只是GCD没有直说而已。明眼人一看就知道了。。 这个SB还傻呼呼的以为哪个编个理由搞王竝軍下台。

freesea

不是说影帝家族还有300亿么，他们只是贪多贪少的问题。
欲加之罪何患无辞

国妓米兰

beiwang002 发表于 2012-10-5 22:17
中央委员、政治局委员这种在政治上还有可能再往上时都会小心谨慎，不想被抓住小辫子的。你真以为他们是 ...

你已经开始跟你前面说的驴头不对马嘴了

国妓米兰

beiwang002 发表于 2012-10-5 19:31
呵呵，我出去玩了才回来。5毛说谁？
我，伏哭叛徒的吊客而已。算5毛么？如果算，请转5水晶。

打没打脸你自己知道，你是有多自卑？不是说黑就是打脸

历史论坛跟实时新闻完全是2回事，几百年前没有完整记录清楚的倳件给随便编造很难查证，现在的全球新闻造假不出多久就会给其他利益冲突的媒体出来打假来吸引眼球了，根本不用你着急

靠不靠谱不是你坐那里一个人憋着脑袋想出来的，那里面毕竟还是各种不同有reference和citation

维基百科创始人自己关于资料可信度也在quora也澄清过
维基百科里面的资料不是你最后寻找的终点，而是一个起点。

=========================================================
就连《经济学人》这种涉及到中国的消息也在拿微博一本正经的说事。
=========================================================
这句实在看不懂

国妓米兰

beiwang002 发表于 2012-10-5 20:36
算了，不说这个话题了。还是那些平时对新闻联播最嗤之以鼻的人最相信新闻联播了。说白了，还是选择性相信而 ...

要翻墙也不是叫你去看破轮子的网站

你还是学学英文找到英文链接再来发吧

国妓米兰

beiwang002 发表于 2012-10-5 20:19
关键是国外媒体自己就各种矛盾。而且在这件事上难得各种形形色色的声音都开始和党中央保持一致了，不能 ...

英美媒体、美国之音、自由亚洲

后面2个根本不能代表你所谓的英美媒体，更别提你每次都把墙外轮子信息来源等同与“海外媒体了”

国妓米兰

beiwang002 发表于 2012-10-5 20:36
算了，不说这个话题了。还是那些平时对新闻联播最嗤之以鼻的人最相信新闻联播了。说白了，还是选择性相信而 ...

我在telegraph找到了这个原文，根本没有提到你转的那个地址里面那些破轮子的事

多学点英语少看点破轮子吧

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/new ... chinese-foundation/

Cambridge University has accepted ￡3.7m from a Chinese foundation to endow a new professorship into Development Studies. In these cash-strapped times for higher education in Britain, it is easy to think we should be cheering such developments. But in this case there is cause for grave misgivings.
You can read a full report here, but the key fact is this: the donation has been given by a completely unknown, anonymous Chinese foundation called “Chong Hua”.
Who are they? Well it’s impossible to know. Chong Hua has no website, no listed office in Britain, no record of its funding, no published list of trustees, no public mission statement. It is completely and utterly opaque. Cambridge, despite repeated requests by The Telegraph and academics within the University, refuses to shed light on who, or what, is Chong Hua.
Their spokesman says that the donation has been “scrutinised formally by the executive committee of our university council” and that “our investigation did not identify any link between this private foundation and the Chinese Government”.
That is not good enough. Having spent the last three years in China, I can report from experience that the China is chock full of foundations and companies that are impossible to fathom. Ownership, even of publicly quoted companies, is almost never clear; due diligence is virtually impossible to perform, which is why Cambridge must show transparency on this “investigation” for it to be credible.
There is another reason to demand clarity about this donation.
The don who is due to be the first recipient of the Chong Hua professorship is Peter Nolan, a well-respected China academic, who also happens to have published a book and several papers with Liu Chunhang, the son-in-law of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister.
Mr Liu, 40, is currently the head of both the statistics and research departments at the China Bank Regulatory Commission, highly influential positions in a country where all major banks are owned by the state. Professor Nolan is also said by colleagues, including one I spoke to in China, to have taught Wen Ruchun, the daughter of Wen Jiabao.
Unfortunately, Professor Nolan won’t accept questions from the press, but since this donation emanates from a world run on the basis of guanxi – connections and favours – the need for clarity over a donation is all the more pressing.
The reality is that rising China is a highly authoritarian, state-capitalist entity whose ideological underpinning is almost diametrically opposed to that of the West. It is currently spending untold amounts of money– we can’t know how much, but like everything else in China it’s a state secret – on its "soft power", projecting an image abroad that (I can vouch from experience) is at odds with the reality at home.
The world desperately needs dialogue with China, but it must be on the level.
If China wants to come and make its case, openly, for the Beijing consensus and its development model, for its internet censorship, land grabs and extra-judicial detentions that it says are a necessary evil for growth and stability, then that should be encouraged.
But allowing unknown, undeclared Chinese entities to fund a Professorial chair of Chinese development at Cambridge is not a wise course of action.