Shane's photo caption - AM class
Photo1: Numbers of passengers are detained because of
Stringent security restrictions at Britain's airport.
Photo1: Numbers of passengers are detained because of
Stringent security restrictions at Britain's airport.
Dear Aiden: there's a problem about recording. I have recorded 46 secs totally, however, there's only 20 secs playing. I tried it many times and it still happened. therefore,i put the whole draft on. the following is my whole draft: I don't think Taiwan should have a woman president at present. For one thing, there's no suitable woman candidate in Taiwan just now. For Taiwan women, they have less political ambitious than men. On the other hand, there are many chauvinists in Taiwan. If the president of Taiwan was a woman, there will be some barriers in front of her. Therefore, I don't support that Taiwan should have a woman president. Lillian
This email also contains a video message. To play the video message, go to the bottom of this email and click on the 'Play Message' button.
yes, Taiwan should have a woman president. In England they had a woman president and she was very well on politics and economy. She helped her country went out the economic crisis and showed women also can be a good president. This was a famous news and showed women and men don't have different. So, why can't we have a woman president
Yes, Taiwan should have a woman president.Since if a female person is clever,decisive and responsible or if a woman's ability is above men, why not a woman cannot be a president!If a woman is good at coping with everything or leading, then she can make good use of her ability to work for the country.It is not a bad thing, isn't it?
Go to http://www.springdoo.com and record your voice message. Answer the question:
My opinion is yes. You must pay a heavy price for everything, I mean " crimes." If you do so, you will pay a heavy price for it. But I think the Three Strikes law only use for some crimes not all of them. Cause not all the crimes can use this way. The serious crimes I don't think can follow this way, should use other way for it. By the way must have a rule for the Three Strikes law, must not only decide by a judge. If sentence to a person by a judge, it will have trouble. dear Aiden: I'm sorry cause my online didn't work untill this morning and I work in the market untill 10 o'clock. (this paragraph don't copy on the blog....ha ha ha~^-^")
In my point of view, I don't think the Three Strikes Law should be used to send nonviolent criminals. The government should try to help them fix their problems and lead them to the right track. However, I don't think the criminals have the right to suspect the properness of the Three Strikes Law. They've been given two chances, but they didn't appreciate them. The convicts deserve the penalties they've got.
Betty
I consider that the Three Strikes law should be used to send nonviolent criminals to prison for their whole life. Take this news story for example, Leandro Andrade committed burglary. He said he was never a violent person. He just had a drug problem. Actually, I not totally agree with him, because every effect supposes a cause. I wonder about Leandro Andrade why he had a drug problem. Does he feel unhappy? Or is he a man who can't control himself? It's hard to say. Even if Leandro Andrade is a kind person, he may do everything when he needs money to relieve his drug addiction. Maybe he burglarized someone's home last time. We can't imagine what he will do next time. Therefore, we have to end off Three Strikers' opportunity of commiting a crime. Also, those Three Strikers should be given chance to parole.
I think the Three Strikes law shouldn't be used to send nonviolent criminals to prison for the rest of their lives. In that sending people to jail is not a good way to reduce crime and people who commit nonviolent crimes should not suffer from Three Strikes. In other words, Three Strikes should be used by those who commit violent or serious crimes. After all, violent criminals are much worse and wicked than nonviolent criminals. As a result, I assume sending nonviolent criminals to prison for the rest of their lives is unfair, unreasonable and is not deterrent.