Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
I simply skip their postings (often long winded) whenever I see trolls posting here. No offence to them , its just that I already know their motive and simply have no time to waste on trollism. They are the worst forms of existence.
Not everyone who sends long posts are trolls. I agree with you that trolls are the worst form of existence. Trolls are a waste of cyber space. Not all are smart to spot trolls.
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
I simply skip their postings (often long winded) whenever I see trolls posting here. No offence to them , its just that I already know their motive and simply have no time to waste on trollism. They are the worst forms of existence.
Atobe is a complete write-off for me. He is only capable for writing long fairytale-like
essay which most people dont write, because most of the time, he cant back up what he said with facts. If you believe him, then you will have to believe the following as well.
1) Singaporeans will not benefit from the IRs
2) Main objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes.
3) Singapore economy to will become Monaco.
4) The reason why Genting won the IR bid is because of PM Badawi "secret" visit
5) Rich people migrating to Singapore are like Singaporeans going to JB to buy cheap grocery and food.
6) Mcdonald marketing strategy is to get kids addicted to their burger and fries and they will eat till they die.
7) MICE activities in Singapore will not benefit Singaporeans.
8 ) When visitors and tourist comes Singapore, they will only do 2 things. spend money at Marina Bay Sands and RWS
9) Countries like Malaysia and Shanghai are losing money hosting F1
10 ) there were multiple PM Badawi visits to Singapore before and after the Sentosa IR announcement.
12) Chinese in China cant afford to watch F1
13) Malaysians earning in Ringgit cannot afford to watch F1
14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000
so?
Originally posted by O o O:
Atobe is a complete write-off for me. He is only capable for writing long fairytale-likeessay which most people dont write, because most of the time, he cant back up what he said with facts. If you believe him, then you will have to believe the following as well.
1) Singaporeans will not benefit from the IRs
2) Main objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes.
3) Singapore economy to will become Monaco.
4) The reason why Genting won the IR bid is because of PM Badawi "secret" visit
5) Rich people migrating to Singapore are like Singaporeans going to JB to buy cheap grocery and food.
6) Mcdonald marketing strategy is to get kids addicted to their burger and fries and they will eat till they die.
7) MICE activities in Singapore will not benefit Singaporeans.
8 ) When visitors and tourist comes Singapore, they will only do 2 things. spend money at Marina Bay Sands and RWS
9) Countries like Malaysia and Shanghai are losing money hosting F1
10 ) there were multiple PM Badawi visits to Singapore before and after the Sentosa IR announcement.
12) Chinese in China cant afford to watch F1
13) Malaysians earning in Ringgit cannot afford to watch F1
14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000
so?
Let me summarise wat is your claim
1) U have a great misunderstanding of the passage
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.
And u give many unfair and invalid conclusions.
1.1) U claim tat I said singapore is gonna "collapse" in the first line
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Any proper person reading tis line can conclude tat I am disagreeing with your hypothesis tat singapore is gonna collapse. I am mentioning on YOUR theory, and I conclude it is a wild guess. And u can interprete tat as me agreeing singapore is gonna collapse ? Your attempt to discredit me is pretty juvenile and borders on poor comprehensive skill
1.2) U have a problem with the word "implosion"
Let me ask u one thing, tell me the differences in the idea between
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
Any fair person reading tis 2 sentences can get the same idea and conclude the same result. However since u do not have any good points to argue, u just focus on the choice of word "implosion" and talk about tis for nearly 7 pages of replies. Tat is really childish. Your foolishness has really led u into dedicating thousands and thousand of words just dwelling on the choice of word "implosion" and "explosion". And tis word is simply a metaphor and strictly speaking singaporean r not gonna "explode" nor "implode". It really show u have nothing much else to say and tis is lame to the extreme
1.3) U do not agree with the choice of words "wild guess"
Lets look back at your previous statement on page 2
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
Now wat is your claim in the above reply. First, u claim tat the pent up pressure is gonna result in a "krakatoa volcanic outburst", resulting in sudden political swings tat become unpredictable. Tis resulting in singapore having a poorer political stability than china and pose a bigger risk to CEO tat invest in singapore compared with other countries.
U see, tis is nothing but a hypothesis, a prediction of the future. U have no evidence tat support your stand and u blurted it out as though it is a fact. Since it is a hypothesis tat has no justification, it is a "wild guess". Unless u can prove out your hypothesis with concrete evidence now, it is a wild guess
1.4) And this exchange prompted u to claim I make a "wild guess" on china political system being corrupted.
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
When I explained that it is not a wild guess and even Hu Jintao acknowledged to the problem, u begin to attack on me claiming I have made a conclusion on china collapse. And the line is
They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there.
This sentence merely say tat business tat invested in china faces probems before such as backtracking of promises (suzhou industrial park) and copy of design and sell it in another name (LV). There is no statement here tat claimed china is gonna collapse. "They" in the statement represent china official and "u" represent a fake CEO which u implied yourself to be. There is no other way u can understand from the above statement. I have been pointing out tis fact repeatedly but u r just not honest and sincere in your debate and just repeat and repeat without reading at all.
1.5) After which u come out with a report claiming tat china had more investment in singapore, then u claim tat I said political stability is the most important primary consideration for industries to invest.
My stand has always been below
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
Throughout the whole thread, I have never said tat political stability is the most important consideration and there r also important such as market size and low cost. I also never claimed singapore got more investment than china. In many of the replies, u try to discredit me with some of the replies I had made but obviously u fail since "particularly important" and "important" is not equal to the most important considerations. U also claimed I had flip flop from my stand which u again never proved it out.
I have also repeatedly asked u why does industries still relocate to singapore despite many disadvantages which I had asked since page 3 and u never reply until possibly page 7. Does tat show your sincerity in the debate ?
1.6) After 7 pages and tons of insults, verbal abuses and flip flopping, u finally come out with one relevant point. U reply tat singapore attract many industries because they offer tax cut and other initial bonus. However one need to realise tat despite the tax cut, singapore is still more expensive to invest than other regional countries. Then why do investors still choose singapore ?
1.7) U have repeatedly deny tat political stabilty had any importance in attracting business. Tis is an absurb stand tat already sounds ridiculous. I bring out the example of zimbabwe which had poor political stabilty and almost no companies ever invest in it. However u twisted the whole example by stating china had invested in it. I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not. Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ? Another wild guess of yours ?
Looking at the business in zimbabwe, the latest report shows EU had adopted sanctions against companies investing in zimbabwe on the 22 Jul
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL2222029._CH_.2400
So u think the companies which u stated in jun, and a lot of them r charged before or providing arms from china, r gonna be safe ? U probably give a classic example of wat happened when u invest in countries tat r not political stable
Then u bring out printer firms investing in malaysia and thailand etc. U r again arguing out of the original context. It is impossible for ALL companies to invest in singapore. Just because u name some companies not investing in singapore doesn't means singapore is not attractive. I can also name hundreds of companies tat does not invest in china. Does tat means china is not attractive as well ? There r always some companies tat decidecd to invest in other countries and according to your report, it is the third in attracting investment over. Tat is already an impressive figure for a country tat small
2) Right minded
2.1) I have stated the argument on your right minded repeatedly however u refuse to comment on it. Even when I have given the definition of right minded in the dictionary, u still insist tat I did not understand the phase. R u gonna tell me your "definition" of right minded people is completely different from the dictionary ? Since the definition from the dictionary is given, wat is stopping u from discussing tis topic ? Have u even read the below replies ? The question is never on "wat is right minded", but "can all singaporean be right minded".
2.2) Surprisingly, throughout the exchange u just use my log in name as a basis of attack. Tat is not only childish, it is also lame. I like to use the name "stupidissmart", and wat has tat got to do with u ? Do u think a rational debater will literally use "name calling" during debate like u did ? However u seem to be proud of using such a low class attack on people.
2.3) The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
2.4) Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
These are all your assumptions - based on your own beliefs that everybody make false claims in politics.
Then how do u explain the examples above ? I can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics and surprisingly u did not know
2.5). U response
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
Are you suggesting that most Singaporeans cannot be "right minded" - based on the dictionary explanation of what "right minded" is that you should have concluded much earlier ?
Whether is "most" people right minded, tat is very hard to say since your standard of right minded people is set pretty high. In fact, if according to your standard of right minded, they do not make any false claim, stand up against false claims etc, even president and senior officers failed,
then most people in the world r not right minded including singapore
2.6). I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded
2.7). Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed
2.8). Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
I am not a coward like u and refuse to answer question or quote examples. Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. According to u yourself, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
U claimed the r not right minded, and they r examples of people tat fit into the challenge earlier. So wat is your answer to tis ?
2.8) And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out. U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using verbal abuses to other people points.
2.9) U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u later try to support these group of people when they protest. Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown. Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?
And wat is youir reply to these allegation ? U just ask me to reread and no explanations is given. I re read and come out with the same conclusion. WHy don't u try to elaborate ?
3) India, Hong Kong and Singapore millionaire
3.1) First, u did not put in china's name int helst with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
3.2) People wanted democracy because it can lead to good lives. However in the case between china and india, u remark tat india slow economic growth is because it does not use democratic practises on its economy while china do. Then isn't tat an irony ? A "democratic economy" is absent in india while a "democratic economy" is present in china and tat result in china being richer and more influential. Then wat is the point ? Tat is the reason for the below statement which u refuse to understand
3.4) It is on the definition of "democratic economy" which u readily give your definition as
U also provide 2 reports tat u tried to link with your example of "democratic economy". As stated previously, there is no link with your definition of "democratic economy" at all. U also pasted another 3 reports on "democratic economy" on the previous reply.
In your first report
This work includes the promotion of the democratization of decision-making and government policies that lead to inclusion and participation, especially of the most vulnerable. It includes defending the rights of people for access to resources for their livelihoods. These processes aim to re-establish the power and accountability of governments to set national social and economic policies that protect and promote the interests of all citizens.
It did not give the idea of "gov" to do as little as possible to the economy. Instead it argues for the gov to do as much as possible to help the people.
On your second report, it again do not reflect tat gov should not intervene in society
There are many core areas of production and many decisions to be made. Could directions in all areas of the economy be subjected to a national referendum? A lot of them could be. This is especially true for decisions concerning the creation or expansion of a new area of production. For example, when nuclear power or genetically engineered food is first being developed, it is eminently practical to have a national (or planetary) referendum on whether citizens want it.
It actually proposed the gov to intervene in decisions making for the country. It also encourages the workers to be more involved in the decision making for the company
Your thirds report cannot be opened.Your fourth report is on zimbabwe and does not even mention the word democratic economy.
So unless u can point out to specific section in your multi reports tat support your definition of "democratic economy", u r just being dishonest and come out with your own definition of the word and twist and turn on it.
3.5) Another point of comtempt is u trying to use your report to show there r more millionaires in hong kong than singapore while I manage to prove tat singapore had a greater proportion of millionaire. Then u pulled out a report claiming hong kong is trying their best to attract millionaires over. During tis time, u have claimed I make a flip flop in mentioning abut your report which it proven to be u reading wrongly into my replies. Since both hong kong and singapore r pulling in millionaires, how do u know who has more millionaires tat r native born ?
U can say tat singapore do pull in more foreigner to be the citizen, however hong kong also pulls in china businessmen into their folds. Chinese from china r not considered to be foreginers but "locals" however they r not natively born in hong kong as well. And the foreigner residing in singapore r more normal people who r not millionaires and come over to seek a better life. So again wat conclusions can we derived ? Nothing.
4) Misc
4.1) Wat happened to the question on whether had u lived in a democracy or not ? Why do u refrained from answering the same question u posed for others ?
4.2) Wat happened to your civil servants discussion ? U claimed tat all civil servants r not allowed to vote and tat is your ideal democratic society. Tis is obviously a wrong conclusion and an unfair mindset. Wat is your comments on tat ?
4.3) Certainly from the posts, one can see tat u give verbal abuses, flip flop between stands, refuse to answer questions which u yourself posted, failed to read other people replies and a complete dishonest person in your debate. U also claimed tat I have not lifted all your passages out. Do u know why ? Because most of your passages r just verbal abuses and a waste of server storage.
Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible.
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
3.3) It is also surprising tat u readily wanna compare countries like hong kong, india with singapore... then feel it is not right to compare hong kong, india with singapore, china... Isn't the latter the more fair comparison since u r comparing between democratic and not democratic economies ? The reason is probably because if u pull china into the picture, u get no conclusion.
I am amazed at your propensity at pursuing your own creativity in redefining your position with each new post, but not surprised that you have resorted to your usual ways of jusitifying your failed points with new clarification and new opinions to what have already been printed.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Let me summarise wat is your claim
1) U have a great misunderstanding of the passage
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.
Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?
Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?
It has always been your claim that is my "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" had appeared in your first reply - [on Pg3 10Jul'08-10.22AM] - to my first print on Pg 2 10Jul'08-1.22AM - which had simply stated:-
[Quote]
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
[UnQuote]
Can this statement of mine be any theory, or is this not your opinion that it is a theory ?
How did you so cleverly inteprete that my quoted statement above is a "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" ?
Is there anywhere in my statement that claim any theory that Singapore will implode, or Singapore will collapse ?
How did you conclude from my statement that Singapore will collapse ?
Is this not your own theory, or opinion, or conclusion to my very simple statement in plain English that you prefer to interprete in your own way ?
And u give many unfair and invalid conclusions.
Unfair and invalid conclusion, or simply inconveneint to your own purpose and agenda in the manner that you wished my replies to be to fit your design ?
If anyone's conclusions are unfair or invalide - it would have been yours in the tormented manner in which you attempt to link unrelated events that you will wilfully insist on bending to your end.
1.1) U claim tat I said singapore is gonna "collapse" in the first line
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Any proper person reading tis line can conclude tat I am disagreeing with your hypothesis tat singapore is gonna collapse. I am mentioning on YOUR theory, and I conclude it is a wild guess. And u can interprete tat as me agreeing singapore is gonna collapse ? Your attempt to discredit me is pretty juvenile and borders on poor comprehensive skill
If you did not said that "singapore is gonna collapse" - what did you mean by the word "implosion" in your statement that "singapore will implode" ?
Are you now disputing that your choice of the word "implode" will result in collapse ?
In your reply on Pg7-18Jul'08-5.45PM - you had offered the meaning for your own choice in the word "implode" -
[Quote]
I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in
[Unqote]
Whose idea was it that suggest Singapore will collapse - was it my opinion stated and quoted above, or was it your own conclusion about my statement being a "theory for Singapore's implosion" ?
1.2) U have a problem with the word "implosion"
Let me ask u one thing, tell me the differences in the idea between
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
Any fair person reading tis 2 sentences can get the same idea and conclude the same result. However since u do not have any good points to argue, u just focus on the choice of word "implosion" and talk about tis for nearly 7 pages of replies. Tat is really childish. Your foolishness has really led u into dedicating thousands and thousand of words just dwelling on the choice of word "implosion" and "explosion". And tis word is simply a metaphor and strictly speaking singaporean r not gonna "explode" nor "implode". It really show u have nothing much else to say and tis is lame to the extreme
Am I supposed to be impressed with the logic in your idiot-logy ?
Was it not your own preferred interpretation and your own conclusion about "singapore's collapse through implosion or explosion" - from my statement that "pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Why did you form your own conclusion about "my theory" - with your own ideas about "implosion" and "explosions" ?
Why have you not ask - what kind of "krakatoa volcanic outburst" can the "pent-up social pressures" lead to ?
1.3) U do not agree with the choice of words "wild guess"
Lets look back at your previous statement on page 2
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
Now wat is your claim in the above reply. First, u claim tat the pent up pressure is gonna result in a "krakatoa volcanic outburst", resulting in sudden political swings tat become unpredictable. Tis resulting in singapore having a poorer political stability than china and pose a bigger risk to CEO tat invest in singapore compared with other countries.
U see, tis is nothing but a hypothesis, a prediction of the future. U have no evidence tat support your stand and u blurted it out as though it is a fact. Since it is a hypothesis tat has no justification, it is a "wild guess". Unless u can prove out your hypothesis with concrete evidence now, it is a wild guess
Did the "wild guesses" start with my first reply on Pg 2-10Jul'08 1.22AM, or was it not a fact that this "wild guess" appeared as printed in your reply on Pg3 10Jul'08 10.22AM ?
I am surprised that you will re-define the basis of your term "wild guesses" with my statement beginning on Page 2.
Why did you not refer to how this statement originated from your prior response to the earlier reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur on Pg 2 09Jul'08-11.49PM - before your reply and also my follow-up reply, all appearing on Pg 2 ?
My reply was based on your response on Pg 2 10Jul'08-12.16AM given to ST's post:-
[Quote]
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.
If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.
[Unquote]
With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-
[Quote]
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?
[UnQuote]
Is the Government insecurity at Elections, and its suppression of any signs of public display of protests - not sufficient proof ?
1.4) And this exchange prompted u to claim I make a "wild guess" on china political system being corrupted.
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
When I explained that it is not a wild guess and even Hu Jintao acknowledged to the problem, u begin to attack on me claiming I have made a conclusion on china collapse. And the line is
They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there.
This sentence merely say tat business tat invested in china faces probems before such as backtracking of promises (suzhou industrial park) and copy of design and sell it in another name (LV). There is no statement here tat claimed china is gonna collapse. "They" in the statement represent china official and "u" represent a fake CEO which u implied yourself to be. There is no other way u can understand from the above statement. I have been pointing out tis fact repeatedly but u r just not honest and sincere in your debate and just repeat and repeat without reading at all.
Are you re-interpreting the perimeters of this exchange to suit your own agenda and preferred outcome ?
Did I attacked you for claiming that China will collapse, or have were you "attacked" for REFUSING to conclude that China's corruption will lead to eventual collapse based on your assumption ?
On Pg 2 of your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur - did you not claim that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
On Pg 3 of your reply dated 10Jul'08 10.22AM - when you first made your remark about your "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" in the opening statement, and continued with your analytical look at China's corruption that leads to "backtrack of previous promises, or copy all your design" - why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
Even in your reply on Pg 3 10Jul'08 1.07PM - you made the following statement - "The premier Hu Jintao stated tat the china biggest problem is dealing with corruption and the increasing gap between the poor and rich. So is hu jin tao guessing ? "
Why did you not also expressed China's Hu Jin Tao's reported concern with China's imminent collapse if corruption continued at such high levels if left unchecked ?
Having referred to China's Hu Jin Tao as a source for the high level of corruption, you can make conclusiong from my statement that Singapore will implode - collapse, but will not conclude that China will collapse from corruption.
Are you reading correctly what I have stated, or did you prefer to make your own conclusion to suit your own agenda ?
1.5) After which u come out with a report claiming tat china had more investment in singapore, then u claim tat I said political stability is the most important primary consideration for industries to invest.
My stand has always been below
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.Throughout the whole thread, I have never said tat political stability is the most important consideration and there r also important such as market size and low cost. I also never claimed singapore got more investment than china. In many of the replies, u try to discredit me with some of the replies I had made but obviously u fail since "particularly important" and "important" is not equal to the most important considerations. U also claimed I had flip flop from my stand which u again never proved it out.
Now are you not redefining your position about China having more factors, when you have always insisted that Singapore's stability is the PLUS factor over all else ?
If you did not say that political stability is most important factor - why will you insist across 7 pages on this point, that began with your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur on Pg 2 - and even mentioned in your above final statement underlined by me ?
With your continued emphasis to Singapore's stability in all your replies across 7 pages, if this "stability" is not a primary factor, what else is there for Singapore to attract foregin investments ?
I have also repeatedly asked u why does industries still relocate to singapore despite many disadvantages which I had asked since page 3 and u never reply until possibly page 7. Does tat show your sincerity in the debate ?
1.6) After 7 pages and tons of insults, verbal abuses and flip flopping, u finally come out with one relevant point. U reply tat singapore attract many industries because they offer tax cut and other initial bonus. However one need to realise tat despite the tax cut, singapore is still more expensive to invest than other regional countries. Then why do investors still choose singapore ?
Now are you being dishonest in your statement ?
Have I not given you any reply, or was the reply given not the required answer that you wish will come from me ?
Are you not attempting to push your answer concerning "Singapore's political stability" ?
Yet, you will be dishonest to claim that this is NOT the PRIMARY FACTOR - which you will even push in your reply which I have quoted in the preceding quote made above ?
Are you NOT flip-flopping on this point alone - as shown in my under-lining of the flip-flop statements in your reply given in the preceding extract of your reply as shown above ?
1.7) U have repeatedly deny tat political stabilty had any importance in attracting business. Tis is an absurb stand tat already sounds ridiculous. I bring out the example of zimbabwe which had poor political stabilty and almost no companies ever invest in it. However u twisted the whole example by stating china had invested in it. I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not. Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ? Another wild guess of yours ?
Now are you being purposefully stupid with your answers ?
Replying this part of your response from the last point upwards -
1. Can China project its military power in the same manner as the US military ? Does China have the same global reach with its military capability being on par with the USA ?
2. China was able to attack Vietnam and India {ove Tibet} - as these two countries share the same common land border, with China's military simply moving across the land frontier. Was there any need for China to cross half-way around the globe ?
3. Did you missed in my reply on Pg 7 that showed reports about UK companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe - and not China as a country but commercial firms ?
Zimbabwe: Camec under fire for doing business with country.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200806170815.html
Telegraph.co.uk - Business and morality: Is Phil Edmonds right to trade with Robert Mugabe ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/15/cczim115.xml
Three options in Zimbabwe for British business
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4252023.ece
4. Here again, at the beginning of this reply that I have quoted - you have again insisted that "political stability" is an IMPORTANT FACTOR. Are you still denying that you are being misquoted ?
Looking at the business in zimbabwe, the latest report shows EU had adopted sanctions against companies investing in zimbabwe on the 22 Jul
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL2222029._CH_.2400
So u think the companies which u stated in jun, and a lot of them r charged before or providing arms from china, r gonna be safe ? U probably give a classic example of wat happened when u invest in countries tat r not political stable
Then u bring out printer firms investing in malaysia and thailand etc. U r again arguing out of the original context. It is impossible for ALL companies to invest in singapore. Just because u name some companies not investing in singapore doesn't means singapore is not attractive. I can also name hundreds of companies tat does not invest in china. Does tat means china is not attractive as well ? There r always some companies tat decidecd to invest in other countries and according to your report, it is the third in attracting investment over. Tat is already an impressive figure for a country tat small
Were the companies given as references in my last reply - and repeated in the preceding paragraph - supplying military arms, or were they already in Zimbabwe before the EU even began to indicate their intention to impose sancetions after the recent Election fraud in Zimbabwe ?
Did these UK companies provide arms from China, or was it not Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe's own preference to deal with China that got his arms deal pulled through ?
Now, are you giving these private commercial companies more credibility when you looked down on them when suggesting that China's investment is due to its own political power compared to the private commerical enterprises ?
Are you now back-tracking on your insistence that CEO's must invest in Singapore due to its "Political Stability" ?
So are you claiming that despite Singapore's "Political Stability" being a PLUS factor - it is NOW "impossible for ALL investments to invest in Singapore" ?
Have you now decided to accept that Singapore's "political stability" being a PLUS FACTOR is not necessary a deciding point that all CEO's must consider ?
2) Right minded
2.1) I have stated the argument on your right minded repeatedly however u refuse to comment on it. Even when I have given the definition of right minded in the dictionary, u still insist tat I did not understand the phase. R u gonna tell me your "definition" of right minded people is completely different from the dictionary ? Since the definition from the dictionary is given, wat is stopping u from discussing tis topic ? Have u even read the below replies ? The question is never on "wat is right minded", but "can all singaporean be right minded".
You must be deluded to read that in my reply on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM - to state that I have refused to comment on your issue.
Did you missed the main part of the argument - that was stated as:- "Can 'Right minded' persons - with qualities that are 'correct, honest, or good opinions or principles' - make false claims, or 'encourage people to make false claims' ?"
If the question is never on "wat is right minded" - how do you intend to see if "singaporeans can be right minded" ?
Are you proving yourself to be truly "stupid" without being "smart" ?
2.2) Surprisingly, throughout the exchange u just use my log in name as a basis of attack. Tat is not only childish, it is also lame. I like to use the name "stupidissmart", and wat has tat got to do with u ? Do u think a rational debater will literally use "name calling" during debate like u did ? However u seem to be proud of using such a low class attack on people.
It is not so much the name that is selected, as there are countless names that begin with "Gazelle" or "DeerHunter" - and yours happened to be "Stupidissmart".
The jarring parts in the names seem to reflect the personna in the chosen names - such as - the "Gazelle" proving himself expertly to be a sniffer even with his dismissive arguments that sniff at others as much as he sniff at his friend's sister's garments; "DeerHunter" turned out to be a "Duh-Hunter" with his self-opinionated intelligence; and your arguments are simply "stoopid" without even attempting to be "smart" - as seen in your indecision in your arguments about "political stability" and your supreme inability to even be coherent with your understanding of being "right minded".
2.3) The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not2.4) Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
These are all your assumptions - based on your own beliefs that everybody make false claims in politics.
Then how do u explain the examples above ? I can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics and surprisingly u did not know
2.5). U responseAre these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
If you are "right minded" can you be pushed to make false claims ?
Did I claim that "everybody make false claims in politics" - or is this not your own conclusion as usual ?
If you "can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics, and surprising" I did not know - how did you so brilliantly conclude that it is MY CLAIM that "everybody make false claims in politics" ?
Are you attempting to be smarter then your "Stoopid-is-Smart" personna in this Speakers' Corner ?
Will you accept "rumours of obama" as proof of "right minded" people making false claims ?
Do you consider the 50,000 Korean protestors as "right minded" against the backdrop of a larger population who did not protest ?
Do you seriously consider George Bush-Dick Cheney as being "right-minded" in their decision to invade Iraq, or Chen Shui-bian's persistence to fight for Taiwan's independence as "right-minded" policy for Taiwan ?
If your answer - in any direction - will already reveal what my answer will be about your question about "who is or what being right-minded" is all about ?
Are you afraid to answer your own question ?
Are you suggesting that most Singaporeans cannot be "right minded" - based on the dictionary explanation of what "right minded" is that you should have concluded much earlier ?
Whether is "most" people right minded, tat is very hard to say since your standard of right minded people is set pretty high. In fact, if according to your standard of right minded, they do not make any false claim, stand up against false claims etc, even president and senior officers failed,
then most people in the world r not right minded including singapore
2.6). I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded
How can my standard of "right minded" be any higher than the preferred definition picked by your Dictionary.com
Have I disputed your choice of definition given in your preferred Dictionary.com ?
2.7). Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed
Are you proving to be dishonest again in your reply to what I had posted on Pg 7 23Jul'08-6.15PM to your earlier reply on Pg7 20Jul'08-1.44PM ?
My response concerning "right-minded" Singaporeans was in reply to your Point 3, and the reply on President George Bush-DicKCheney was in reply to your Point 4.
Both were quoted as a pair of your questions to be replied, and I had replied to the two issues in separate paragraphs.
How did you so brilliantly think that I mixed the reply - when the fault is clearly your own for not accurately quoting my entire reply ?
2.8). Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?I am not a coward like u and refuse to answer question or quote examples. Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. According to u yourself, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
U claimed the r not right minded, and they r examples of people tat fit into the challenge earlier. So wat is your answer to tis ?
As usual your "stupid-is-smart" exaggeration shine through in your dishonest reply - did I challenge you to state make the following ?
[Quote]
"What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
[Unquote]
In the first reply on P4 - I had asked you "Would any right-minded person make false claims ?"
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM - I asked you :
"What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ? Are these instances - that you have given - the works of right minded persons ? "
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-11.37AM - you replied :
"Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked"
On Pg 4 13Jul'08-1.23AM - I replied you :
As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?
Do you seriously think that George Bush is a "right minded person" ?
What makes you think that Communism will work only for "right minded people" ?
Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?
Is it not a fact that the Communist Autocrat Rulers became an invisible Class that do not actually exist as a Class in a Classless Communist Society ?
Your reply on Pg 7 13Jul'08-12.32PM is evident in your wilfull display at misintepreting the issues in your juvenile mischevious ways.
My rebuttal on Pg 7 14 Jul'08-6.27AM dealt separately the issues that you raised concerning issues that you claimed were raised by Americans about Obama, about Presiden George Bush-Dick Cheney, and about the South-Koreas 'beef import' protestors; and also in a separate paragraph the issue concerning "right minded" persons whom you claim are prime candidates towards Communism.
The answer to the issue was obscured by your own obstinate attempt at seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the facts that were already clear - in that "right minded" people do not make false claims, nor succumb to events to make false claims..
You insisted in back-tracking by stating that my standards are too high even for George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian to qualifty - when you had repeated in the quote above - that these characters are NOT "right-minded"
Are you not arguing for the sake of argument - as I have stated that are you not coming back to one full circle ?
2.8) And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out. U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using verbal abuses to other people points.
As I have said in the beginning - you possess a great propensity at pursuing your own creativity.
Your persistence with idiot-logy clearly demands a more robust shake-down of your false position - as examplified in your preferred idiot-logic choice of "true lies" .
2.9) U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u later try to support these group of people when they protest. Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown. Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?
And wat is youir reply to these allegation ? U just ask me to reread and no explanations is given. I re read and come out with the same conclusion. WHy don't u try to elaborate ?
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
This reply from you clearly shows that either you have not taken my advise to re-read the exchanges that developed in our replies; or that you were too embarrassed after re-reading - especially when you discover a different meaning after re-reading my replies that you had extracted partial statements, which resulted in your statements being made in a skewed "out-of-context" manner.
3) India, Hong Kong and Singapore millionaire
3.1) First, u did not put in china's name int helst with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
3.2) People wanted democracy because it can lead to good lives. However in the case between china and india, u remark tat india slow economic growth is because it does not use democratic practises on its economy while china do. Then isn't tat an irony ? A "democratic economy" is absent in india while a "democratic economy" is present in china and tat result in china being richer and more influential. Then wat is the point ? Tat is the reason for the below statement which u refuse to understand
You are brilliantly petty when you display your immense stupidity in your unique exercise at proving "Stupid-is-Smart" in your ability at idiot-logic.
Was it not explained that China was intentionally left out when it was mentioned that India and Hongkong were leading Asian democracies that produced millionaires - as in my reply Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM ?
Even your preceding response had asked - "Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name ? because they r not democractic ?"
In my reply to you on this date, I had also indicated that India did not have any large number of millionaires before PM Mamohan Singh liberalised the autocratic hold that its bureaucracy had over the economy.
Was it critically significant in the counting of millionaires amongst democracies by leaving China out ?
This surely must confirm your argument for the sake of argument.
3.4) It is on the definition of "democratic economy" which u readily give your definition as
U also provide 2 reports tat u tried to link with your example of "democratic economy". As stated previously, there is no link with your definition of "democratic economy" at all. U also pasted another 3 reports on "democratic economy" on the previous reply.
In your first report
This work includes the promotion of the democratization of decision-making and government policies that lead to inclusion and participation, especially of the most vulnerable. It includes defending the rights of people for access to resources for their livelihoods. These processes aim to re-establish the power and accountability of governments to set national social and economic policies that protect and promote the interests of all citizens.
It did not give the idea of "gov" to do as little as possible to the economy. Instead it argues for the gov to do as much as possible to help the people.
On your second report, it again do not reflect tat gov should not intervene in society
There are many core areas of production and many decisions to be made. Could directions in all areas of the economy be subjected to a national referendum? A lot of them could be. This is especially true for decisions concerning the creation or expansion of a new area of production. For example, when nuclear power or genetically engineered food is first being developed, it is eminently practical to have a national (or planetary) referendum on whether citizens want it.
It actually proposed the gov to intervene in decisions making for the country. It also encourages the workers to be more involved in the decision making for the company
Your thirds report cannot be opened.Your fourth report is on zimbabwe and does not even mention the word democratic economy.
So unless u can point out to specific section in your multi reports tat support your definition of "democratic economy", u r just being dishonest and come out with your own definition of the word and twist and turn on it.
If one who believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" and find out that it does not hold water - which is "Stupid-is-stupid" - should we expect to see your point of view that insist that "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
If YOU cannot see that all the 3 reports do not state - " tat gov should not intervene in societ" - does it mean that the reports has not included the definition of the term "democratic economics or democratic economy" in the form that you prefer to see ?
The two paragraphs extracted from the two separate references are:
and
Is it not amazing that your reading ability do not bring you to the meaning in your preffered words:- " tat gov should not intervene in societ" ?
If you want to know more about "democratic economy" - try reading from the following site - “Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
3.5) Another point of comtempt is u trying to use your report to show there r more millionaires in hong kong than singapore while I manage to prove tat singapore had a greater proportion of millionaire. Then u pulled out a report claiming hong kong is trying their best to attract millionaires over. During tis time, u have claimed I make a flip flop in mentioning abut your report which it proven to be u reading wrongly into my replies. Since both hong kong and singapore r pulling in millionaires, how do u know who has more millionaires tat r native born ?
U can say tat singapore do pull in more foreigner to be the citizen, however hong kong also pulls in china businessmen into their folds. Chinese from china r not considered to be foreginers but "locals" however they r not natively born in hong kong as well. And the foreigner residing in singapore r more normal people who r not millionaires and come over to seek a better life. So again wat conclusions can we derived ? Nothing.
Was the argument not centered around your denial that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore - compared to Hongkong - was due to the Singapore's government in targetting affluent immigrants ?
Your claim suggest that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore are "home-grown" citizens, when I had shown you that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore is due to migrants arrving into Singapore.
Do you seriously believe that the Singapore Government will risk accepting "ordinary" migrants coming over to seek a better life, and add to the problems faced by ordinary Singaporean Citizens seeking government help ?
You seem to ignore the facts presented in my reply that showed the Singapore government's plans to increase the population by another 50 per cent - targetting a total of 6.5 Million from the present 4.5 million.
Does Hong Kong have similar immigration plans ?
4) Misc
4.1) Wat happened to the question on whether had u lived in a democracy or not ? Why do u refrained from answering the same question u posed for others ?
4.2) Wat happened to your civil servants discussion ? U claimed tat all civil servants r not allowed to vote and tat is your ideal democratic society. Tis is obviously a wrong conclusion and an unfair mindset. Wat is your comments on tat ?
Are you making a general issue out of these specific issues when the specifc reply was clearly given on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM ?
Since you brought the issue of avoidance - have you now decided to drop the issue about investment in Zibabwe by private enterprises and not by State, your "Father, Son and Donkey" analogy, and shorten the entire list with a summary of your own pet topics, leaving out the rest of embarrassing issues that have been thrased across 7 pages ?
4.3) Certainly from the posts, one can see tat u give verbal abuses, flip flop between stands, refuse to answer questions which u yourself posted, failed to read other people replies and a complete dishonest person in your debate. U also claimed tat I have not lifted all your passages out. Do u know why ? Because most of your passages r just verbal abuses and a waste of server storage.
Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible.
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
3.3) It is also surprising tat u readily wanna compare countries like hong kong, india with singapore... then feel it is not right to compare hong kong, india with singapore, china... Isn't the latter the more fair comparison since u r comparing between democratic and not democratic economies ? The reason is probably because if u pull china into the picture, u get no conclusion.
Only you will have your own perverse agenda for wilfully re-interpreting my replies to suit your own perverse logic that has been typified in your preference in adopting "Stupid-is-Smart".
Others would have been mischevious in being shocking, but would have at least shown some intelligence, unlike your style in argument at being shocking stupid to prove your own position that start with being "Stupid-is-Smart".
I am amazed at your propensity at pursuing your own creativity in redefining your position with each new post, but not surprised that you have resorted to your usual ways of jusitifying your failed points with new clarification and new opinions to what have already been printed.
Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?
Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?
It has always been your claim that is my "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" had appeared in your first reply - [on Pg3 10Jul'08-10.22AM] - to my first print on Pg 2 10Jul'08-1.22AM:
[Quote]
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
[UnQuote]
Can this statement of mine be any theory, or is this not your opinion that it is a theory ?
How did you so cleverly inteprete that my quoted statement above is a "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" ?
Is there anywhere in my statement that claim any theory that Singapore will implode, or Singapore will collapse ?
How did you conclude from my statement that Singapore will collapse ?
Is this not your own theory, or opinion, or conclusion to my very simple statement in plain English that you prefer to interprete in your own way ?
Unfair and invalid conclusion, or simply inconveneint to your own purpose and agenda in the manner that you wished my replies to be to fit your design ?
If anyone's conclusions are unfair or invalide - it would have been yours in the tormented manner in which you attempt to link unrelated events that you will wilfully insist on bending to your end.
If you did not said that "singapore is gonna collapse" - what did you mean by the word "implosion" in your statement that "singapore will implode" ?
Are you now disputing that your choice of the word "implode" will result in collapse ?
In your reply on Pg7-18Jul'08-5.45PM - you had offered the meaning for your own choice in the word "implode" -
[Quote]
I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in
[Unqote]
Whose idea was it that suggest Singapore will collapse - was it my opinion stated and quoted above, or was it your own conclusion about my statement being a "theory for Singapore's implosion" ?
Am I supposed to be impressed with the logic in your idiot-logy ?
Was it not your own preferred interpretation and your own conclusion about "singapore's collapse through implosion or explosion" - from my statement that "pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Why did you form your own conclusion about "my theory" - with your own ideas about "implosion" and "explosions" ?
Why have you not ask - what kind of "krakatoa volcanic outburst" can the "pent-up social pressures" lead to ?
Did the "wild guesses" start with my first reply on Pg 2-10Jul'08 1.22AM, or was it not a fact that this "wild guess" appeared as printed in your reply on Pg3 10Jul'08 10.22AM ?
I am surprised that you will re-define the basis of your term "wild guesses" with my statement beginning on Page 2.
Why did you not refer to how this statement originated from your prior response to the earlier reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur on Pg 2 09Jul'08-11.49PM - before your reply and also my follow-up reply, all appearing on Pg 2 ?
My reply was based on your response on Pg 2 10Jul'08-12.16AM given to ST's post:-
[Quote]
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.
If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.
[Unquote]
With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-
[Quote]
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?
[UnQuote]
Is the Government insecurity at Elections, and its suppression of any signs of public display of protests - not sufficient proof ?
Are you re-interpreting the perimeters of this exchange to suit your own agenda and preferred outcome ?
Did I attacked you for claiming that China will collapse, or have were you "attacked" for REFUSING to conclude that China's corruption will lead to eventual collapse based on your assumption ?
On Pg 2 of your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur - did you not claim that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
On Pg 3 of your reply dated 10Jul'08 10.22AM - when you first made your remark about your "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" in the opening statement, and continued with your analytical look at China's corruption that leads to "backtrack of previous promises, or copy all your design" - why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
Even in your reply on Pg 3 10Jul'08 1.07PM - you made the following statement - "The premier Hu Jintao stated tat the china biggest problem is dealing with corruption and the increasing gap between the poor and rich. So is hu jin tao guessing ? "
Why did you not also expressed China's Hu Jin Tao's reported concern with China's imminent collapse if corruption continued at such high levels if left unchecked ?
Having referred to China's Hu Jin Tao as a source for the high level of corruption, you can make conclusiong from my statement that Singapore will implode - collapse, but will not conclude that China will collapse from corruption.
Are you reading correctly what I have stated, or did you prefer to make your own conclusion to suit your own agenda ?
Now are you not redefining your position about China having more factors, when you have always insisted that Singapore's stability is the PLUS factor over all else ?
If you did not say that political stability is most important factor - why will you insist across 7 pages on this point, that began with your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur on Pg 2 - and even mentioned in your above final statement underlined by me ?
With your continued emphasis to Singapore's stability in all your replies across 7 pages, if this "stability" is not a primary factor, what else is there for Singapore to attract foregin investments ?
Now are you being dishonest in your statement ?
Have I not given you any reply, or was the reply given not the required answer that you wish will come from me ?
Are you not attempting to push your answer concerning "Singapore's political stability" ?
Yet, you will be dishonest to claim that this is NOT the PRIMARY FACTOR - which you will even push in your reply which I have quoted in the preceding quote made above ?
Are you NOT flip-flopping on this point alone - as shown in my under-lining of the flip-flop statements in your reply given in the preceding extract of your reply as shown above ?
Now are you being purposefully stupid with your answers ?
Replying this part of your response from the last point upwards -
1. Can China project its military power in the same manner as the US military ? Does China have the same global reach with its military capability being on par with the USA ?
2. China was able to attack Vietnam and India {ove Tibet} - as these two countries share the same common land border, with China's military simply moving across the land frontier. Was there any need for China to cross half-way around the globe ?
3. Did you missed in my reply on Pg 7 that showed reports about UK companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe - and not China as a country but commercial firms ?
Zimbabwe: Camec under fire for doing business with country.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200806170815.html
Telegraph.co.uk - Business and morality: Is Phil Edmonds right to trade with Robert Mugabe ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/15/cczim115.xml
Three options in Zimbabwe for British business
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4252023.ece
4. Here again, at the beginning of this reply that I have quoted - you have again insisted that "political stability" is an IMPORTANT FACTOR. Are you still denying that you are being misquoted ?
Were the companies given as references in my last reply - and repeated in the preceding paragraph - supplying military arms, or were they already in Zimbabwe before the EU even began to indicate their intention to impose sancetions after the recent Election fraud in Zimbabwe ?
Did these UK companies provide arms from China, or was it not Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe's own preference to deal with China that got his arms deal pulled through ?
Now, are you giving these private commercial companies more credibility when you looked down on them when suggesting that China's investment is due to its own political power compared to the private commerical enterprises ?
Are you now back-tracking on your insistence that CEO's must invest in Singapore due to its "Political Stability" ?
So are you claiming that despite Singapore's "Political Stability" being a PLUS factor - it is NOW "impossible for ALL investments to invest in Singapore" ?
Have you now decided to accept that Singapore's "political stability" being a PLUS FACTOR is not necessary a deciding point that all CEO's must consider ?
You must be deluded to read that in my reply on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM - to state that I have refused to comment on your issue.
Did you missed the main part of the argument - that was stated as:- "Can 'Right minded' persons - with qualities that are 'correct, honest, or good opinions or principles' - make false claims, or 'encourage people to make false claims' ?"
If the question is never on "wat is right minded" - how do you intend to see if "singaporeans can be right minded" ?
Are you proving yourself to be truly "stupid" without being "smart" ?
It is not so much the name that is selected, as there are countless names that begin with "Gazelle" or "DeerHunter" - and yours happened to be "Stupidissmart".
The jarring parts in the names seem to reflect the personna in the chosen names - such as - the "Gazelle" proving himself expertly to be a sniffer even with his dismissive arguments that sniff at others as much as he sniff at his friend's sister's garments; "DeerHunter" turned out to be a "Duh-Hunter" with his self-opinionated intelligence; and your arguments are simply "stoopid" without even attempting to be "smart" - as seen in your indecision in your arguments about "political stability" and your supreme inability to even be coherent with your understanding of being "right minded".
If you are "right minded" can you be pushed to make false claims ?
Did I claim that "everybody make false claims in politics" - or is this not your own conclusion as usual ?
If you "can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics, and surprising" I did not know - how did you so brilliantly conclude that it is MY CLAIM that "everybody make false claims in politics" ?
Are you attempting to be smarter then your "Stoopid-is-Smart" personna in this Speakers' Corner ?
Will you accept "rumours of obama" as proof of "right minded" people making false claims ?
Do you consider the 50,000 Korean protestors as "right minded" against the backdrop of a larger population who did not protest ?
Do you seriously consider George Bush-Dick Cheney as being "right-minded" in their decision to invade Iraq, or Chen Shui-bian's persistence to fight for Taiwan's independence as "right-minded" policy for Taiwan ?
If your answer - in any direction - will already reveal what my answer will be about your question about "who is or what being right-minded" is all about ?
Are you afraid to answer your own question ?
How can my standard of "right minded" be any higher than the preferred definition picked by your Dictionary.com
Have I disputed your choice of definition given in your preferred Dictionary.com ?
Are you proving to be dishonest again in your reply to what I had posted on Pg 7 23Jul'08-6.15PM to your earlier reply on Pg7 20Jul'08-1.44PM ?
My response concerning "right-minded" Singaporeans was in reply to your Point 3, and the reply on President George Bush-DicKCheney was in reply to your Point 4.
Both were quoted as a pair of your questions to be replied, and I had replied to the two issues in separate paragraphs.
How did you so brilliantly think that I mixed the reply - when the fault is clearly your own for not accurately quoting my entire reply ?
As usual your "stupid-is-smart" exaggeration shine through in your dishonest reply - did I challenge you to state make the following ?
[Quote]
"What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
[Unquote]
In the first reply on P4 - I had asked you "Would any right-minded person make false claims ?"
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM - I asked you :
" What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ? Are these instances - that you have given - the works of right minded persons ? "
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-11.37AM - you replied :
"Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked"
On Pg 4 13Jul'08-1.23AM - I replied you :
As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?
Do you seriously think that George Bush is a "right minded person" ?
What makes you think that Communism will work only for "right minded people" ?
Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?
Is it not a fact that the Communist Autocrat Rulers became an invisible Class that do not actually exist as a Class in a Classless Communist Society ?
Your reply on Pg 7 13Jul'08-12.32PM is evident in your wilfull display at misintepreting the issues in your juvenile mischevious ways.
My rebuttal on Pg 7 14 Jul'08-6.27AM dealt separately the issues that you raised concerning issues that you claimed were raised by Americans about Obama, about Presiden George Bush-Dick Cheney, and about the South-Koreas 'beef import' protestors; and also in a separate paragraph the issue concerning "right minded" persons whom you claim are prime candidates towards Communism.
The answer to the issue was obscured by your own obstinate attempt at seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the facts that were already clear - in that "right minded" people do not make false claims, nor succumb to events to make false claims..
You insisted in back-tracking by stating that my standards are too high even for George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian to qualifty - when you had repeated in the quote above - that these characters are NOT "right-minded".
Are you not arguing for the sake of argument - as I have stated that are you not coming back to one full circle ?
As I have said in the beginning - you possess a great propensity at pursuing your own creativity.
Your persistence with idiot-logy clearly demands a more robust shake-down of your false position - as examplified in your preferred idiot-logic choice of "true lies" .
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
This reply from you clearly shows that either you have not taken my advise to re-read the exchanges that developed in our replies; or that you were too embarrassed after re-reading - especially when you discover a different meaning after re-reading my replies that you had extracted partial statements, which resulted in your statements being made in a skewed "out-of-context" manner.
You are brilliantly petty when you display your immense stupidity in your unique exercise at proving "Stupid-is-Smart" in your ability at idiot-logic.
Was it not explained that China was intentionally left out when it was mentioned that India and Hongkong were leading Asian democracies that produced millionaires - as in my reply Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM ?
Even your preceding response had asked - "Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name ? because they r not democractic ?"
In my reply to you on this date, I had also indicated that India did not have any large number of millionaires before PM Mamohan Singh liberalised the autocratic hold that its bureaucracy had over the economy.
Was it critically significant in the counting of millionaires amongst democracies by leaving China out ?
This surely must confirm your argument for the sake of argument.
If one who believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" and find out that it does not hold water - which is "Stupid-is-stupid" - should we expect to see your point of view that insist that "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
If YOU cannot see that all the 3 reports do not state - " tat gov should not intervene in societ" - does it mean that the reports has not included the definition of the term "democratic economics or democratic economy" in the form that you prefer to see ?
The two paragraphs extracted from the two separate references are:
and
Is it not amazing that your reading ability do not bring you to the meaning in your preffered words:- " tat gov should not intervene in societ" ?
If you want to know more about "democratic economy" - try reading from the following site - “Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
Was the argument not centered around your denial that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore - compared to Hongkong - was due to the Singapore's government in targetting affluent immigrants ?
Your claim suggest that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore are "home-grown" citizens, when I had shown you that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore is due to migrants arrving into Singapore.
Do you seriously believe that the Singapore Government will risk accepting "ordinary" migrants coming over to seek a better life, and add to the problems faced by ordinary Singaporean Citizens seeking government help ?
You seem to ignore the facts presented in my reply that showed the Singapore government's plans to increase the population by another 50 per cent - targetting a total of 6.5 Million from the present 4.5 million.
Does Hong Kong have similar immigration plans ?
Are you making a general issue out of these specific issues when the specifc reply was clearly given on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM ?
Since you brought the issue of avoidance - have you now decided to drop the issue about investment in Zibabwe by private enterprises and not by State, your "Father, Son and Donkey" analogy, and shorten the entire list with a summary of your own pet topics, leaving out the rest of embarrassing issues that have been thrased across 7 pages ?
Only you will have your own perverse agenda for wilfully re-interpreting my replies to suit your own perverse logic that has been typified in your preference in adopting "Stupid-is-Smart".
Others would have been mischevious in being shocking, but would have at least shown some intelligence, unlike your style in argument at being shocking stupid to prove your own position that start with being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?
Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
U r probably living in self denial. The theory is the paragraph in italic. Oh ya hor.. u did not put paragraph in the mess tat is in italic so it is not a paragraph ? Opps.. u do not put "mess" in it so it is not a "mess" ? Com'on on la... your stupidity had reached a new height. Theory is a sort of conjunction/guess. U r guessing wat is happening in the future. It is your theory
Implosion is developed from the words "krakatoa volcanic outburst". Of course u can say tat it is not "implosion" however the meaning is there. After so much debates with u, it is obvious tat it is the only word (other than stupidissmart) u rely on for your attack against me.
How did you conclude from my statement that Singapore will collapse ?
U got see the open and inverted commas on the word "collpase " ? Lets look at your reply on 24 Jul 542
If you can claim that Singapore will "implode" - which means "collapse" - as your external pressure will squeeze flat the Singapore vessel, causing its shape to collapse; why will you not dare say that China's high level of corruption will cause it to collapse too ?
U r the one tat claims the word "collapse" and then bring the accusation to my head. Then when I use the word "collapse" back since u r the real proposer of the whole theory, u actually challenged me when have u ever claim singapore will collapse.
1.1.1 U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
If tat is not despicable, wat is ?
Wat is the bottomline ? u claim tis "volcanic eruption" is gonna de-stabilise the nation and make it political instable and CEO had made unnecessary risk investing over here. Tat is wat your "krakatoa volcanic outburst" is all about isn't it ? And it is really just hypothesis unless u can see the future. As said, I had challenged u wat is the differences between the 2 statements when used in tis context ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
U r just nitpicking into stupid details.
With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-
Let me ask,
Is "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor"
the same as "stability is no longer a pull factor"
Tat is a blatant lie and conclusion u had made with regards to ST replies. Tat is the same way u conclude me saying "political stability" is the "all important primary" considerations. U r just putting words into other people's mouth, and u do not even spare someone like ST.
Lets put it bluntly. Nobody, except u to be tat stupid to take the stand tat political stability is not important at all in pulling investors
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?
tat is again your own personal impression. i instead felt the gov is so confident of itself tat he is giving himself a pay raise and increase a lot of tax despite these measures being extremely unpopular (facts according to u).
Your examples of "insecurity" has been going on for decades and nothing had happened. My examples r more recent
On Pg 3 of your reply dated 10Jul'08 10.22AM - when you first made your remark about your "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" in the opening statement, and continued with your analytical look at China's corruption that leads to "backtrack of previous promises, or copy all your design" - why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
Tat is wat I called a "black and white" thinking. Either u have no problems or the problem make u "collapse". Every country have its problem. Does it means the whole world will collapse ? I have an itch on my skin and u can conclude I died ? Your naive thinking and forcing me to make a conclusion is the same as u making conclusion for ST tat "political stability is no longer a pulling factor".
My only conclusion is tat if u wanna invest there, u can run into certain problems. And tat is it. U love to make stupid guesses and conclusions, tat is your own problem. Don't drag me into your level
If you did not say that political stability is most important factor - why will you insist across 7 pages on this point, that began with your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur on Pg 2 - and even mentioned in your above final statement underlined by me ?
U had never proved I had claimed political stability is the most important factor. I only say it is an important factor. U claimed I said "most important" ? Prove it. Otherwise u r just a lousy lier.
With your continued emphasis to Singapore's stability in all your replies across 7 pages, if this "stability" is not a primary factor, what else is there for Singapore to attract foregin investments ?
Tis 7 pages is probably drag by u arguing out of tangent and takling about "implosion", or "stupidissmart" derivation etc. I say singapore has an important factor for consideration and it is political stability. I say singapore manage to attract a niche market for industries tat required a high level of political stability. I never claimed it is the all primary important consideration. U do and u try to force it down my throat
Look at the sentences u underlined
u claim tat I said political stability is the most important primary
Tat is right. I never claim political stability is the MOST important primary consideration. U r claiming I said tat without giving any evidences
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region
And so ? Singapore political stability is an advantage and tat is why it can still attract investors. It's political stability ie better than china and other countries. Have I claimed it is the most important primary consideration ? Nope. Your poor comprehensive skill again
But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
And did I claim it is the most important primary consideration here ? No again. They r better in political stability, have its own niche and still attract investors. Wat is wrong with tis ?
1. Can China project its military power in the same manner as the US military ? Does China have the same global reach with its military capability being on par with the USA ?
U intentionally miss out on the points
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
Yup, u really do love to ignore points which u cannot answer.
2. China was able to attack Vietnam and India {ove Tibet} - as these two countries share the same common land border, with China's military simply moving across the land frontier. Was there any need for China to cross half-way around the globe ?
Well considering US had done tis before, I will not place my stand on absolute. Who knows wat is gonna happens in future ? U know ? The key word is "never". Can u claim china will never use its force to attack zimbabwe if they suddenly start a 911 similar incident on china ?
3. Did you missed in my reply on Pg 7 that showed reports about UK companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe - and not China as a country but commercial firms ?
Did u miss out on my reports tat they r already adopting sanctions on EU companies ?
Looking at the business in zimbabwe, the latest report shows EU had adopted sanctions against companies investing in zimbabwe on the 22 Jul
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL2222029._CH_.2400
Look at the date. It is later than your report
Here again, at the beginning of this reply that I have quoted - you have again insisted that "political stability" is an IMPORTANT FACTOR. Are you still denying that you are being misquoted ?
I am claiming it is an important factor, not the MOST important factor. And u r claiming it is totally irrelevant. Now tat is laughable isn't it
Were the companies given as references in my last reply - and repeated in the preceding paragraph - supplying military arms, or were they already in Zimbabwe before the EU even began to indicate their intention to impose sancetions after the recent Election fraud in Zimbabwe ?
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Did these UK companies provide arms from China, or was it not Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe's own preference to deal with China that got his arms deal pulled through ?
They provide arms to mugabe. Full stop. He prefer to have china arms so u give to them. Tat makes u faultless ? And u forgot someone actually is charged in court, wealth confiscated and then charged again when he is doing business with them. Wat do u have to say for such experiences ? Probably a mafia or someone like u will like such experience
So are you claiming that despite Singapore's "Political Stability" being a PLUS factor - it is NOW "impossible for ALL investments to invest in Singapore" ?
Wat is your impression of the EU sanctions now in place ? I don't see them having a "happily ever after" scenario and u seems to be concluding it tat way.
Did you missed the main part of the argument - that was stated as:- "Can 'Right minded' persons - with qualities that are 'correct, honest, or good opinions or principles' - make false claims, or 'encourage people to make false claims' ?"
Lets make the assumption tat "right minded" people do not make false claims. Now the trick is, almost everybody is not right minded. So wat is the point ? Your whole argument is rubbish because even presidents, gov officials and 50,000 koreas r not right minded according to u. Let me give u an example of how stupid your point is.
2.1.1) "Right minded" people, according to u, do not make false claims. I can repharse it to become "Gold medal marathon runners pass the 2.4km run with flying colors"
2.1.2) Then u claim tat since right minded people do not make false claims, then we do not have to worry about people making false claims in the society. I can rephrase it to become "Since gold medal marathon runners can pass the 2.4 kn run with flying colors, then we do not have to worry about people who fail 2.4"
2.1.3) Fact is, people do make false claims. Fact is, not everybody is right minded. Fact is not everybody is a marathon gold medalist as well. Fact is, tat is why people fail their IPPT. So wat is your point ? U can see tons of false claims and tat is why u can see people who fail IPPT
The jarring parts in the names seem to reflect the personna in the chosen names - such as - the "Gazelle" proving himself expertly to be a sniffer even with his dismissive arguments that sniff at others as much as he sniff at his friend's sister's garments; "DeerHunter" turned out to be a "Duh-Hunter" with his self-opinionated intelligence; and your arguments are simply "stoopid" without even attempting to be "smart" - as seen in your indecision in your arguments about "political stability" and your supreme inability to even be coherent with your understanding of being "right minded".
The log in name is just a... log in name. Why do u need to care wat name a person had chosen ? Basing your attack on another log in name is just low class and lame. And tat is exactly wat u do all tis while. U have nothing better to say other than playing with other people's log in name ? Who knows maybe next time u will make fun of minister's name or people's name. If politician do tat in america, like making fun of names like obama with osama, people r gonna find it distasteful and disasscoiate with u. No wonder people say the standard of opposition party is lower here...
If you are "right minded" can you be pushed to make false claims ?
U r again trying to avoid the real question. U talk about right minded here and there but u failed to answer how can u expect most singaporean to be right minded. If most singapore cannot be right minded, then we can expect a lot of false claims. Your statemnt on "right minded" people is just pointless
Did I claim that "everybody make false claims in politics" - or is this not your own conclusion as usual ?
U need to go back to the reply on 1 Jul 1113 tat I stated
Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics
However strangely the word "almost" is snipped off. So is tat my conclusion ? Nah... I think again u have shown yourself to be lacking in integrity and honesty
Do you consider the 50,000 Korean protestors as "right minded" against the backdrop of a larger population who did not protest ?
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
Do you seriously consider George Bush-Dick Cheney as being "right-minded" in their decision to invade Iraq, or Chen Shui-bian's persistence to fight for Taiwan's independence as "right-minded" policy for Taiwan ?
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? A u just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
If your answer - in any direction - will already reveal what my answer will be about your question about "who is or what being right-minded" is all about ?
I already give u the dictionary definition.
As usual your "stupid-is-smart" exaggeration shine through in your dishonest reply - did I challenge you to state make the following ?
[Quote]
"What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
[Unquote]
In the first reply on P4 - I had asked you "Would any right-minded person make false claims ?"
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM - I asked you :
"What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ? Are these instances - that you have given - the works of right minded persons ? "
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-11.37AM - you replied :
"Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked"
On Pg 4 13Jul'08-1.23AM - I replied you :
As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?
I see throught the reply and u know wat, U follow exactly tis same pattern as stated by me before. U r just not reading.
Look at the below
Should one sue for any reason in the first place, more so when one is holding public office and whose position is constantly being subject to public scrutiny ?
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
We did begin with identifying that in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance, pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
The first post u made on tis matter is about whether should one in public office sue others or not. My reply is if u like to encourage people to make false claims or not. Then wat do u give ? U stated tat a democratic society more gracious bla bla bla and then make a remark tat right minded people do not make false claims. I said tat a lot of people do make false claims as u can see from the examples. U can say they r not right minded people, but wat is the whole point then ? Almost everybody fail in your standard of right minded and then there will be a lot of false claims isn't it ?
Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?
If everybody is right minded,will there be smarter autocrats taking advantages of the commoners ? U know wat is the definition of righ minded ?
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded.
In my reply to you on this date, I had also indicated that India did not have any large number of millionaires before PM Mamohan Singh liberalised the autocratic hold that its bureaucracy had over the economy.
Nah... now the point of content is not on india etc but on the interpretation of the below statements.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
Tis is the important issue now and I want to know your answer to the interpretation. Why do u purposefully refuse to interprete the statements u had written ?
I read tis highlighted paragraph and again it does not say the gov should not intervene in economics. It stated political doman to be losely associated with each other suggesting a greater political intervention
Wat does your para says ? It claims there r 4 different leadership styles bla bla bla and it has nothing tat suggest gov do not intervene into economy
Now let me provide some of the paragraphs which your reports had claimed
This work includes the promotion of the democratization of decision-making and government policies that lead to inclusion and participation, especially of the most vulnerable. It includes defending the rights of people for access to resources for their livelihoods. These processes aim to re-establish the power and accountability of governments to set national social and economic policies that protect and promote the interests of all citizens.
It did not give the idea of "gov" to do as little as possible to the economy. Instead it argues for the gov to do as much as possible to help the people.
On your second report, it again do not reflect tat gov should not intervene in society
There are many core areas of production and many decisions to be made. Could directions in all areas of the economy be subjected to a national referendum? A lot of them could be. This is especially true for decisions concerning the creation or expansion of a new area of production. For example, when nuclear power or genetically engineered food is first being developed, it is eminently practical to have a national (or planetary) referendum on whether citizens want it.
It actually proposed the gov to intervene in decisions making for the country. It also encourages the workers to be more involved in the decision making for the company
Wat do u have to say for the above 2 paragraphs from your own report ? It is completely different from your definition of "democratic economy". SO doesn't tat make u a lier ?
Was the argument not centered around your denial that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore - compared to Hongkong - was due to the Singapore's government in targetting affluent immigrants ?
Your claim suggest that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore are "home-grown" citizens, when I had shown you that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore is due to migrants arrving into Singapore.
U had shown ? Don't give me tat crap. U cannot show tat the growth in the number of milionaires r due to migrants, u did not give any statistic or data or survey or anything but your own wild guess and theories.
Do you seriously believe that the Singapore Government will risk accepting "ordinary" migrants coming over to seek a better life, and add to the problems faced by ordinary Singaporean Citizens seeking government help ?
Ehh.. from the people I see, most migrants r chinese and indians who r here to seek a living. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. Do I seriously believe the Singapore Gov risk accepting "ordinary" migrants over to seek a better living ? Yeah ! I seriously believe in tat. Unless u wanna tell me the many car washers in the petrol kiosk are actually millionaires in disguise...
You seem to ignore the facts presented in my reply that showed the Singapore government's plans to increase the population by another 50 per cent - targetting a total of 6.5 Million from the present 4.5 million.
It is true singapore may have a more aggressive plan, however r they related ?
And u seems to ignore the fact tat hong kong is also facing a flux of rich chinese to their cities as well.
As said, due to the absence of statistical data, your conclusion is just a wild guess
Are you making a general issue out of these specific issues when the specifc reply was clearly given on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM ?
Is there something wrong with u or something but u did not reply anything on your experiences in democratic country. Perhaps u should go and see again.
Since you brought the issue of avoidance - have you now decided to drop the issue about investment in Zibabwe by private enterprises and not by State, your "Father, Son and Donkey" analogy, and shorten the entire list with a summary of your own pet topics, leaving out the rest of embarrassing issues that have been thrased across 7 pages ?
I should be the one tat claimed tis charged. I look through your tons of rubbish and I found nothing on the issue ? Perhaps your stupid action of pasting everything inside exceeded the intended reply length ?
Only you will have your own perverse agenda for wilfully re-interpreting my replies to suit your own perverse logic that has been typified in your preference in adopting "Stupid-is-Smart".
Others would have been mischevious in being shocking, but would have at least shown some intelligence, unlike your style in argument at being shocking stupid to prove your own position that start with being "Stupid-is-Smart".
No reply to the challenges ? So it is true tat u had nothing to say about
A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
I got to ask also... wat happeend to your civil servant repl ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?
Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
U r probably living in self denial. The theory is the paragraph in italic. Oh ya hor.. u did not put paragraph in the mess tat is in italic so it is not a paragraph ? Opps.. u do not put "mess" in it so it is not a "mess" ? Com'on on la... your stupidity had reached a new height. Theory is a sort of conjunction/guess. U r guessing wat is happening in the future. It is your theory
Implosion is developed from the words "krakatoa volcanic outburst". Of course u can say tat it is not "implosion" however the meaning is there. After so much debates with u, it is obvious tat it is the only word (other than stupidissmart) u rely on for your attack against me.
The 'stoopidity' in your genious seems to be breathtaking, and surely has confirm your juvenile idiocy that is unrelenting in its effort to assert its insult on simply common sense.
The choice of the words - "theory" and "implosion" - is your own.
How can you attribute this "theory tat singapore will implode" to be mine, when it is your own conjecture based on pure guess-work of what you have read in my statement that you have quoted in italics ?
How did you so brilliantly claim that "implode" is determined from "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
Can "Outburst" collapse inwards ?
Is this "implosion" the only word left to attack you - besides the "stupid-is-smart", or have you lost count again ?
How did you conclude from my statement that Singapore will collapse ?
U got see the open and inverted commas on the word "collpase " ? Lets look at your reply on 24 Jul 542
If you can claim that Singapore will "implode" - which means "collapse" - as your external pressure will squeeze flat the Singapore vessel, causing its shape to collapse; why will you not dare say that China's high level of corruption will cause it to collapse too ?
U r the one tat claims the word "collapse" and then bring the accusation to my head. Then when I use the word "collapse" back since u r the real proposer of the whole theory, u actually challenged me when have u ever claim singapore will collapse.
1.1.1 U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
If tat is not despicable, wat is ?
Wat is the bottomline ? u claim tis "volcanic eruption" is gonna de-stabilise the nation and make it political instable and CEO had made unnecessary risk investing over here. Tat is wat your "krakatoa volcanic outburst" is all about isn't it ? And it is really just hypothesis unless u can see the future. As said, I had challenged u wat is the differences between the 2 statements when used in tis context ?
Did you read every single word in the italics that you have quoted, or did you only read what you wish to see that will fit your preferred plot, and formed your smart conclusion that turned out to be more stoopid than smart ?
Yes, the "pent-up emotions" will lead to some "karakatoa volcanic outburst" - have you forgotten to include the end statement that stated clearly the - "volcanic outburst will lead to sudden political swings that are unpredictable" ?
If this statement is my "theory" - I did not conclude an IMPLOSION that leads to collapse, as I mentioned that it will lead to "sudden political swings that result in an outcome that is UNKNOWN - UNPREDICTABLE.
Is this anywhere near your very conclusive "IMPLOSION" that you have defined as "COLLAPSE" - which is more decisive than my word used in the entire episode with an UNPREDICTABLE outcome ?
This was stated already in my replies on Pg 7 - 20Jul'08-6.56AM and again on 24Jul'08-05.42AM - I am amazed that you will ignore this point, make no reference in your replies on Pg 7 and 8; and still will persist in claiming YOUR preferred 'theory of Singapore's collapse' came from reading my statement.
This clearly show that either you have poor comprehension skills even if you have any ability to read; or that you are proving yourself to be more "stupid-than-smart' in pursuing a failed argument simply to save some face for yourself.
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
U r just nitpicking into stupid details.
Is this nit-picking now ?
Or is it not a matter of accuracy that you will prefer not to insist ?
Or are you more incline to conjecture and guessing of statements made by others that are made clearer - which you refuse to read and accept - since the outcome is inconvenient to your own plot ?
With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-
Let me ask,
Is "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor"
the same as "stability is no longer a pull factor"
Tat is a blatant lie and conclusion u had made with regards to ST replies. Tat is the same way u conclude me saying "political stability" is the "all important primary" considerations. U r just putting words into other people's mouth, and u do not even spare someone like ST.
Lets put it bluntly. Nobody, except u to be tat stupid to take the stand tat political stability is not important at all in pulling investors
Have you now become an expert at the small nuances in the words used - between "less of a pull factor" and "no longer a pull factor" ?
How did you miss out by such a wide margin between my statement of an "unpredictable outcome" to your own conclusion of "implosive outcome" when reading my statement ?
If the difference in my statement with ST - become such an easy lie, what does it make of your own conclusion "tat singapore will implode" ?
Have you made another one of your "true lie" - or is it a "false lie" - to become a "perfect liar" ?
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices
tat is again your own personal impression. i instead felt the gov is so confident of itself tat he is giving himself a pay raise and increase a lot of tax despite these measures being extremely unpopular (facts according to u).
Your examples of "insecurity" has been going on for decades and nothing had happened. My examples r more recent
Recent events, or already happened in January 2008 ?
Confidence or over-confidence in some miscalculation that did not allow any U-Turn and had to be continued ?
Giving himself a pay raise, or robbing the poor to pay themselves ?
If there is any confidence left by now - the PAP would have made an announcement for a by-Election to have a new MP to serve the seat made vacant by the late Dr Ong Chit Chung.
Recent events also saw SM GCT making political hustings in Hougang even before the 2010 elections, when his PAP refuse to hold by-elections for the late Dr Ong Chit Chung's constituency.
The recent actions also saw MM LKY and PM LHL both desparately attempting to place the last nail into CSJ's coffin to prevent his resurgence.
Yes, their actions have continued over decades, and each time there are less Singaporean able to participate, and yet their margins are dropping.
On Pg 3 of your reply dated 10Jul'08 10.22AM - when you first made your remark about your "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" in the opening statement, and continued with your analytical look at China's corruption that leads to "backtrack of previous promises, or copy all your design" - why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
Tat is wat I called a "black and white" thinking. Either u have no problems or the problem make u "collapse". Every country have its problem. Does it means the whole world will collapse ? I have an itch on my skin and u can conclude I died ? Your naive thinking and forcing me to make a conclusion is the same as u making conclusion for ST tat "political stability is no longer a pulling factor".
My only conclusion is tat if u wanna invest there, u can run into certain problems. And tat is it. U love to make stupid guesses and conclusions, tat is your own problem. Don't drag me into your level
Are you not a recognised expert at "black-and-white" thinking ?
Now are you not displaying your "stoopidity" at being dishonest with your inaccuracy again ?
Why should you not die from an itch, when you have concluded that someone else had died from the same symptoms ?
Do I need to drag you into my level, or are you attempting to drag me down to yours ?
If you did not say that political stability is most important factor - why will you insist across 7 pages on this point, that began with your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur on Pg 2 - and even mentioned in your above final statement underlined by me ?
U had never proved I had claimed political stability is the most important factor. I only say it is an important factor. U claimed I said "most important" ? Prove it. Otherwise u r just a lousy lier.
As I have said before, you never said as much as you need to say that being "Stupid-is-Smart" and it already showed how "stupid" you can be while attempting to be "smart".
Do you need to be proven to be smart even when you have shown yourself to be already stupid ?
BTW - you are truly smart with your "true lies" - which makes you a "perfect liar" - is that supposed to be smart in the stupidity that you have displayed ?
If I am a "lousy lier" it is due to the fact that I seldom lie down; unlike you who prefer to depend on telling lies to become a "perfect liar" that insist on being "Stupid-is-Smart".
With regards to proving your "political stability" - follow on below.
With your continued emphasis to Singapore's stability in all your replies across 7 pages, if this "stability" is not a primary factor, what else is there for Singapore to attract foregin investments ?
Tis 7 pages is probably drag by u arguing out of tangent and takling about "implosion", or "stupidissmart" derivation etc. I say singapore has an important factor for consideration and it is political stability. I say singapore manage to attract a niche market for industries tat required a high level of political stability. I never claimed it is the all primary important consideration. U do and u try to force it down my throat
Look at the sentences u underlined
u claim tat I said political stability is the most important primary
Tat is right. I never claim political stability is the MOST important primary consideration. U r claiming I said tat without giving any evidences
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region
And so ? Singapore political stability is an advantage and tat is why it can still attract investors. It's political stability ie better than china and other countries. Have I claimed it is the most important primary consideration ? Nope. Your poor comprehensive skill again
But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
And did I claim it is the most important primary consideration here ? No again. They r better in political stability, have its own niche and still attract investors. Wat is wrong with tis ?
How many times and in how many different ways must you express a point before someone must take note that the point you made is surely pivotally important - an "all important primary factor" ?
Pg 3 - 10Jul'08 9.48PM:- "I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well "
Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 11.13PM:- " I am trying to point to the fact tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the companies why they invest in singapore and they will state political stability. It is completely relevant and not just wild guesses "
Pg 4 - 12Jul'08 11.37AM:- "Because u do not believe tat singapore political stability is a pulling factor for industries to come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just say it as though it is a wild guess"
Pg 5 - 13Jul'08 12.32PM:- " Political stability = reliability and predictability. It is particularly important for high investments low labour business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical companies. "
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
You surely displayed a very comprehensive skill at being a liar, to pretend that you actually comprehend your own lie.
1. Can China project its military power in the same manner as the US military ? Does China have the same global reach with its military capability being on par with the USA ?
U intentionally miss out on the points
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
Yup, u really do love to ignore points which u cannot answer.
Was I out of point, or ignored your points ?
Or is it not the truth that I have inconvenienced you by not giving you the replies that suit your preferred views to achieve your own plot ?
How many ways should I interprete your statement - "Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ?" ? Did you not state "if China can never do the same as the US to attack another country ?"
The problem with you is that you believe your points are invincible and cannot be answered. Have you realised that your points will require an idiot to provide you with the answers that only an idiot will demand; and is there not such a fool who will believe in the idiocy that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
2. China was able to attack Vietnam and India {ove Tibet} - as these two countries share the same common land border, with China's military simply moving across the land frontier. Was there any need for China to cross half-way around the globe ?
Well considering US had done tis before, I will not place my stand on absolute. Who knows wat is gonna happens in future ? U know ? The key word is "never". Can u claim china will never use its force to attack zimbabwe if they suddenly start a 911 similar incident on china ?
Now what was the main point all about ? Was it about US and China attacking others, or was it about Zimbabwe not able to attract investments, breaking bonds that will lead China to attack her ?
You are certainly supremely at digressing into useless unrelated issues, and will continue into its depths till you achieve your ends to prove that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
3. Did you missed in my reply on Pg 7 that showed reports about UK companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe - and not China as a country but commercial firms ?
Did u miss out on my reports tat they r already adopting sanctions on EU companies ?
Looking at the business in zimbabwe, the latest report shows EU had adopted sanctions against companies investing in zimbabwe on the 22 Jul
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL2222029._CH_.2400
Look at the date. It is later than your report
Does it matter if the EU impose sanctions, where there are profits to be made, others will go in ? Is EU the entire world ? Even with UN sanctions, China will still go in to trade with Zimbabwe.
With less and less countries prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into Zimbabwe ?
Should I expect any intelligent answer from one who has no clue about entrepreneurship being without the ability of any slightest sense of business acumen of a CEO ?
Here again, at the beginning of this reply that I have quoted - you have again insisted that "political stability" is an IMPORTANT FACTOR. Are you still denying that you are being misquoted ?
I am claiming it is an important factor, not the MOST important factor. And u r claiming it is totally irrelevant. Now tat is laughable isn't it
Who do you think you are fooling playing with semantics ?
You sound more credible being a liar when you make some effort in making your "true lie" ?
At least you were already being very credible telling your "false lies" as these are more like your true nature in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Were the companies given as references in my last reply - and repeated in the preceding paragraph - supplying military arms, or were they already in Zimbabwe before the EU even began to indicate their intention to impose sancetions after the recent Election fraud in Zimbabwe ?
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Do you even know what you are talking about, or have you lost track of your own arguments by pursuing your "true lies" ?
Did these UK companies provide arms from China, or was it not Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe's own preference to deal with China that got his arms deal pulled through ?
They provide arms to mugabe. Full stop. He prefer to have china arms so u give to them. Tat makes u faultless ? And u forgot someone actually is charged in court, wealth confiscated and then charged again when he is doing business with them. Wat do u have to say for such experiences ? Probably a mafia or someone like u will like such experience
Who are the "THEY" in your statement made that provided arms to Robert Mugabe ?
Are you referring to the three reference UK Companies, or are you diverging again with your own plot at setting up your "true lies" ?
So are you claiming that despite Singapore's "Political Stability" being a PLUS factor - it is NOW "impossible for ALL investments to invest in Singapore" ?
Wat is your impression of the EU sanctions now in place ? I don't see them having a "happily ever after" scenario and u seems to be concluding it tat way.
Another attempt at promoting your digression to suit your own plot with another "true lie" ? You should start with your "false lie" - it sound more laughably absurd.
Did you missed the main part of the argument - that was stated as:- "Can 'Right minded' persons - with qualities that are 'correct, honest, or good opinions or principles' - make false claims, or 'encourage people to make false claims' ?"
Lets make the assumption tat "right minded" people do not make false claims. Now the trick is, almost everybody is not right minded. So wat is the point ? Your whole argument is rubbish because even presidents, gov officials and 50,000 koreas r not right minded according to u. Let me give u an example of how stupid your point is.
2.1.1) "Right minded" people, according to u, do not make false claims. I can repharse it to become "Gold medal marathon runners pass the 2.4km run with flying colors"
2.1.2) Then u claim tat since right minded people do not make false claims, then we do not have to worry about people making false claims in the society. I can rephrase it to become "Since gold medal marathon runners can pass the 2.4 kn run with flying colors, then we do not have to worry about people who fail 2.4"
2.1.3) Fact is, people do make false claims. Fact is, not everybody is right minded. Fact is not everybody is a marathon gold medalist as well. Fact is, tat is why people fail their IPPT. So wat is your point ? U can see tons of false claims and tat is why u can see people who fail IPPT
Yes, with your ablity to state that in such clear terms, we can assume that since everyone is right minded, which includes you - it is obvious for you to behave normally in perpetuating a "true lie" that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
With everyone being "right minded" and no one will make a false claim at not passing 2.4km IPPT - is there a need for the SAF to conduct the 2.4km IPPT ?
Why bother to fire a single bullet for marksmanship ?
Why bother have a strong SAF - we can perpetuate your "TRUE lie" that the SAF is strong without needing any NSF or even a SAR21, forget the millions spent on equipment ?
Based on your perverse logic in arguing this point - why not follow your path to your eventual end and have everyone be a clone of your "TRUE LIE" that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
Or should this be a "False Lie"
The jarring parts in the names seem to reflect the personna in the chosen names - such as - the "Gazelle" proving himself expertly to be a sniffer even with his dismissive arguments that sniff at others as much as he sniff at his friend's sister's garments; "DeerHunter" turned out to be a "Duh-Hunter" with his self-opinionated intelligence; and your arguments are simply "stoopid" without even attempting to be "smart" - as seen in your indecision in your arguments about "political stability" and your supreme inability to even be coherent with your understanding of being "right minded".
The log in name is just a... log in name. Why do u need to care wat name a person had chosen ? Basing your attack on another log in name is just low class and lame. And tat is exactly wat u do all tis while. U have nothing better to say other than playing with other people's log in name ? Who knows maybe next time u will make fun of minister's name or people's name. If politician do tat in america, like making fun of names like obama with osama, people r gonna find it distasteful and disasscoiate with u. No wonder people say the standard of opposition party is lower here...
A log-in name is a "window" to a person's personna; and one would have taken yours at face value in simply poking fun at common sense and the established nature of things.
Unfortunately, your perverse logic with your arguments reflected in your words used - such as your belief in 'TRUE lies" and your perverse indulgence in idiocy - showed that you are not merely challenging common sense in jest, but is challenging common sense itself with your perverse logic made with such wilful determination.
Even handwriting experts can have some idea of a person character by reading handwriting, and Osama's handwriting revealed a darker side of him that was little known even to his own family.
Do you think that the first-point-of-contact in your name does not raise some alarm or concern of a disturbed and abnormal person ?
If you are "right minded" can you be pushed to make false claims ?
U r again trying to avoid the real question. U talk about right minded here and there but u failed to answer how can u expect most singaporean to be right minded. If most singapore cannot be right minded, then we can expect a lot of false claims. Your statemnt on "right minded" people is just pointless
Did I claim that "everybody make false claims in politics" - or is this not your own conclusion as usual ?
U need to go back to the reply on 1 Jul 1113 tat I stated
Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics
However strangely the word "almost" is snipped off. So is tat my conclusion ? Nah... I think again u have shown yourself to be lacking in integrity and honesty
So you intend to dodge your own error in claiming that I have made the statement, simply with a single missing word "almost" from your original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the credit to me ?
Does the truth need to be seen in the "True Lies" that you prefer to perpetuate ?
Do you consider the 50,000 Korean protestors as "right minded" against the backdrop of a larger population who did not protest ?
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
Do the larger population of South Koreans - who are "right minded" people - need to protest against the 50,000 protestors ?
Only one with a shallow mind that can only believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" will have the inability to see beyond the personal inability to handle the single digit No 3, let alone counting the truth that has larger numbers.
Do you seriously consider George Bush-Dick Cheney as being "right-minded" in their decision to invade Iraq, or Chen Shui-bian's persistence to fight for Taiwan's independence as "right-minded" policy for Taiwan ?
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? A u just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Based on your perverse logic, am I to expect you to believe that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart" ?
If your answer - in any direction - will already reveal what my answer will be about your question about "who is or what being right-minded" is all about ?
I already give u the dictionary definition.
Yes, you have given the dictionary definition, now apply it to yourself and to the three characters.
As usual your "stupid-is-smart" exaggeration shine through in your dishonest reply - did I challenge you to state make the following ?
[Quote]
"What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
[Unquote]
In the first reply on P4 - I had asked you "Would any right-minded person make false claims ?"
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM - I asked you :
"What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ? Are these instances - that you have given - the works of right minded persons ? "
On Pg 4 12Jul'08-11.37AM - you replied :
"Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked"
On Pg 4 13Jul'08-1.23AM - I replied you :
As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?
I see throught the reply and u know wat, U follow exactly tis same pattern as stated by me before. U r just not reading.
Look at the below
Should one sue for any reason in the first place, more so when one is holding public office and whose position is constantly being subject to public scrutiny ?
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
We did begin with identifying that in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance, pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"
The first post u made on tis matter is about whether should one in public office sue others or not. My reply is if u like to encourage people to make false claims or not. Then wat do u give ? U stated tat a democratic society more gracious bla bla bla and then make a remark tat right minded people do not make false claims. I said tat a lot of people do make false claims as u can see from the examples. U can say they r not right minded people, but wat is the whole point then ? Almost everybody fail in your standard of right minded and then there will be a lot of false claims isn't it ?
For once you have the courage to quote in full.
It seems that you do not understand or refuse to accept that "right minded people" do not make false claims; and believe that IF the three important characters - George Bush, Dick Cheney and Chen Shui-bian - are considered by me to be "NOT right minded" then all society must be similarly the same ?
What is your whole point with this perverse insistence in YOUR thinking - if not to suit your own plot ?
Are you claiming that George Bush and Dick Cheney is 'right minded' in their agenda to invade Iraq, or for Chen Shui-bian to antagonise China in pushing for Taiwan's independence ?
THREE persons versus their respective population numbers that do not support their policies - make your call based on your own perverse logic if only the three are not "right minded" will include their respective populations - and do not claim it to be mine.
Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?
If everybody is right minded,will there be smarter autocrats taking advantages of the commoners ? U know wat is the definition of righ minded ?
Only when there exist those who believe in the "TRUE LIE" that it is "right minded" to perpetuate the belief that being "Stupid-is-Smart" - which will surely allow Autocrats to manipulate this abnomaly in an otherwise very normal "right-minded" society.
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded.
Are these not your own conjectures, in the same manner that you perpetuate your "TRUE Lies" about my "theory tat singapore gonna implode" ?
Obviously, of all people - who else can be more right minded then the one who believe in the "True Lie" that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
In my reply to you on this date, I had also indicated that India did not have any large number of millionaires before PM Mamohan Singh liberalised the autocratic hold that its bureaucracy had over the economy.
Nah... now the point of content is not on india etc but on the interpretation of the below statements.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
Tis is the important issue now and I want to know your answer to the interpretation. Why do u purposefully refuse to interprete the statements u had written ?
The point has been stated and repeated again, China was not included as it was not considered a political democracy - when these states were brought up.
Hong kong had always been treated as a separate entity by every researchers to this date, even as it is part of China - are you disputing this fact ?
Even if I have left it out, the fact of the matter remain unchanged, and it is due to your own preferred plot that you insist on pursuing this to its death.
It is obvious that your "comprehensive" skills did not extend your unique "comprehension" abilities into your reading.
I read tis highlighted paragraph and again it does not say the gov should not intervene in economics. It stated political doman to be losely associated with each other suggesting a greater political intervention
Do you intend to find the exact words "gov should not intervene in economics" - then you do not need to look further to find these exact words printed to suit your preferred plot ?
However, if you are prepared to learn - did you not pick up the word "governance", "government", "political domain", "economic domain", "social domain" ?
Have you read beyond this introductory paragraph ?
If you did not, or if you did and could not comprehend, it is pointless to discuss this any further - is there ?
If you are disputing that there is no such term as 'Democratic Economy" then stick to this simpler discussion to suit your intellectual level - it will be no loss to you and least of all to me.
Wat does your para says ? It claims there r 4 different leadership styles bla bla bla and it has nothing tat suggest gov do not intervene into economy
Now let me provide some of the paragraphs which your reports had claimed
This work includes the promotion of the democratization of decision-making and government policies that lead to inclusion and participation, especially of the most vulnerable. It includes defending the rights of people for access to resources for their livelihoods. These processes aim to re-establish the power and accountability of governments to set national social and economic policies that protect and promote the interests of all citizens.
It did not give the idea of "gov" to do as little as possible to the economy. Instead it argues for the gov to do as much as possible to help the people.
On your second report, it again do not reflect tat gov should not intervene in society
There are many core areas of production and many decisions to be made. Could directions in all areas of the economy be subjected to a national referendum? A lot of them could be. This is especially true for decisions concerning the creation or expansion of a new area of production. For example, when nuclear power or genetically engineered food is first being developed, it is eminently practical to have a national (or planetary) referendum on whether citizens want it.
It actually proposed the gov to intervene in decisions making for the country. It also encourages the workers to be more involved in the decision making for the company
Wat do u have to say for the above 2 paragraphs from your own report ? It is completely different from your definition of "democratic economy". SO doesn't tat make u a lier ?
You are certainly anxious to prove that I am a "lier" when you have already been proven more then once to be a consistent "liar" - that began with you perpetuating an impossible "True Lie" in believing that "Stupid-is-Smart".
Have you missed out the last paragraph in my post that you have so diligently quoted and could not find the words to suit your plot ?
[Quote]
If you want to know more about "democratic economy" - try reading from the following site - “Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
[Unquote]
Should a "democratic economy" adopt your perverse manner of logic of how a "democratic economy" should be ?
What is the basis of your conjecture ?
Was the argument not centered around your denial that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore - compared to Hongkong - was due to the Singapore's government in targetting affluent immigrants ?
Your claim suggest that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore are "home-grown" citizens, when I had shown you that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore is due to migrants arrving into Singapore.
U had shown ? Don't give me tat crap. U cannot show tat the growth in the number of milionaires r due to migrants, u did not give any statistic or data or survey or anything but your own wild guess and theories.
The crap is with your own abilities to handle what is available as facts - that Singapore's population has grown in the face of stated government policies to attract high-value talents into Singapore.
In the present economic climate, even Singapore PM LHL will not even want to show the actual number of the millionaire migrants that have been attracted, and must surely be at the expense of the Singapore Citizens.
It is disingenious to claim my opinion to be guesses, when your own conjectures fared no better - as seen in your conclusion in the "theory of singapore's implosion".
Do you seriously believe that the Singapore Government will risk accepting "ordinary" migrants coming over to seek a better life, and add to the problems faced by ordinary Singaporean Citizens seeking government help ?
Ehh.. from the people I see, most migrants r chinese and indians who r here to seek a living. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. Do I seriously believe the Singapore Gov risk accepting "ordinary" migrants over to seek a better living ? Yeah ! I seriously believe in tat. Unless u wanna tell me the many car washers in the petrol kiosk are actually millionaires in disguise...
How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?
Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see form what percentage of migrants in the Department of Statistics ?
Are you not merely forming your own theory based again on your own wild guesses ?
You seem to ignore the facts presented in my reply that showed the Singapore government's plans to increase the population by another 50 per cent - targetting a total of 6.5 Million from the present 4.5 million.
It is true singapore may have a more aggressive plan, however r they related ?
Should there be no relationship ?
Was it not highlighted in at least two of my earlier replies ?
Did you ignore the earlier replies, and dodge the issue again by asking a "Stupid-is-Smart" question ?
And u seems to ignore the fact tat hong kong is also facing a flux of rich chinese to their cities as well.
As said, due to the absence of statistical data, your conclusion is just a wild guess
If my statement in the preceding paragraph has no relations, how did you arrive at this conjecture ?
Are you capable of handling statistics ?
Are you making a general issue out of these specific issues when the specifc reply was clearly given on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM ?
Is there something wrong with u or something but u did not reply anything on your experiences in democratic country. Perhaps u should go and see again.
Are you having any difficulties in understanding what was stated as my reply, or did it not suit your own plot ?
Since you brought the issue of avoidance - have you now decided to drop the issue about investment in Zibabwe by private enterprises and not by State, your "Father, Son and Donkey" analogy, and shorten the entire list with a summary of your own pet topics, leaving out the rest of embarrassing issues that have been thrased across 7 pages ?
I should be the one tat claimed tis charged. I look through your tons of rubbish and I found nothing on the issue ? Perhaps your stupid action of pasting everything inside exceeded the intended reply length ?
If it was so, why did you not initiated the charge ?
Is this reply given by you a reflection in your "stupidity displayed" through the tons of perverse garbage that you have thrown up repeatedly.
Only you will have your own perverse agenda for wilfully re-interpreting my replies to suit your own perverse logic that has been typified in your preference in adopting "Stupid-is-Smart".
Others would have been mischevious in being shocking, but would have at least shown some intelligence, unlike your style in argument at being shocking stupid to prove your own position that start with being "Stupid-is-Smart".
No reply to the challenges ? So it is true tat u had nothing to say about
A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
I got to ask also... wat happeend to your civil servant repl ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter ?
Only you will wish that these is no reply, when you had refused to read the reply that was already given, but insist on my reply to fit your own preferred plot.
Did I not mention that even as India was a political democracy, its economy was under the autocratic control of its bureaucracy ?
If it was not until PM Mamohan Singh's decision to liberalise India's economy from autocratic control that saw India blossomed and produced all the millionaires.
Then again, Hong Kong's large number of millionaires was also similarly home-grown, as her migrant population was less aggressive compared to Singapore's immigration policies - which had specifically targetted high value entrepreneurs, or special talents in the higher income levels.
China's millionaires were left out, as it was not comparable due to the fact that she is not a political democracy at the National Level, even as it dismantled its Central Planning Command Economy.
You seem to have nothing to argue about except to persist in the fact that China was left out by design or by mistake.
In the manner that you have displayed your thought process, you have shown that there is nothing more for you argue except to rehash your old positions on all the old issues, and continue to justify those positions with your perverse logi
It seems to me that both of stupidissmart and atobe posts can be greatly and effectively shorten and summarised if we were to take out the abuses and insults they hurl at each others....
It makes objectivity difficult.
It seems to me that both of stupidissmart and atobe posts can be greatly and effectively shorten and summarised if we were to take out the abuses and insults they hurl at each others....
Sure, I can remove all the unsults and verbal abuse from my post. I always support tis action. Then u can see if atobe will continue his verbal abuse or not
The choice of the words - "theory" and "implosion" - is your own.
How can you attribute this "theory tat singapore will implode" to be mine, when it is your own conjecture based on pure guess-work of what you have read in my statement that you have quoted in italics ?
How did you so brilliantly claim that "implode" is determined from "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
U r just repeating. The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
The whole thing in blue above is the theory u r presenting. How do anyone know I am refering to your paragraph ? The keyword is "your" from below
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I already explicitly mention it is about your statement. And the only reason u r denying it is your theory is simply because of the word "implosion". I have already mentioned many times tat the implosion is simply derived from your "Krakatoa volcanic outburst". However u choose to attack the word "implosion" instead of anything else. As said before, tis is a metaphor. The only idea tat is desired to be presented is some catastrophic failure. I have already questioned u upteen times on the difference between the 2 statements
U cannot answer. I had already told u my justification why I choose the word "implosion". Tis is because I picture overwhelming pressure acting on society which u mention will cause implosion instead of explosion. However u felt overwhelming pressure results in "explosion". Is there anything wrong with either of the word chosen ? It is just a matter of personal preference. U do not like the word I choose, I cannot help u. U can interprete the word as "explosion" if u want but I stick with the word "implosion".
The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse". I paste back point 1.1.1 etc here again for u to ponder
1.1.1) U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
If this statement is my "theory" - I did not conclude an IMPLOSION that leads to collapse, as I mentioned that it will lead to "sudden political swings that result in an outcome that is UNKNOWN - UNPREDICTABLE.
Tis is part of your claim following the "volcanic eruption"
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
U see the idea we r fighting for is about "stability". The opposite of stability is "unpredictable". U r fighting for a case where u claim singapore is not stable but unpredictable, which result in giving CEO risk in investing over here and singapore having less stability than china. Tis is obviously a look into the future which u cannot do and it is a wild guess.
And saying I claim singapore is gonna collapse based on tis one line is just incredible
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Not only did I explicitly mention "your theory", I also conclude it with "wild guesses". And based on tis one line u can conclude I claim singapore is collapsing !?! Don't u find tat too ridicuous ? And your only defense ? "implosion" "implosion"... and tat is it...
Have you now become an expert at the small nuances in the words used - between "less of a pull factor" and "no longer a pull factor" ?
How did you miss out by such a wide margin between my statement of an "unpredictable outcome" to your own conclusion of "implosive outcome" when reading my statement ?
If the difference in my statement with ST - become such an easy lie, what does it make of your own conclusion "tat singapore will implode" ?
Have you made another one of your "true lie" - or is it a "false lie" - to become a "perfect liar" ?
Surprisingly after a lot of vernal abuses, u cannot answer your mistake of claiming ST "less of a pull factor" to become "no longer a pull factor". So u agree u made a mistake in your conclusion ? Did u wonder if u also make a mistake with concluding I said "singapore" and "china" is gonna collapse ? Or u just refuse to acnkowledge your mistake and keep going and going ?
If there is any confidence left by now - the PAP would have made an announcement for a by-Election to have a new MP to serve the seat made vacant by the late Dr Ong Chit Chung.
Recent events also saw SM GCT making political hustings in Hougang even before the 2010 elections, when his PAP refuse to hold by-elections for the late Dr Ong Chit Chung's constituency.
The recent actions also saw MM LKY and PM LHL both desparately attempting to place the last nail into CSJ's coffin to prevent his resurgence.
Jan 2008 is definitely better than 1980's
U know to make a by election, it take a lot of trouble and cost to the economy etc. U have to give a public holiday to the voters in order for them to cast their vote. And watever the outcomeis, it does not change the fact who will hold the majority of the seat. So u think it is worth it ? U got to follow the law on wat happened if a holder of a position pass away, and not watever u like.
On CSJ, historically tis is not something new. Why don't u see the forming of "reform party" and the JBJ coming back to serve the opposition without being stopped as a sign of confidence from PAP. If they really wanna hammer the last nail, they should do it on JBJ and not the infamous CSJ. BTW, CSJ really did commit libel.
If the gov has no confidence, he will not increase the tax of the people or their own pay. If they r so "un-confident" of themselves, why will they do such an unpopular measure ? U think they r not gonna run for the next election ?
Why should you not die from an itch, when you have concluded that someone else had died from the same symptoms ?
Did I conclude someone had died from the same symptoms ? Whenever I claim something, I show the evidence. Whenever u claim something, u just "claim". If u really wanna support your conclusion, prove it. Furthermore, u cannot defend yourself from having "black and white thinking" since u have nothing to say about
why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
U on one hand claiming china is gonna collapse and the other says china is gonna thrive despite corruption. Tis is also a flip flop. Surprisingly u become guilty of all the charges u have framed me
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
Again another groundless conclusion. I placed emphasis tat political stability is important because tat is wat we r debating over. No where did I mention it is the primary factor. And wat is the charge ? Just because I say it is important many times means it must be the "most important" ? Just because the geography teacher keep repeating geography is an important subject means geography is the most important subject ? U r making a groundless conclusion again. Up till now, u still cannot prove I claimed it is the "most important" factor in attracting business.
Furthermore the reason why I repeat the importance of political stability is due to u just trying to be difficult.
How many ways should I interprete your statement - "Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ?" ? Did you not state "if China can never do the same as the US to attack another country ?"
Again after saying so many things, u still refuse to accept the below
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
U should answer tis point because it is important to distinguish the powers of a powerful country and an ordinary company. However U refuse just confirms tat u r not here to discuss, but to insult. If u r sincere about discussion, then u will try to answer other people enquiries tat help to establish the truth and wat the other party try to say. U refusing shows your lack of sincerity. I have always answered all your question. U have repeatedly refuse to answer questions.
Again china is a country. Comparing a powerful country with a company is just out of point. Is EU the entire world ? Well, it is your entire examples of companies investing in zimbabwe
Does it matter if the EU impose sanctions, where there are profits to be made, others will go in ? Is EU the entire world ? Even with UN sanctions, China will still go in to trade with Zimbabwe.
With less and less countries prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into Zimbabwe ?
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt officers and they will really treasure u since lesser people r willing to deal with them. If u think tis sort of income is stable , then u r wrong.
Now what was the main point all about ? Was it about US and China attacking others, or was it about Zimbabwe not able to attract investments, breaking bonds that will lead China to attack her ?
It is about china having more powers than a company. China has the option of attacking zimbabwe which an ordinary company can never do.
Who do you think you are fooling playing with semantics ?
You sound more credible being a liar when you make some effort in making your "true lie" ?
At least you were already being very credible telling your "false lies" as these are more like your true nature in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Can u prove I said it is the "most important" factor ? No ? Then end of your story.
Do you even know what you are talking about, or have you lost track of your own arguments by pursuing your "true lies" ?
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Let me rephrase and extend then. The people in your report r facing problems when they r investing in region tat r politically unstable. A particular person in your report who invested in an unstable region in africa had been charged in court and had all its possession confiscated. Otherwise u can face economic sanction like the one in place now. Wat is the conclusion ? U can get into serious trouble when u invest in a politically unstable region. And tat is why political stability is a factor to consider when u invest
Another attempt at promoting your digression to suit your own plot with another "true lie" ? You should start with your "false lie" - it sound more laughably absurd.
These is just insult with no content in it
With everyone being "right minded" and no one will make a false claim at not passing 2.4km IPPT - is there a need for the SAF to conduct the 2.4km IPPT ?
I don't really see your point is tis passage. If u ask me, it is a diversion from the real topic at hand. I already told u "assuming right minded people do nto make false claims". But not everybody is right minded in the society. Since they can be such a low number, then wat is the point of u talking about "right minded" people when in the end there will still be lots of false claims
A log-in name is a "window" to a person's personna; and one would have taken yours at face value in simply poking fun at common sense and the established nature of things.
Unfortunately, your perverse logic with your arguments reflected in your words used - such as your belief in 'TRUE lies" and your perverse indulgence in idiocy - showed that you are not merely challenging common sense in jest, but is challenging common sense itself with your perverse logic made with such wilful determination.
Even handwriting experts can have some idea of a person character by reading handwriting, and Osama's handwriting revealed a darker side of him that was little known even to his own family.
Do you think that the first-point-of-contact in your name does not raise some alarm or concern of a disturbed and abnormal person ?
So u r telling me u r judging people based on their handwriting and their name ? And u r basing your attack in people because of trivial unprovable hypothesis ? And tat give u a reason to say "stupid is smart here" "stupid is smart there" ? Aren't u judging a person by its cover, or judging me based on my log in name ? Tat is really shallow and I must say tis, lame.
So you intend to dodge your own error in claiming that I have made the statement, simply with a single missing word "almost" from your original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the credit to me ?
Dodge my error ? From the look of things, don't u agree with me tat the person sniping the word "almost" away is probably... u ?
Do the larger population of South Koreans - who are "right minded" people - need to protest against the 50,000 protestors ?
U r not reading my reply
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue, 50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown, and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
Based on your perverse logic, am I to expect you to believe that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart" ?
U r just hurling insults and not answering the question
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Again u refuse to answer tis point. It shows u r not sincere in discussion at all. U just want to win and u do nto want to see the truth. Otherwise u will answer the question posed
Yes, you have given the dictionary definition, now apply it to yourself and to the three characters.
The question is never on the definition of the word, but how many people can follow the standard
It seems that you do not understand or refuse to accept that "right minded people" do not make false claims; and believe that IF the three important characters - George Bush, Dick Cheney and Chen Shui-bian - are considered by me to be "NOT right minded" then all society must be similarly the same ?
These 3 person r significant since they r the top people of the country and represent someone much higher than the man on the streets. Even clinton who initially claim he have no relationship with monica is also making a false claim. Furthermore 50,000 people from korea on beef issue r not right minded and people spreading rumors on obama r also considered not right minded. There r other examples of people who r not right minded like Nasir OR Anwar from malaysia, myanmar leaders, official statements from china tat is proved to deviate from the truth, extremist terrorists, Thaksin corruption charges , phillipines impeachment charges against the president, North korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, leaders from some african nations and many other examples where false claims r made r not right minded. In fact a lot of countries leaders r not right minded. So u expect the people to be right minded ?
Only when there exist those who believe in the "TRUE LIE" that it is "right minded" to perpetuate the belief that being "Stupid-is-Smart" - which will surely allow Autocrats to manipulate this abnomaly in an otherwise very normal "right-minded" society.
Wat r u trying to say here ? Just insults again isn't it ? Why don't u face it, if everyone is right minded, then the society and its people r perfect and communism could have worked. Other than insults, can u actually discuss properly ?
Are these not your own conjectures, in the same manner that you perpetuate your "TRUE Lies" about my "theory tat singapore gonna implode"
Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded
The point has been stated and repeated again, China was not included as it was not considered a political democracy - when these states were brought up.
Now the point I wanna discuss is already different, as stated previously. It is the interpretation of the 3 sentences u put in. If u again refuse to elaborate on the statement, then u proved u had flip flop in your stand about putting china in.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
Do you intend to find the exact words "gov should not intervene in economics" - then you do not need to look further to find these exact words printed to suit your preferred plot ?
I have shown my points tat your reports is not following your model on hw a "democratic economy" works. If u think it do, then u have to quote out the relevant passages from your report tat supports such belief. Otherwise u again had shown yourself to be dishonest since u claim a definition of a word which is wrong and twist and turn it to watever u want.
You are certainly anxious to prove that I am a "lier" when you have already been proven more then once to be a consistent "liar" - that began with you perpetuating an impossible "True Lie" in believing that "Stupid-is-Smart".
Wat about the many reports u pasted before ? All of them contradicts your idea ? Why not give the relevant passage from the 4 reports u yourself provide ? And the link u give for your
“Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
IS DEAD. How do u expect me to comment on a dead link ?
In the present economic climate, even Singapore PM LHL will not even want to show the actual number of the millionaire migrants that have been attracted, and must surely be at the expense of the Singapore Citizens.
It is disingenious to claim my opinion to be guesses, when your own conjectures fared no better - as seen in your conclusion in the "theory of singapore's implosion".
In the end wat ? No statistic data and it is just wild guesses. The only statistic data shows singapore had more proportion of people who r millionaires compared with hong kong.
It is saddening to see u harping on the word "implosion". Is tat all u can complain about ? I probably got more than 10 different things I can talk about
How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?
Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see form what percentage of migrants in the Department of Statistics ?
And how do u know these car washers can't be ordinary migrants ? I already told u before. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. If tis group of people r not your so called 50% of the migrants, then where do tis big group of people go to ? Adding 50 % of the population is a big amount. Out of 3 person u see, 1 is a migrant. And then u claim they r not ordinary people who r seen to work ordinary.
Should there be no relationship ?
Was it not highlighted in at least two of my earlier replies ?
U mean u claiming they r not here as ordinary citizen ? I don't see the hightlight.
If my statement in the preceding paragraph has no relations, how did you arrive at this conjecture ?
Are you capable of handling statistics ?
U claim singapore attract a lot of foreigners I also say hong kong also attract a lot of chinese into the territory. Chinese r not considered forreigner and it is not within your report scope
Are you having any difficulties in understanding what was stated as my reply, or did it not suit your own plot ?
It is just funny tat u refuse to answer even your own question. If it is a plot, u r the one devising it. U r the one tat ask tis question first
If it was so, why did you not initiated the charge ?
I already reply u previously, u did not reply. So obviously I can conclude u concede.
Only you will wish that these is no reply, when you had refused to read the reply that was already given, but insist on my reply to fit your own preferred plot.
Did I not mention that even as India was a political democracy, its economy was under the autocratic control of its bureaucracy ?
If it was not until PM Mamohan Singh's decision to liberalise India's economy from autocratic control that saw India blossomed and produced all the millionaires.
U r not answering to the point. Then isn't it obvious tat democracy in politics had nothing to do with "democracting" the economy ? U claimed tis indian PM liberalise india economy. But the fact is he done it too late. China who is not democratic yet had "democrat" their economy. Tat is why their economy is better and they r more influential. So wat is the point of democracy in politics when it is mutually independent to economy ? U refuse to answer the above point and talk about other stuffs. I put it in number form for u
4.3.1) India is democratic for many years. China is not democratic
4.3.2) U claim india economy is not "democratic" in the past and surprisingly claim china economy is for many years. Tat is your explanation why china's economy is better than india despite india being democratic
4.3.3) Then the question is, Wat is the point of democracy in politics, if it does not lead to it to be a "democratic" economic ? Why people choose democracy is simply because they should get a better life. They should not choose it because the westerners sing praise of it.
And now u talk about something completely different. U r claiming we should not compare with china since it is not a democratic country. Why not ? Why compare
Singapore Versus India + Hong Kong
and not
Singapore + China against Hong Kong + India ?
U r again out of point
I also realise u refuse to answer on your civil servant reply. I pasted it again for u to reply
I got to ask also... wat happened to your civil servant reply ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter now ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Sure, I can remove all the unsults and verbal abuse from my post. I always support tis action. Then u can see if atobe will continue his verbal abuse or not
U r just repeating. The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
The whole thing in blue above is the theory u r presenting. How do anyone know I am refering to your paragraph ? The keyword is "your" from below
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I already explicitly mention it is about your statement. And the only reason u r denying it is your theory is simply because of the word "implosion". I have already mentioned many times tat the implosion is simply derived from your "Krakatoa volcanic outburst". However u choose to attack the word "implosion" instead of anything else. As said before, tis is a metaphor. The only idea tat is desired to be presented is some catastrophic failure. I have already questioned u upteen times on the difference between the 2 statements
U cannot answer. I had already told u my justification why I choose the word "implosion". Tis is because I picture overwhelming pressure acting on society which u mention will cause implosion instead of explosion. However u felt overwhelming pressure results in "explosion". Is there anything wrong with either of the word chosen ? It is just a matter of personal preference. U do not like the word I choose, I cannot help u. U can interprete the word as "explosion" if u want but I stick with the word "implosion".
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse". I paste back point 1.1.1 etc here again for u to ponder
1.1.1) U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
Tis is part of your claim following the "volcanic eruption"
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable
U see the idea we r fighting for is about "stability". The opposite of stability is "unpredictable". U r fighting for a case where u claim singapore is not stable but unpredictable, which result in giving CEO risk in investing over here and singapore having less stability than china. Tis is obviously a look into the future which u cannot do and it is a wild guess.
And saying I claim singapore is gonna collapse based on tis one line is just incredible
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Not only did I explicitly mention "your theory", I also conclude it with "wild guesses". And based on tis one line u can conclude I claim singapore is collapsing !?! Don't u find tat too ridicuous ? And your only defense ? "implosion" "implosion"... and tat is it...
Surprisingly after a lot of vernal abuses, u cannot answer your mistake of claiming ST "less of a pull factor" to become "no longer a pull factor". So u agree u made a mistake in your conclusion ? Did u wonder if u also make a mistake with concluding I said "singapore" and "china" is gonna collapse ? Or u just refuse to acnkowledge your mistake and keep going and going ?
Jan 2008 is definitely better than 1980's
U know to make a by election, it take a lot of trouble and cost to the economy etc. U have to give a public holiday to the voters in order for them to cast their vote. And watever the outcomeis, it does not change the fact who will hold the majority of the seat. So u think it is worth it ? U got to follow the law on wat happened if a holder of a position pass away, and not watever u like.
On CSJ, historically tis is not something new. Why don't u see the forming of "reform party" and the JBJ coming back to serve the opposition without being stopped as a sign of confidence from PAP. If they really wanna hammer the last nail, they should do it on JBJ and not the infamous CSJ. BTW, CSJ really did commit libel.
If the gov has no confidence, he will not increase the tax of the people or their own pay. If they r so "un-confident" of themselves, why will they do such an unpopular measure ? U think they r not gonna run for the next election ?
Did I conclude someone had died from the same symptoms ? Whenever I claim something, I show the evidence. Whenever u claim something, u just "claim". If u really wanna support your conclusion, prove it. Furthermore, u cannot defend yourself from having "black and white thinking" since u have nothing to say about
why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
U on one hand claiming china is gonna collapse and the other says china is gonna thrive despite corruption. Tis is also a flip flop. Surprisingly u become guilty of all the charges u have framed me
Again another groundless conclusion. I placed emphasis tat political stability is important because tat is wat we r debating over. No where did I mention it is the primary factor. And wat is the charge ? Just because I say it is important many times means it must be the "most important" ? Just because the geography teacher keep repeating geography is an important subject means geography is the most important subject ? U r making a groundless conclusion again. Up till now, u still cannot prove I claimed it is the "most important" factor in attracting business.
Furthermore the reason why I repeat the importance of political stability is due to u just trying to be difficult.
Again after saying so many things, u still refuse to accept the below
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
U should answer tis point because it is important to distinguish the powers of a powerful country and an ordinary company. However U refuse just confirms tat u r not here to discuss, but to insult. If u r sincere about discussion, then u will try to answer other people enquiries tat help to establish the truth and wat the other party try to say. U refusing shows your lack of sincerity. I have always answered all your question. U have repeatedly refuse to answer questions.
Again china is a country. Comparing a powerful country with a company is just out of point. Is EU the entire world ? Well, it is your entire examples of companies investing in zimbabwe
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt officers and they will really treasure u since lesser people r willing to deal with them. If u think tis sort of income is stable , then u r wrong.
It is about china having more powers than a company. China has the option of attacking zimbabwe which an ordinary company can never do.
Can u prove I said it is the "most important" factor ? No ? Then end of your story.
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Let me rephrase and extend then. The people in your report r facing problems when they r investing in region tat r politically unstable. A particular person in your report who invested in an unstable region in africa had been charged in court and had all its possession confiscated. Otherwise u can face economic sanction like the one in place now. Wat is the conclusion ? U can get into serious trouble when u invest in a politically unstable region. And tat is why political stability is a factor to consider when u invest
These is just insult with no content in it
I don't really see your point is tis passage. If u ask me, it is a diversion from the real topic at hand. I already told u "assuming right minded people do nto make false claims". But not everybody is right minded in the society. Since they can be such a low number, then wat is the point of u talking about "right minded" people when in the end there will still be lots of false claims
So u r telling me u r judging people based on their handwriting and their name ? And u r basing your attack in people because of trivial unprovable hypothesis ? And tat give u a reason to say "stupid is smart here" "stupid is smart there" ? Aren't u judging a person by its cover, or judging me based on my log in name ? Tat is really shallow and I must say tis, lame.
Dodge my error ? From the look of things, don't u agree with me tat the person sniping the word "almost" away is probably... u ?
U r not reading my reply
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue, 50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown, and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
U r just hurling insults and not answering the question
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Again u refuse to answer tis point. It shows u r not sincere in discussion at all. U just want to win and u do nto want to see the truth. Otherwise u will answer the question posed
The question is never on the definition of the word, but how many people can follow the standard
These 3 person r significant since they r the top people of the country and represent someone much higher than the man on the streets. Even clinton who initially claim he have no relationship with monica is also making a false claim. Furthermore 50,000 people from korea on beef issue r not right minded and people spreading rumors on obama r also considered not right minded. There r other examples of people who r not right minded like Nasir OR Anwar from malaysia, myanmar leaders, official statements from china tat is proved to deviate from the truth, extremist terrorists, Thaksin corruption charges , phillipines impeachment charges against the president, North korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, leaders from some african nations and many other examples where false claims r made r not right minded. In fact a lot of countries leaders r not right minded. So u expect the people to be right minded ?
Wat r u trying to say here ? Just insults again isn't it ? Why don't u face it, if everyone is right minded, then the society and its people r perfect and communism could have worked. Other than insults, can u actually discuss properly ?
Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded
Now the point I wanna discuss is already different, as stated previously. It is the interpretation of the 3 sentences u put in. If u again refuse to elaborate on the statement, then u proved u had flip flop in your stand about putting china in.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
I have shown my points tat your reports is not following your model on hw a "democratic economy" works. If u think it do, then u have to quote out the relevant passages from your report tat supports such belief. Otherwise u again had shown yourself to be dishonest since u claim a definition of a word which is wrong and twist and turn it to watever u want.
Wat about the many reports u pasted before ? All of them contradicts your idea ? Why not give the relevant passage from the 4 reports u yourself provide ? And the link u give for your
“Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
IS DEAD. How do u expect me to comment on a dead link ?
In the end wat ? No statistic data and it is just wild guesses. The only statistic data shows singapore had more proportion of people who r millionaires compared with hong kong.
It is saddening to see u harping on the word "implosion". Is tat all u can complain about ? I probably got more than 10 different things I can talk about
And how do u know these car washers can't be ordinary migrants ? I already told u before. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. If tis group of people r not your so called 50% of the migrants, then where do tis big group of people go to ? Adding 50 % of the population is a big amount. Out of 3 person u see, 1 is a migrant. And then u claim they r not ordinary people who r seen to work ordinary.
U mean u claiming they r not here as ordinary citizen ? I don't see the hightlight.
U claim singapore attract a lot of foreigners I also say hong kong also attract a lot of chinese into the territory. Chinese r not considered forreigner and it is not within your report scope
It is just funny tat u refuse to answer even your own question. If it is a plot, u r the one devising it. U r the one tat ask tis question first
I already reply u previously, u did not reply. So obviously I can conclude u concede.
U r not answering to the point. Then isn't it obvious tat democracy in politics had nothing to do with "democracting" the economy ? U claimed tis indian PM liberalise india economy. But the fact is he done it too late. China who is not democratic yet had "democrat" their economy. Tat is why their economy is better and they r more influential. So wat is the point of democracy in politics when it is mutually independent to economy ? U refuse to answer the above point and talk about other stuffs. I put it in number form for u
4.3.1) India is democratic for many years. China is not democratic
4.3.2) U claim india economy is not "democratic" in the past and surprisingly claim china economy is for many years. Tat is your explanation why china's economy is better than india despite india being democratic
4.3.3) Then the question is, Wat is the point of democracy in politics, if it does not lead to it to be a "democratic" economic ? Why people choose democracy is simply because they should get a better life. They should not choose it because the westerners sing praise of it.
And now u talk about something completely different. U r claiming we should not compare with china since it is not a democratic country. Why not ? Why compare
Singapore Versus India + Hong Kong
and not
Singapore + China against Hong Kong + India ?
U r again out of point
I also realise u refuse to answer on your civil servant reply. I pasted it again for u to reply
I got to ask also... wat happened to your civil servant reply ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter now ?
is this a record entry in terms of sheer size?
Atobe probably had one tat is so long it cut off halfway.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Atobe probably had one tat is so long it cut off halfway.
outwriting atobe is not necessarily a feather in the cap.
less is more.
I am not trying to win by number of words.
Anyway tis discussion has become a test of patience
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
It seems to me that both of stupidissmart and atobe posts can be greatly and effectively shorten and summarised if we were to take out the abuses and insults they hurl at each others....
Sure, I can remove all the unsults and verbal abuse from my post. I always support tis action. Then u can see if atobe will continue his verbal abuse or not
I am amaze that you will reply to "Mostwanted5125" remarks - {in Italics} - into your present reply to my last response ?
If I am petty, I would look at this as an added insult to the verbal assault towards "common sense" that you have preferred to adopt from the moment that you registered your "nick".- which is further seen in your wilful ways in arguing against common sense.
I am even more surpirsed that you will see this as a test of patience, when you have persisted in using idiocy to prove your position.
Can there be any objectivity in this exercise to prove your idiocy is wrong, when you insist on its correctness ?
The choice of the words - "theory" and "implosion" - is your own.
How can you attribute this "theory tat singapore will implode" to be mine, when it is your own conjecture based on pure guess-work of what you have read in my statement that you have quoted in italics ?
How did you so brilliantly claim that "implode" is determined from "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
U r just repeating. The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
The whole thing in blue above is the theory u r presenting. How do anyone know I am refering to your paragraph ? The keyword is "your" from below
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Am I merely repeating or are you not repeating the fact that your "Theory" is related to "the whole idea" that I have presented ? Is there anything wrong with this fact being repeated ? Was it not about this paragraph itself that you got it wrong from the start claiming it to be a "theory" - and attributing this "theory" to be my creation ?
You would have sounded more credible if you had stated it correctly that - "It is my {Stupidissmart} idea that your {Atobe} statement is no more then a theory".
For once you have accurately indicated that - "The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented" - my paragraph is "my idea", the "Theory" was your creation.
Your final statement quoted from above that you prefer to print in "blue" -
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
- clearly shows the complete inaccuracy tht you persist to perpetuate when the idea "tat singapore is gonna implode" is your own conclusion from my paragraph that you claim to be "my Theory".
I already explicitly mention it is about your statement. And the only reason u r denying it is your theory is simply because of the word "implosion". I have already mentioned many times tat the implosion is simply derived from your "Krakatoa volcanic outburst". However u choose to attack the word "implosion" instead of anything else. As said before, tis is a metaphor. The only idea tat is desired to be presented is some catastrophic failure. I have already questioned u upteen times on the difference between the 2 statements
U cannot answer. I had already told u my justification why I choose the word "implosion". Tis is because I picture overwhelming pressure acting on society which u mention will cause implosion instead of explosion. However u felt overwhelming pressure results in "explosion". Is there anything wrong with either of the word chosen ? It is just a matter of personal preference. U do not like the word I choose, I cannot help u. U can interprete the word as "explosion" if u want but I stick with the word "implosion".
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
You persist in claiming that I cannot answer your two questions - or have you ignored my response completely as it was inconvenient to your plot ?
Did you missed my reply given that you prefer not even to quote but make a general dishonest statement ?
Have I only attacked your preferred word - "implosion" - and nothing else ?
Again, another dishonest attempt to make yourself look like the victim - by simply confusing two separate issues into one ?
If I have not ripped each word in every reply that you gave, would you have the opportunity to expand your arguments to such length ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse". I paste back point 1.1.1 etc here again for u to ponder
1.1.1) U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
Again, another dishonest attempt to make yourself look like the victim - by conveniently missing out the part that I have quoted from your own post made previously.
Should I be surprised that you have conveniently left out this part of my reply that was made on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM - and which you were supposed to be giving an honest reply ?
[Quote]
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
[UnQuote]
How did you so brilliantly conclude from "my paragraph" that Singapore will implode - which you intend to mean as "collapse" - as seen from your own given definition ?
Now, you are again being exposed for your dishonesty by making a "false lie" in your statement - The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse".
Perhaps it is your "True Lie" that was cleverly disguised.
If this statement is my "theory" - I did not conclude an IMPLOSION that leads to collapse, as I mentioned that it will lead to "sudden political swings that result in an outcome that is UNKNOWN - UNPREDICTABLE.
Tis is part of your claim following the "volcanic eruption"
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
Is this not another example of dishonesty ? Perhaps it shows desparation on your part as your game plan is being systemetically dismantled and exposed for your many fraudulent positions ?
Was this part of my reply on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM ?
Even if both paragraphs are linked together - do you expect to be justified to form your conclusion that my paragraph led you to believe -
tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable
U see the idea we r fighting for is about "stability". The opposite of stability is "unpredictable". U r fighting for a case where u claim singapore is not stable but unpredictable, which result in giving CEO risk in investing over here and singapore having less stability than china. Tis is obviously a look into the future which u cannot do and it is a wild guess.
Was the "fight" over the word "stability" now ?
Was it not about the word - "implosion" ?
Another one of your convenient dodging and diversion to another line of argument after failing with a previous weak "implosion" ?
Is this not another one more of your own "Theory" based on your own preferred "wild guesses" in expanding the very simple and clear words stated in the manner that was shown in the separate statements made ?
Is this not the beginning of your flip-flop in your reply ?
And saying I claim singapore is gonna collapse based on tis one line is just incredible
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Not only did I explicitly mention "your theory", I also conclude it with "wild guesses". And based on tis one line u can conclude I claim singapore is collapsing !?! Don't u find tat too ridicuous ? And your only defense ? "implosion" "implosion"... and tat is it...
Are you now the victim of your own idiocy ? Should I sympathise you ?
You have developed an uncanny skill in arriving at this position, and somehow forgotten what you have said earlier, and picking out past words only when convenient to your present hopeless position.
Read your own definition of what "IMPLOSION" is about.
The choice of words, and the choice in your conclusion with a theory that was decisive in its end - were all yours to make from reading my paragraph.
Are you a victim from any fault of my doing ?
This is not only ridiculous, but pure idiocy as in your "True Lie"
Have you now become an expert at the small nuances in the words used - between "less of a pull factor" and "no longer a pull factor" ?
How did you miss out by such a wide margin between my statement of an "unpredictable outcome" to your own conclusion of "implosive outcome" when reading my statement ?
If the difference in my statement with ST - become such an easy lie, what does it make of your own conclusion "tat singapore will implode" ?
Have you made another one of your "true lie" - or is it a "false lie" - to become a "perfect liar" ?
Surprisingly after a lot of vernal abuses, u cannot answer your mistake of claiming ST "less of a pull factor" to become "no longer a pull factor". So u agree u made a mistake in your conclusion ? Did u wonder if u also make a mistake with concluding I said "singapore" and "china" is gonna collapse ? Or u just refuse to acnkowledge your mistake and keep going and going ?
Are you so desparate for some vindication in seeing your plot succeed ?
Is it not pathetic that if you can claim correctness in concluding that "Singapore will implode" from reading my straight-forward paragraph, I should be seen as making an error to have quoted ST's statement differently ?
Am I not entitled to make my own conclusiong by extending ST's remarks ?
If I am wrong to do so, are you suggesting that you were also similarly wrong in concluding that "Singapore will implode" ?
You have again shown your weakness by anxiously expecting / waiting for me to be unable to make a reply. This is truly pathetic.
If there is any confidence left by now - the PAP would have made an announcement for a by-Election to have a new MP to serve the seat made vacant by the late Dr Ong Chit Chung.
Recent events also saw SM GCT making political hustings in Hougang even before the 2010 elections, when his PAP refuse to hold by-elections for the late Dr Ong Chit Chung's constituency.
The recent actions also saw MM LKY and PM LHL both desparately attempting to place the last nail into CSJ's coffin to prevent his resurgence.
Jan 2008 is definitely better than 1980's
U know to make a by election, it take a lot of trouble and cost to the economy etc. U have to give a public holiday to the voters in order for them to cast their vote. And watever the outcomeis, it does not change the fact who will hold the majority of the seat. So u think it is worth it ? U got to follow the law on wat happened if a holder of a position pass away, and not watever u like.
On CSJ, historically tis is not something new. Why don't u see the forming of "reform party" and the JBJ coming back to serve the opposition without being stopped as a sign of confidence from PAP. If they really wanna hammer the last nail, they should do it on JBJ and not the infamous CSJ. BTW, CSJ really did commit libel.
If the gov has no confidence, he will not increase the tax of the people or their own pay. If they r so "un-confident" of themselves, why will they do such an unpopular measure ? U think they r not gonna run for the next election ?
So January 2008 is more recent then the events in June-July 2008 ?
Did you not attempt to support JBJ as your favorite opposition ?
I am surprised that you will wish for the last nail to be placed on JBJ.
With regards to CSJ' supposed libel, it is only in the little minds of the LKY's mindless digits that will see it the way it is programmed.
Should I dispute your "Theory" in this - as seen in this thread ?
Why should you not die from an itch, when you have concluded that someone else had died from the same symptoms ?
Did I conclude someone had died from the same symptoms ? Whenever I claim something, I show the evidence. Whenever u claim something, u just "claim". If u really wanna support your conclusion, prove it. Furthermore, u cannot defend yourself from having "black and white thinking" since u have nothing to say about
Did you not conclude that Singapore will "implode" - and by your definition - "collapse" ?
Did you prove yourself to be correct in your "claim" that you were correct in interpreting "tat singapore gonna implode" by reading my paragraph ?
Do I need to defend your values in "Black-and-white thinking" ? Surely, you are enough an expert without any help from me ?
why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
U on one hand claiming china is gonna collapse and the other says china is gonna thrive despite corruption. Tis is also a flip flop. Surprisingly u become guilty of all the charges u have framed me
Now you are being a genious at this point - by mixing the sequence of events that brought the different arguments out that had previously dislodged your claims.
Have you seen your position to be so badly weakened that you must now resort to desparae measures to confuse issues ?
Was it not a fact that you were deliberately deceitful continuing with your "True Lie" - from Pg 2 through Pg 4 - in making your statements insisting - "tat singapore gonna implode" from reading my statement about "pent-up social pressures leading to some karakatoa volcanic outburst" - Yet you can only conclude with Hu's statement of "china's high level of corruption" to "china screwing up big time" in backtracking of orders, and patent rights abuses - when Hu's concern was with the high level of corruption left unchecked will lead to china's collapse.
China's ability to thrive despite the corruption was due to the fact that actions were already taken to nab the big fishes, and that corruption persist in China's society based on a lower profile unlike in the past.
Are you not deliverately attempting to dispute the facts about China that is alreadyl common knowledge by now ?.
Perhaps it is common knowledge to most people wh have dealings with China, except you ?
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
Again another groundless conclusion. I placed emphasis tat political stability is important because tat is wat we r debating over. No where did I mention it is the primary factor. And wat is the charge ? Just because I say it is important many times means it must be the "most important" ? Just because the geography teacher keep repeating geography is an important subject means geography is the most important subject ? U r making a groundless conclusion again. Up till now, u still cannot prove I claimed it is the "most important" factor in attracting business.
Furthermore the reason why I repeat the importance of political stability is due to u just trying to be difficult.
If I insist that it is important for one to be "stupid" to be "smart", and repeated the same in different forms when compared to different issues, but with each outcome giving weight to being "stupid" is essential to be "smart" - should one not conclude that being "stoopid" is the primary factor to be "smart" ?
No you did not use the exact words "most important" - and neither did I use the exat word - "imploded".
If you can form a conclusion from my simple straight forward paragraph that did not include the word - "imploded" or "imploosion" - how did you come to this conclusion ?
At least, you have used the word - important" with the word "stability" - so many times, that it has allowed me to clearly form the conclusion that it is an important factor for your position.
Am I being difficult, or have you now decide to be hones about your own deliberate attempt at pushing idiocy to its limits - to be purposefully difficult yourself ?
How many ways should I interprete your statement - "Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ?" ? Did you not state "if China can never do the same as the US to attack another country ?"
Again after saying so many things, u still refuse to accept the below
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
U should answer tis point because it is important to distinguish the powers of a powerful country and an ordinary company. However U refuse just confirms tat u r not here to discuss, but to insult. If u r sincere about discussion, then u will try to answer other people enquiries tat help to establish the truth and wat the other party try to say. U refusing shows your lack of sincerity. I have always answered all your question. U have repeatedly refuse to answer questions.
Again china is a country. Comparing a powerful country with a company is just out of point. Is EU the entire world ? Well, it is your entire examples of companies investing in zimbabwe
Have you forgotten what had led to this ?
It began with you throwing a challenge in questioning that no CEO will invest in Zimbabwe, and I showed that you had no CEO talent to be in any position to take any decision to invest in Zimbabwe, and showed that even China will invest in Zimbabwe like Singapore Inc does globally. You disputed the fact that even China will invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and facts were presented - which got you to reject these as being State investment that are incomparable to private Corporate investments.
Now I moved on to show you that even private UK companies have planned or even returned to trade in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - and you bring up the subject that EU sanctions will stop these from happening.
It seems that you are simply determined to win in this argument to insist that no one will invest in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Now you change tact again by claiming that China have the means of ensuring business deals will be followed by Zimbabwe as it has the capacity to attack Zimbabwe - which I questioned your expertise in geo-politics in understanding China's present military capacity compared to the military power of the USA.
Did you miss this point stated previously - and will claim at this stage - "U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not" ?
Your brilliant reply was that China had shown its propensity to have attacked India and Vietnam, and will also be in a capacity to attack Zimbabwe, which I had stated that both India and Vietnam shared a common land border that allowed China to cross easily and assert their position.
Why are you hiding behind the fact that China is a country and should not invest in Zimbabwe ?
When I mentioned that China had invested, I had also mentioned that it had done so like Singapore Inc.
The decision was not made by Hu Jin Tao or Wen Jia Pao, it was some mid-level political personality given the authority as a CEO to invest state funds - much like Singapore Inc.
Did I mention anywhere that EU is the entire world, or is this not another of your juvenile outburst in throwing another tantrum when you have already been cornered ?
Does it matter if the EU impose sanctions, where there are profits to be made, others will go in ? Is EU the entire world ? Even with UN sanctions, China will still go in to trade with Zimbabwe.
With less and less countries prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into Zimbabwe ?
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt officers and they will really treasure u since lesser people r willing to deal with them. If u think tis sort of income is stable , then u r wrong.
Did you forget your own question "Is EU the entire world" ?
Are the companies that invest in Zimbabwe MAFIA, loan sharks, murderers, kidnappers - when you have also decided to accept that China does invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and the three UK companies that I have given in my references are more respectable then your claims. {Did you not mention somewhere earlier that you will normally provide proof before making any claims ?}
Are you introducing another new element into your argument - "stable income" ?
Have you lost all your arguments on this point, and will now introduce newer elements to re-define another new argument to prove that no one will invest in Zimbabwe ?
Now what was the main point all about ? Was it about US and China attacking others, or was it about Zimbabwe not able to attract investments, breaking bonds that will lead China to attack her ?
It is about china having more powers than a company. China has the option of attacking zimbabwe which an ordinary company can never do.
Again you persist in this circular course in your argument - and I will not go deeper into this as this has been cleared in my statements in the preceding paragraphs.
Who do you think you are fooling playing with semantics ?
You sound more credible being a liar when you make some effort in making your "true lie" ?
At least you were already being very credible telling your "false lies" as these are more like your true nature in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Can u prove I said it is the "most important" factor ? No ? Then end of your story.
End my story ? Was this "most important" factor in the story my "Theory" again that you are so anxious to end ?
Have you deliberately been dishonest to ignore the main part of this issue being made and that appeared a few paragraphs earlier in my reply, leaving out the earlier part as it was too embarrassing and too incovenient for your plot ?
[Quote]
How many times and in how many different ways must you express a point before someone must take note that the point you made is surely pivotally important - an "all important primary factor" ?
Pg 3 - 10Jul'08 9.48PM:- "I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well "
Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 11.13PM:- " I am trying to point to the fact tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the companies why they invest in singapore and they will state political stability. It is completely relevant and not just wild guesses "
Pg 4 - 12Jul'08 11.37AM:- "Because u do not believe tat singapore political stability is a pulling factor for industries to come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just say it as though it is a wild guess"
Pg 5 - 13Jul'08 12.32PM:- " Political stability = reliability and predictability. It is particularly important for high investments low labour business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical companies. "
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
You surely displayed a very comprehensive skill at being a liar, to pretend that you actually comprehend your own lie.
[UnQuote]
Does one need to see your words "most important" printed before understanding how important the "political stability" is to your argumentative position ?
Do you even know what you are talking about, or have you lost track of your own arguments by pursuing your "true lies" ?
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Let me rephrase and extend then. The people in your report r facing problems when they r investing in region tat r politically unstable. A particular person in your report who invested in an unstable region in africa had been charged in court and had all its possession confiscated. Otherwise u can face economic sanction like the one in place now. Wat is the conclusion ? U can get into serious trouble when u invest in a politically unstable region. And tat is why political stability is a factor to consider when u invest
That is your own theory based on your little or no CEO type of entrepreneurial or business acumen, when others see more opportunities in taking risks in countries that may not necessarily be "politically stable".
Singapore investors have invested in Myanmar, Indoneisa, and Thailand, and had gone into Vietnam in the period when UN sanctions had just lifted after Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. Even BP continue to invest in Russia despite its legal tangles with the Putin Government, Total had gone into Iran despite the abhorrtent rule of the Ayatollahs, and we see companies scrambling to enter Indonesia and even buying up their fund-starved banks. I have already shown that there are companies prepared to invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and Singaporeans have even invested in crime prone South Africa; while others have gone into Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mozambique.
if the world business community will only invest in politically stable economies, then there will be tremedous concentration of these companies in the few places of politically stable countries left on this globe.
Even Singapore investment in supposedly stable Thailand under ex-PM Thaksin turned out to be a disaster, what can any Singaporeans do ?
We learn. Businessmen and entrepreneurs learn from each experience, and they move on - and they are able to do so, as they do not put all their eggs in one basket, something which you doubt can understand from your simplistic opinions stated.
Another attempt at promoting your digression to suit your own plot with another "true lie" ? You should start with your "false lie" - it sound more laughably absurd.
These is just insult with no content in it
This reply alone confirms your dishonesty in selectively avoiding issues.
You missed out whole paragraphs that debunked your views - as in the quoted piece concerning the "MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS" that you have placed in "political stability" - but will make a useless reply to a paragraph that was intended for your earlier statement that had no value in itself.
If this simple statement is seen as an insult, it surely confirm again the perverse logic and values that you possess.
With everyone being "right minded" and no one will make a false claim at not passing 2.4km IPPT - is there a need for the SAF to conduct the 2.4km IPPT ?
I don't really see your point is tis passage. If u ask me, it is a diversion from the real topic at hand. I already told u "assuming right minded people do nto make false claims". But not everybody is right minded in the society. Since they can be such a low number, then wat is the point of u talking about "right minded" people when in the end there will still be lots of false claims
If you do not see the point in the words in this passage, was there any point in the idiocy displayed again in the "Theory" that you intended in your statement now:-
[Quote]
2.1.1) "Right minded" people, according to u, do not make false claims. I can repharse it to become "Gold medal marathon runners pass the 2.4km run with flying colors"
2.1.2) Then u claim tat since right minded people do not make false claims, then we do not have to worry about people making false claims in the society. I can rephrase it to become "Since gold medal marathon runners can pass the 2.4 kn run with flying colors, then we do not have to worry about people who fail 2.4"
2.1.3) Fact is, people do make false claims. Fact is, not everybody is right minded. Fact is not everybody is a marathon gold medalist as well. Fact is, tat is why people fail their IPPT. So wat is your point ? U can see tons of false claims and tat is why u can see people who fail IPPT
[UnQuote]
Was there a dispute about the fact that NOT everybody is right minded ?
I had already stated much earlier that you represent one who is surely not "right minded" based on your choice in your "nick" = then again, you ignored this point.
A log-in name is a "window" to a person's personna; and one would have taken yours at face value in simply poking fun at common sense and the established nature of things.
Unfortunately, your perverse logic with your arguments reflected in your words used - such as your belief in 'TRUE lies" and your perverse indulgence in idiocy - showed that you are not merely challenging common sense in jest, but is challenging common sense itself with your perverse logic made with such wilful determination.
Even handwriting experts can have some idea of a person character by reading handwriting, and Osama's handwriting revealed a darker side of him that was little known even to his own family.
Do you think that the first-point-of-contact in your name does not raise some alarm or concern of a disturbed and abnormal person ?
So u r telling me u r judging people based on their handwriting and their name ? And u r basing your attack in people because of trivial unprovable hypothesis ? And tat give u a reason to say "stupid is smart here" "stupid is smart there" ? Aren't u judging a person by its cover, or judging me based on my log in name ? Tat is really shallow and I must say tis, lame.
Again this is your "Theory" which you have concluded from my statement, and done with a deliberate attempt at distorting my statements made.
Should I belabor this point at the risk of hurting your obviously deflated feelings ?
The statement that I have made is clear enough, and it is for you to make your preferred conclusion as to what has been written.
The inclusion of "stupid-is-smart" here and there is based on the suitability of the moment in inserting this line, to show to you that it is not smart in believing in the many arguments that you gave to prove yourself correct in being "stupid-is-smart"
So you intend to dodge your own error in claiming that I have made the statement, simply with a single missing word "almost" from your original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the credit to me ?
Dodge my error ? From the look of things, don't u agree with me tat the person sniping the word "almost" away is probably... u ?
With or without the word "almost" - your position remains the same. Is there any difference in belaboring the point ?
Do the larger population of South Koreans - who are "right minded" people - need to protest against the 50,000 protestors ?
U r not reading my reply
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue, 50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown, and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
How many more different ways do you intend to redefine your position ?
That is your own preferred conclusion based on your own perverse thinking ?
If no one opposes your manner of arugment, does that mean you are perpetually correct ?
Based on your perverse logic, am I to expect you to believe that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart" ?
U r just hurling insults and not answering the question
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Again u refuse to answer tis point. It shows u r not sincere in discussion at all. U just want to win and u do nto want to see the truth. Otherwise u will answer the question posed
Have I insulted your feelings by mentioning that LKY is stupid when you attempt to be smart; or are you admitting that the reverse position is correct that LKY is smarter not believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" in the manner that you prefer ?
Was it NOT all about George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian from the beginning to this stage - as origianlly brought up by you ?
Are you not intending to shift the goal post as you have found the weakness in the position that you have cherished across so many pages in this thread ?
Did you not brilliantly ask the following ?
[Quote]
Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presidents can make false claims to support their stand. Bush himself have asked his advisors to rewrite reports to justify their stand in attacking Iraq. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination.
[UnQuote]
Was this about George Bus and Chen Shui Bian, or only Presidents ?
The problem with this ongoing "discussion" is that you refused to accept the situation that you have been proven to be bankrupt in your values and thought processes, but will refuse to accept the clear facts presented by redefining and changing your postion with new clarification and new arguments.
Is there a need for me to win in this argument ?
Have I shown any desparation and shouts of "Eureka" in capturing your weak points ?
If at all, I have provoked you with jabbing facts to make you change your position, and you have done so once too often, and are you feeling bad that you must bend over so many times and must retaliate at any reasonable costs ?
Yes, you have given the dictionary definition, now apply it to yourself and to the three characters.
The question is never on the definition of the word, but how many people can follow the standard
Are you being honest, or simply dodging in a new direction ?
If the question is never on the definition of the word, why go through all the trouble in finding a definition ?
Can you prove to yourself how many people can follow your standard before you can accept it to be true ?
If this is not another attempt to wriggle your way out of a corner that you have built for yourself, what else should we see with another dishonest reply from you ?
It seems that you do not understand or refuse to accept that "right minded people" do not make false claims; and believe that IF the three important characters - George Bush, Dick Cheney and Chen Shui-bian - are considered by me to be "NOT right minded" then all society must be similarly the same ?
These 3 person r significant since they r the top people of the country and represent someone much higher than the man on the streets. Even clinton who initially claim he have no relationship with monica is also making a false claim. Furthermore 50,000 people from korea on beef issue r not right minded and people spreading rumors on obama r also considered not right minded. There r other examples of people who r not right minded like Nasir OR Anwar from malaysia, myanmar leaders, official statements from china tat is proved to deviate from the truth, extremist terrorists, Thaksin corruption charges , phillipines impeachment charges against the president, North korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, leaders from some african nations and many other examples where false claims r made r not right minded. In fact a lot of countries leaders r not right minded. So u expect the people to be right minded ?
If these three personalities are significant - how did you so brilliant back-tracked earlier that it is not about these three personalities, and is about the Presidencies ?
Another flip-flopped position ?
How many of these personalities have you counted in the global population of how many billion humans on this globe ?
Besides having no talent at being a CEO with your risk averse attitude in doing business in high risk countries, you have now display a poor attitude towards the greater number of "Right Minded" persons on this globe.
Can we attribute this poor intellectual attitude displayed being due to your nature, which is reflected in your choice in asserting and working so hard at living out the complete character of being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
Only when there exist those who believe in the "TRUE LIE" that it is "right minded" to perpetuate the belief that being "Stupid-is-Smart" - which will surely allow Autocrats to manipulate this abnomaly in an otherwise very normal "right-minded" society.
Wat r u trying to say here ? Just insults again isn't it ? Why don't u face it, if everyone is right minded, then the society and its people r perfect and communism could have worked. Other than insults, can u actually discuss properly ?
Only by the displayed standards of pervers thinking that will lead only you to believe that "Right-Minded" people in a perfect society will accept communism.
Do you even know what is the Communism is all about based on Karl Marx political philosophy, or are you basing your understanding on what has been fed to you ?
Can you make any intelligent discussion in any proper manner, when you indulge in pervers logic that insult common sense and simple logic ?
Are these not your own conjectures, in the same manner that you perpetuate your "TRUE Lies" about my "theory tat singapore gonna implode"
Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded
Why did you selectively made extracts from the various paragraphs in the various replies that I have made, and quoting these in a dishonest and "out-of-context" form ?
This is not the first time, and you have not responded to my post but have instead digressed into old issues rehashed again to divert attention from your failed points.
The point has been stated and repeated again, China was not included as it was not considered a political democracy - when these states were brought up.
Now the point I wanna discuss is already different, as stated previously. It is the interpretation of the 3 sentences u put in. If u again refuse to elaborate on the statement, then u proved u had flip flop in your stand about putting china in.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
I am surprised that you are suddenly so spirited as a "bulldog" to refuse to continue with this issue as if there had been some earthshaking error made ?
This surely confirm again your desparation in shoring up your devastated positions that have been consistently shredded and left you hopeless floundering, and now grabbing on thin straws to stay afloat.
This point has been stated clearly in my most recent post that you have now given your reply - by simply rehashing your old position without even any effort to redefine or add new points.
Can you prove what was stated in my last reply on Pg 8 - which you are addressing now - to be erroneous in any way ?
Do you intend to find the exact words "gov should not intervene in economics" - then you do not need to look further to find these exact words printed to suit your preferred plot ?
I have shown my points tat your reports is not following your model on hw a "democratic economy" works. If u think it do, then u have to quote out the relevant passages from your report tat supports such belief. Otherwise u again had shown yourself to be dishonest since u claim a definition of a word which is wrong and twist and turn it to watever u want.
Your inability to find "my report" to follow "my models on hw a 'democratic economy' works" - is due to your own inability to comprehend the reference pieces that were intended to educate you.
You had preferred to concentrate your understanding based on the introductory passage without attempting to read the entire reference piece that would have shown you how a "democratic economy" can exist, function and succeed - from the basic level of management-worker relationship, to one where the Government still have an active part without being overwhelming in autocratic controls - working with society and industry.
It is your only wilfull ways that refuse to read what has been offered and prefer to limit your arguments to what you EXPECT to see.
It is obvious that you have no interest to have an honest intellectual exchange, but prefer to indulge in mischevious challenges towards commons sense and logic.
You are certainly anxious to prove that I am a "lier" when you have already been proven more then once to be a consistent "liar" - that began with you perpetuating an impossible "True Lie" in believing that "Stupid-is-Smart".
Wat about the many reports u pasted before ? All of them contradicts your idea ? Why not give the relevant passage from the 4 reports u yourself provide ? And the link u give for your
“Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
IS DEAD. How do u expect me to comment on a dead link ?
If you are interested - the link without the fancy dressings is:-
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089
In the present economic climate, even Singapore PM LHL will not even want to show the actual number of the millionaire migrants that have been attracted, and must surely be at the expense of the Singapore Citizens.
It is disingenious to claim my opinion to be guesses, when your own conjectures fared no better - as seen in your conclusion in the "theory of singapore's implosion".
In the end wat ? No statistic data and it is just wild guesses. The only statistic data shows singapore had more proportion of people who r millionaires compared with hong kong.
It is saddening to see u harping on the word "implosion". Is tat all u can complain about ? I probably got more than 10 different things I can talk about
Wild guesses ? As in the manner that you made your "Theory tat singapore will implode" by reading my paragraph ?
If you cannot form conclusions from available facts, how did you brilliant dare to accept publicly that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?
Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see for
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
It seems to me that both of stupidissmart and atobe posts can be greatly and effectively shorten and summarised if we were to take out the abuses and insults they hurl at each others....
Sure, I can remove all the unsults and verbal abuse from my post. I always support tis action. Then u can see if atobe will continue his verbal abuse or not
I am amaze that you will reply to "Mostwanted5125" remarks - {in Italics} - into your present reply to my last response ?
If I am petty, I would look at this as an added insult to the verbal assault towards "common sense" that you have preferred to adopt from the moment that you registered your "nick".- which is further seen in your wilful ways in arguing against common sense.
I am even more surpirsed that you will see this as a test of patience, when you have persisted in using idiocy to prove your position.
Can there be any objectivity in this exercise to prove your idiocy is wrong, when you insist on its correctness ?
The choice of the words - "theory" and "implosion" - is your own.
How can you attribute this "theory tat singapore will implode" to be mine, when it is your own conjecture based on pure guess-work of what you have read in my statement that you have quoted in italics ?
How did you so brilliantly claim that "implode" is determined from "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" ?
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
U r just repeating. The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
The whole thing in blue above is the theory u r presenting. How do anyone know I am refering to your paragraph ? The keyword is "your" from below
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Am I merely repeating or are you not repeating the fact that your "Theory" is related to "the whole idea" that I have presented ? Is there anything wrong with this fact being repeated ? Was it not about this paragraph itself that you got it wrong from the start claiming it to be a "theory" - and attributing this "theory" to be my creation ?
You would have sounded more credible if you had stated it correctly that - "It is my {Stupidissmart} idea that your {Atobe} statement is no more then a theory".
For once you have accurately indicated that - "The "Theory" is the whole idea u presented" - my paragraph is "my idea", the "Theory" was your creation.
Your final statement quoted from above that you prefer to print in "blue" -
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
- clearly shows the complete inaccuracy tht you persist to perpetuate when the idea "tat singapore is gonna implode" is your own conclusion from my paragraph that you claim to be "my Theory".
I already explicitly mention it is about your statement. And the only reason u r denying it is your theory is simply because of the word "implosion". I have already mentioned many times tat the implosion is simply derived from your "Krakatoa volcanic outburst". However u choose to attack the word "implosion" instead of anything else. As said before, tis is a metaphor. The only idea tat is desired to be presented is some catastrophic failure. I have already questioned u upteen times on the difference between the 2 statements
U cannot answer. I had already told u my justification why I choose the word "implosion". Tis is because I picture overwhelming pressure acting on society which u mention will cause implosion instead of explosion. However u felt overwhelming pressure results in "explosion". Is there anything wrong with either of the word chosen ? It is just a matter of personal preference. U do not like the word I choose, I cannot help u. U can interprete the word as "explosion" if u want but I stick with the word "implosion".
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
You persist in claiming that I cannot answer your two questions - or have you ignored my response completely as it was inconvenient to your plot ?
Did you missed my reply given that you prefer not even to quote but make a general dishonest statement ?
Have I only attacked your preferred word - "implosion" - and nothing else ?
Again, another dishonest attempt to make yourself look like the victim - by simply confusing two separate issues into one ?
If I have not ripped each word in every reply that you gave, would you have the opportunity to expand your arguments to such length ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse". I paste back point 1.1.1 etc here again for u to ponder
1.1.1) U claim singapore is gonna "erupt like volcano"
1.1.2) I say your theory about singapore is just a wild guess
1.1.3) U say it is my theory, and says I claim singapore is gonna "collapse" just because i use the word implosion to replace your "krakatoa volcanic eruption"
1.1.4) I said all the while tis is your theory about singapore "collapsing'
1.1.5) now u ask when have u ever claim singapore is gonna "collapse"
Again, another dishonest attempt to make yourself look like the victim - by conveniently missing out the part that I have quoted from your own post made previously.
Should I be surprised that you have conveniently left out this part of my reply that was made on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM - and which you were supposed to be giving an honest reply ?
[Quote]
Even by your own brilliant definition of the word "implosion" - given in your earlier reply - you did state that - "Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in" ?
[UnQuote]
How did you so brilliantly conclude from "my paragraph" that Singapore will implode - which you intend to mean as "collapse" - as seen from your own given definition ?
Now, you are again being exposed for your dishonesty by making a "false lie" in your statement - The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse".
Perhaps it is your "True Lie" that was cleverly disguised.
If this statement is my "theory" - I did not conclude an IMPLOSION that leads to collapse, as I mentioned that it will lead to "sudden political swings that result in an outcome that is UNKNOWN - UNPREDICTABLE.
Tis is part of your claim following the "volcanic eruption"
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
Is this not another example of dishonesty ? Perhaps it shows desparation on your part as your game plan is being systemetically dismantled and exposed for your many fraudulent positions ?
Was this part of my reply on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM ?
Even if both paragraphs are linked together - do you expect to be justified to form your conclusion that my paragraph led you to believe -
tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable
U see the idea we r fighting for is about "stability". The opposite of stability is "unpredictable". U r fighting for a case where u claim singapore is not stable but unpredictable, which result in giving CEO risk in investing over here and singapore having less stability than china. Tis is obviously a look into the future which u cannot do and it is a wild guess.
Was the "fight" over the word "stability" now ?
Was it not about the word - "implosion" ?
Another one of your convenient dodging and diversion to another line of argument after failing with a previous weak "implosion" ?
Is this not another one more of your own "Theory" based on your own preferred "wild guesses" in expanding the very simple and clear words stated in the manner that was shown in the separate statements made ?
Is this not the beginning of your flip-flop in your reply ?
And saying I claim singapore is gonna collapse based on tis one line is just incredible
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Not only did I explicitly mention "your theory", I also conclude it with "wild guesses". And based on tis one line u can conclude I claim singapore is collapsing !?! Don't u find tat too ridicuous ? And your only defense ? "implosion" "implosion"... and tat is it...
Are you now the victim of your own idiocy ? Should I sympathise you ?
You have developed an uncanny skill in arriving at this position, and somehow forgotten what you have said earlier, and picking out past words only when convenient to your present hopeless position.
Read your own definition of what "IMPLOSION" is about.
The choice of words, and the choice in your conclusion with a theory that was decisive in its end - were all yours to make from reading my paragraph.
Are you a victim from any fault of my doing ?
This is not only ridiculous, but pure idiocy as in your "True Lie"
Have you now become an expert at the small nuances in the words used - between "less of a pull factor" and "no longer a pull factor" ?
How did you miss out by such a wide margin between my statement of an "unpredictable outcome" to your own conclusion of "implosive outcome" when reading my statement ?
If the difference in my statement with ST - become such an easy lie, what does it make of your own conclusion "tat singapore will implode" ?
Have you made another one of your "true lie" - or is it a "false lie" - to become a "perfect liar" ?
Surprisingly after a lot of vernal abuses, u cannot answer your mistake of claiming ST "less of a pull factor" to become "no longer a pull factor". So u agree u made a mistake in your conclusion ? Did u wonder if u also make a mistake with concluding I said "singapore" and "china" is gonna collapse ? Or u just refuse to acnkowledge your mistake and keep going and going ?
Are you so desparate for some vindication in seeing your plot succeed ?
Is it not pathetic that if you can claim correctness in concluding that "Singapore will implode" from reading my straight-forward paragraph, I should be seen as making an error to have quoted ST's statement differently ?
Am I not entitled to make my own conclusiong by extending ST's remarks ?
If I am wrong to do so, are you suggesting that you were also similarly wrong in concluding that "Singapore will implode" ?
You have again shown your weakness by anxiously expecting / waiting for me to be unable to make a reply. This is truly pathetic.
If there is any confidence left by now - the PAP would have made an announcement for a by-Election to have a new MP to serve the seat made vacant by the late Dr Ong Chit Chung.
Recent events also saw SM GCT making political hustings in Hougang even before the 2010 elections, when his PAP refuse to hold by-elections for the late Dr Ong Chit Chung's constituency.
The recent actions also saw MM LKY and PM LHL both desparately attempting to place the last nail into CSJ's coffin to prevent his resurgence.
Jan 2008 is definitely better than 1980's
U know to make a by election, it take a lot of trouble and cost to the economy etc. U have to give a public holiday to the voters in order for them to cast their vote. And watever the outcomeis, it does not change the fact who will hold the majority of the seat. So u think it is worth it ? U got to follow the law on wat happened if a holder of a position pass away, and not watever u like.
On CSJ, historically tis is not something new. Why don't u see the forming of "reform party" and the JBJ coming back to serve the opposition without being stopped as a sign of confidence from PAP. If they really wanna hammer the last nail, they should do it on JBJ and not the infamous CSJ. BTW, CSJ really did commit libel.
If the gov has no confidence, he will not increase the tax of the people or their own pay. If they r so "un-confident" of themselves, why will they do such an unpopular measure ? U think they r not gonna run for the next election ?
So January 2008 is more recent then the events in June-July 2008 ?
Did you not attempt to support JBJ as your favorite opposition ?
I am surprised that you will wish for the last nail to be placed on JBJ.
With regards to CSJ' supposed libel, it is only in the little minds of the LKY's mindless digits that will see it the way it is programmed.
Should I dispute your "Theory" in this - as seen in this thread ?
Why should you not die from an itch, when you have concluded that someone else had died from the same symptoms ?
Did I conclude someone had died from the same symptoms ? Whenever I claim something, I show the evidence. Whenever u claim something, u just "claim". If u really wanna support your conclusion, prove it. Furthermore, u cannot defend yourself from having "black and white thinking" since u have nothing to say about
Did you not conclude that Singapore will "implode" - and by your definition - "collapse" ?
Did you prove yourself to be correct in your "claim" that you were correct in interpreting "tat singapore gonna implode" by reading my paragraph ?
Do I need to defend your values in "Black-and-white thinking" ? Surely, you are enough an expert without any help from me ?
why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?
U on one hand claiming china is gonna collapse and the other says china is gonna thrive despite corruption. Tis is also a flip flop. Surprisingly u become guilty of all the charges u have framed me
Now you are being a genious at this point - by mixing the sequence of events that brought the different arguments out that had previously dislodged your claims.
Have you seen your position to be so badly weakened that you must now resort to desparae measures to confuse issues ?
Was it not a fact that you were deliberately deceitful continuing with your "True Lie" - from Pg 2 through Pg 4 - in making your statements insisting - "tat singapore gonna implode" from reading my statement about "pent-up social pressures leading to some karakatoa volcanic outburst" - Yet you can only conclude with Hu's statement of "china's high level of corruption" to "china screwing up big time" in backtracking of orders, and patent rights abuses - when Hu's concern was with the high level of corruption left unchecked will lead to china's collapse.
China's ability to thrive despite the corruption was due to the fact that actions were already taken to nab the big fishes, and that corruption persist in China's society based on a lower profile unlike in the past.
Are you not deliverately attempting to dispute the facts about China that is alreadyl common knowledge by now ?.
Perhaps it is common knowledge to most people wh have dealings with China, except you ?
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
Again another groundless conclusion. I placed emphasis tat political stability is important because tat is wat we r debating over. No where did I mention it is the primary factor. And wat is the charge ? Just because I say it is important many times means it must be the "most important" ? Just because the geography teacher keep repeating geography is an important subject means geography is the most important subject ? U r making a groundless conclusion again. Up till now, u still cannot prove I claimed it is the "most important" factor in attracting business.
Furthermore the reason why I repeat the importance of political stability is due to u just trying to be difficult.
If I insist that it is important for one to be "stupid" to be "smart", and repeated the same in different forms when compared to different issues, but with each outcome giving weight to being "stupid" is essential to be "smart" - should one not conclude that being "stoopid" is the primary factor to be "smart" ?
No you did not use the exact words "most important" - and neither did I use the exat word - "imploded".
If you can form a conclusion from my simple straight forward paragraph that did not include the word - "imploded" or "imploosion" - how did you come to this conclusion ?
At least, you have used the word - important" with the word "stability" - so many times, that it has allowed me to clearly form the conclusion that it is an important factor for your position.
Am I being difficult, or have you now decide to be hones about your own deliberate attempt at pushing idiocy to its limits - to be purposefully difficult yourself ?
How many ways should I interprete your statement - "Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ?" ? Did you not state "if China can never do the same as the US to attack another country ?"
Again after saying so many things, u still refuse to accept the below
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
U should answer tis point because it is important to distinguish the powers of a powerful country and an ordinary company. However U refuse just confirms tat u r not here to discuss, but to insult. If u r sincere about discussion, then u will try to answer other people enquiries tat help to establish the truth and wat the other party try to say. U refusing shows your lack of sincerity. I have always answered all your question. U have repeatedly refuse to answer questions.
Again china is a country. Comparing a powerful country with a company is just out of point. Is EU the entire world ? Well, it is your entire examples of companies investing in zimbabwe
Have you forgotten what had led to this ?
It began with you throwing a challenge in questioning that no CEO will invest in Zimbabwe, and I showed that you had no CEO talent to be in any position to take any decision to invest in Zimbabwe, and showed that even China will invest in Zimbabwe like Singapore Inc does globally. You disputed the fact that even China will invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and facts were presented - which got you to reject these as being State investment that are incomparable to private Corporate investments.
Now I moved on to show you that even private UK companies have planned or even returned to trade in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - and you bring up the subject that EU sanctions will stop these from happening.
It seems that you are simply determined to win in this argument to insist that no one will invest in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Now you change tact again by claiming that China have the means of ensuring business deals will be followed by Zimbabwe as it has the capacity to attack Zimbabwe - which I questioned your expertise in geo-politics in understanding China's present military capacity compared to the military power of the USA.
Did you miss this point stated previously - and will claim at this stage - "U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not" ?
Your brilliant reply was that China had shown its propensity to have attacked India and Vietnam, and will also be in a capacity to attack Zimbabwe, which I had stated that both India and Vietnam shared a common land border that allowed China to cross easily and assert their position.
Why are you hiding behind the fact that China is a country and should not invest in Zimbabwe ?
When I mentioned that China had invested, I had also mentioned that it had done so like Singapore Inc.
The decision was not made by Hu Jin Tao or Wen Jia Pao, it was some mid-level political personality given the authority as a CEO to invest state funds - much like Singapore Inc.
Did I mention anywhere that EU is the entire world, or is this not another of your juvenile outburst in throwing another tantrum when you have already been cornered ?
Does it matter if the EU impose sanctions, where there are profits to be made, others will go in ? Is EU the entire world ? Even with UN sanctions, China will still go in to trade with Zimbabwe.
With less and less countries prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into Zimbabwe ?
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt officers and they will really treasure u since lesser people r willing to deal with them. If u think tis sort of income is stable , then u r wrong.
Did you forget your own question "Is EU the entire world" ?
Are the companies that invest in Zimbabwe MAFIA, loan sharks, murderers, kidnappers - when you have also decided to accept that China does invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and the three UK companies that I have given in my references are more respectable then your claims. {Did you not mention somewhere earlier that you will normally provide proof before making any claims ?}
Are you introducing another new element into your argument - "stable income" ?
Have you lost all your arguments on this point, and will now introduce newer elements to re-define another new argument to prove that no one will invest in Zimbabwe ?
Now what was the main point all about ? Was it about US and China attacking others, or was it about Zimbabwe not able to attract investments, breaking bonds that will lead China to attack her ?
It is about china having more powers than a company. China has the option of attacking zimbabwe which an ordinary company can never do.
Again you persist in this circular course in your argument - and I will not go deeper into this as this has been cleared in my statements in the preceding paragraphs.
Who do you think you are fooling playing with semantics ?
You sound more credible being a liar when you make some effort in making your "true lie" ?
At least you were already being very credible telling your "false lies" as these are more like your true nature in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Can u prove I said it is the "most important" factor ? No ? Then end of your story.
End my story ? Was this "most important" factor in the story my "Theory" again that you are so anxious to end ?
Have you deliberately been dishonest to ignore the main part of this issue being made and that appeared a few paragraphs earlier in my reply, leaving out the earlier part as it was too embarrassing and too incovenient for your plot ?
[Quote]
How many times and in how many different ways must you express a point before someone must take note that the point you made is surely pivotally important - an "all important primary factor" ?
Pg 3 - 10Jul'08 9.48PM:- "I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well "
Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 11.13PM:- " I am trying to point to the fact tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the companies why they invest in singapore and they will state political stability. It is completely relevant and not just wild guesses "
Pg 4 - 12Jul'08 11.37AM:- "Because u do not believe tat singapore political stability is a pulling factor for industries to come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just say it as though it is a wild guess"
Pg 5 - 13Jul'08 12.32PM:- " Political stability = reliability and predictability. It is particularly important for high investments low labour business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical companies. "
Do I need to arrive at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much "importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you needing to say that it is THE primary factor ?
You surely displayed a very comprehensive skill at being a liar, to pretend that you actually comprehend your own lie.
[UnQuote]
Does one need to see your words "most important" printed before understanding how important the "political stability" is to your argumentative position ?
Do you even know what you are talking about, or have you lost track of your own arguments by pursuing your "true lies" ?
U see, the point is now they may be facing problems over it. So wat is the conclusion for investing in a country with a bad political stability ? U may get to be in trouble before u knew it
Let me rephrase and extend then. The people in your report r facing problems when they r investing in region tat r politically unstable. A particular person in your report who invested in an unstable region in africa had been charged in court and had all its possession confiscated. Otherwise u can face economic sanction like the one in place now. Wat is the conclusion ? U can get into serious trouble when u invest in a politically unstable region. And tat is why political stability is a factor to consider when u invest
That is your own theory based on your little or no CEO type of entrepreneurial or business acumen, when others see more opportunities in taking risks in countries that may not necessarily be "politically stable".
Singapore investors have invested in Myanmar, Indoneisa, and Thailand, and had gone into Vietnam in the period when UN sanctions had just lifted after Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. Even BP continue to invest in Russia despite its legal tangles with the Putin Government, Total had gone into Iran despite the abhorrtent rule of the Ayatollahs, and we see companies scrambling to enter Indonesia and even buying up their fund-starved banks. I have already shown that there are companies prepared to invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and Singaporeans have even invested in crime prone South Africa; while others have gone into Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mozambique.
if the world business community will only invest in politically stable economies, then there will be tremedous concentration of these companies in the few places of politically stable countries left on this globe.
Even Singapore investment in supposedly stable Thailand under ex-PM Thaksin turned out to be a disaster, what can any Singaporeans do ?
We learn. Businessmen and entrepreneurs learn from each experience, and they move on - and they are able to do so, as they do not put all their eggs in one basket, something which you doubt can understand from your simplistic opinions stated.
Another attempt at promoting your digression to suit your own plot with another "true lie" ? You should start with your "false lie" - it sound more laughably absurd.
These is just insult with no content in it
This reply alone confirms your dishonesty in selectively avoiding issues.
You missed out whole paragraphs that debunked your views - as in the quoted piece concerning the "MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS" that you have placed in "political stability" - but will make a useless reply to a paragraph that was intended for your earlier statement that had no value in itself.
If this simple statement is seen as an insult, it surely confirm again the perverse logic and values that you possess.
With everyone being "right minded" and no one will make a false claim at not passing 2.4km IPPT - is there a need for the SAF to conduct the 2.4km IPPT ?
I don't really see your point is tis passage. If u ask me, it is a diversion from the real topic at hand. I already told u "assuming right minded people do nto make false claims". But not everybody is right minded in the society. Since they can be such a low number, then wat is the point of u talking about "right minded" people when in the end there will still be lots of false claims
If you do not see the point in the words in this passage, was there any point in the idiocy displayed again in the "Theory" that you intended in your statement now:-
[Quote]
2.1.1) "Right minded" people, according to u, do not make false claims. I can repharse it to become "Gold medal marathon runners pass the 2.4km run with flying colors"
2.1.2) Then u claim tat since right minded people do not make false claims, then we do not have to worry about people making false claims in the society. I can rephrase it to become "Since gold medal marathon runners can pass the 2.4 kn run with flying colors, then we do not have to worry about people who fail 2.4"
2.1.3) Fact is, people do make false claims. Fact is, not everybody is right minded. Fact is not everybody is a marathon gold medalist as well. Fact is, tat is why people fail their IPPT. So wat is your point ? U can see tons of false claims and tat is why u can see people who fail IPPT
[UnQuote]
Was there a dispute about the fact that NOT everybody is right minded ?
I had already stated much earlier that you represent one who is surely not "right minded" based on your choice in your "nick" = then again, you ignored this point.
A log-in name is a "window" to a person's personna; and one would have taken yours at face value in simply poking fun at common sense and the established nature of things.
Unfortunately, your perverse logic with your arguments reflected in your words used - such as your belief in 'TRUE lies" and your perverse indulgence in idiocy - showed that you are not merely challenging common sense in jest, but is challenging common sense itself with your perverse logic made with such wilful determination.
Even handwriting experts can have some idea of a person character by reading handwriting, and Osama's handwriting revealed a darker side of him that was little known even to his own family.
Do you think that the first-point-of-contact in your name does not raise some alarm or concern of a disturbed and abnormal person ?
So u r telling me u r judging people based on their handwriting and their name ? And u r basing your attack in people because of trivial unprovable hypothesis ? And tat give u a reason to say "stupid is smart here" "stupid is smart there" ? Aren't u judging a person by its cover, or judging me based on my log in name ? Tat is really shallow and I must say tis, lame.
Again this is your "Theory" which you have concluded from my statement, and done with a deliberate attempt at distorting my statements made.
Should I belabor this point at the risk of hurting your obviously deflated feelings ?
The statement that I have made is clear enough, and it is for you to make your preferred conclusion as to what has been written.
The inclusion of "stupid-is-smart" here and there is based on the suitability of the moment in inserting this line, to show to you that it is not smart in believing in the many arguments that you gave to prove yourself correct in being "stupid-is-smart"
So you intend to dodge your own error in claiming that I have made the statement, simply with a single missing word "almost" from your original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the credit to me ?
Dodge my error ? From the look of things, don't u agree with me tat the person sniping the word "almost" away is probably... u ?
With or without the word "almost" - your position remains the same. Is there any difference in belaboring the point ?
Do the larger population of South Koreans - who are "right minded" people - need to protest against the 50,000 protestors ?
U r not reading my reply
Considering nobody actually protest against tis people, 50,000 is a lot. Tis is particularly true since u claim right minded people "will stand up against" other people's false claims. Nobody stand up. So it is 50,000 to nothing.
I don't know why u can claim people who do nothing and sitting on the side of the fence to be "right minded" people. They can very well wanna be pro towards beef protesters
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue, 50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown, and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
How many more different ways do you intend to redefine your position ?
That is your own preferred conclusion based on your own perverse thinking ?
If no one opposes your manner of arugment, does that mean you are perpetually correct ?
Based on your perverse logic, am I to expect you to believe that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart" ?
U r just hurling insults and not answering the question
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Again u refuse to answer tis point. It shows u r not sincere in discussion at all. U just want to win and u do nto want to see the truth. Otherwise u will answer the question posed
Have I insulted your feelings by mentioning that LKY is stupid when you attempt to be smart; or are you admitting that the reverse position is correct that LKY is smarter not believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" in the manner that you prefer ?
Was it NOT all about George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian from the beginning to this stage - as origianlly brought up by you ?
Are you not intending to shift the goal post as you have found the weakness in the position that you have cherished across so many pages in this thread ?
Did you not brilliantly ask the following ?
[Quote]
Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presidents can make false claims to support their stand. Bush himself have asked his advisors to rewrite reports to justify their stand in attacking Iraq. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination.
[UnQuote]
Was this about George Bus and Chen Shui Bian, or only Presidents ?
The problem with this ongoing "discussion" is that you refused to accept the situation that you have been proven to be bankrupt in your values and thought processes, but will refuse to accept the clear facts presented by redefining and changing your postion with new clarification and new arguments.
Is there a need for me to win in this argument ?
Have I shown any desparation and shouts of "Eureka" in capturing your weak points ?
If at all, I have provoked you with jabbing facts to make you change your position, and you have done so once too often, and are you feeling bad that you must bend over so many times and must retaliate at any reasonable costs ?
Yes, you have given the dictionary definition, now apply it to yourself and to the three characters.
The question is never on the definition of the word, but how many people can follow the standard
Are you being honest, or simply dodging in a new direction ?
If the question is never on the definition of the word, why go through all the trouble in finding a definition ?
Can you prove to yourself how many people can follow your standard before you can accept it to be true ?
If this is not another attempt to wriggle your way out of a corner that you have built for yourself, what else should we see with another dishonest reply from you ?
It seems that you do not understand or refuse to accept that "right minded people" do not make false claims; and believe that IF the three important characters - George Bush, Dick Cheney and Chen Shui-bian - are considered by me to be "NOT right minded" then all society must be similarly the same ?
These 3 person r significant since they r the top people of the country and represent someone much higher than the man on the streets. Even clinton who initially claim he have no relationship with monica is also making a false claim. Furthermore 50,000 people from korea on beef issue r not right minded and people spreading rumors on obama r also considered not right minded. There r other examples of people who r not right minded like Nasir OR Anwar from malaysia, myanmar leaders, official statements from china tat is proved to deviate from the truth, extremist terrorists, Thaksin corruption charges , phillipines impeachment charges against the president, North korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, leaders from some african nations and many other examples where false claims r made r not right minded. In fact a lot of countries leaders r not right minded. So u expect the people to be right minded ?
If these three personalities are significant - how did you so brilliant back-tracked earlier that it is not about these three personalities, and is about the Presidencies ?
Another flip-flopped position ?
How many of these personalities have you counted in the global population of how many billion humans on this globe ?
Besides having no talent at being a CEO with your risk averse attitude in doing business in high risk countries, you have now display a poor attitude towards the greater number of "Right Minded" persons on this globe.
Can we attribute this poor intellectual attitude displayed being due to your nature, which is reflected in your choice in asserting and working so hard at living out the complete character of being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
Only when there exist those who believe in the "TRUE LIE" that it is "right minded" to perpetuate the belief that being "Stupid-is-Smart" - which will surely allow Autocrats to manipulate this abnomaly in an otherwise very normal "right-minded" society.
Wat r u trying to say here ? Just insults again isn't it ? Why don't u face it, if everyone is right minded, then the society and its people r perfect and communism could have worked. Other than insults, can u actually discuss properly ?
Only by the displayed standards of pervers thinking that will lead only you to believe that "Right-Minded" people in a perfect society will accept communism.
Do you even know what is the Communism is all about based on Karl Marx political philosophy, or are you basing your understanding on what has been fed to you ?
Can you make any intelligent discussion in any proper manner, when you indulge in pervers logic that insult common sense and simple logic ?
Are these not your own conjectures, in the same manner that you perpetuate your "TRUE Lies" about my "theory tat singapore gonna implode"
Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded
Why did you selectively made extracts from the various paragraphs in the various replies that I have made, and quoting these in a dishonest and "out-of-context" form ?
This is not the first time, and you have not responded to my post but have instead digressed into old issues rehashed again to divert attention from your failed points.
The point has been stated and repeated again, China was not included as it was not considered a political democracy - when these states were brought up.
Now the point I wanna discuss is already different, as stated previously. It is the interpretation of the 3 sentences u put in. If u again refuse to elaborate on the statement, then u proved u had flip flop in your stand about putting china in.
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
I am surprised that you are suddenly so spirited as a "bulldog" to refuse to continue with this issue as if there had been some earthshaking error made ?
This surely confirm again your desparation in shoring up your devastated positions that have been consistently shredded and left you hopeless floundering, and now grabbing on thin straws to stay afloat.
This point has been stated clearly in my most recent post that you have now given your reply - by simply rehashing your old position without even any effort to redefine or add new points.
Can you prove what was stated in my last reply on Pg 8 - which you are addressing now - to be erroneous in any way ?
Do you intend to find the exact words "gov should not intervene in economics" - then you do not need to look further to find these exact words printed to suit your preferred plot ?
I have shown my points tat your reports is not following your model on hw a "democratic economy" works. If u think it do, then u have to quote out the relevant passages from your report tat supports such belief. Otherwise u again had shown yourself to be dishonest since u claim a definition of a word which is wrong and twist and turn it to watever u want.
Your inability to find "my report" to follow "my models on hw a 'democratic economy' works" - is due to your own inability to comprehend the reference pieces that were intended to educate you.
You had preferred to concentrate your understanding based on the introductory passage without attempting to read the entire reference piece that would have shown you how a "democratic economy" can exist, function and succeed - from the basic level of management-worker relationship, to one where the Government still have an active part without being overwhelming in autocratic controls - working with society and industry.
It is your only wilfull ways that refuse to read what has been offered and prefer to limit your arguments to what you EXPECT to see.
It is obvious that you have no interest to have an honest intellectual exchange, but prefer to indulge in mischevious challenges towards commons sense and logic.
You are certainly anxious to prove that I am a "lier" when you have already been proven more then once to be a consistent "liar" - that began with you perpetuating an impossible "True Lie" in believing that "Stupid-is-Smart".
Wat about the many reports u pasted before ? All of them contradicts your idea ? Why not give the relevant passage from the 4 reports u yourself provide ? And the link u give for your
“Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .
IS DEAD. How do u expect me to comment on a dead link ?
If you are interested - the link without the fancy dressings is:-
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089
In the present economic climate, even Singapore PM LHL will not even want to show the actual number of the millionaire migrants that have been attracted, and must surely be at the expense of the Singapore Citizens.
It is disingenious to claim my opinion to be guesses, when your own conjectures fared no better - as seen in your conclusion in the "theory of singapore's implosion".
In the end wat ? No statistic data and it is just wild guesses. The only statistic data shows singapore had more proportion of people who r millionaires compared with hong kong.
It is saddening to see u harping on the word "implosion". Is tat all u can complain about ? I probably got more than 10 different things I can talk about
Wild guesses ? As in the manner that you made your "Theory tat singapore will implode" by reading my paragraph ?
If you cannot form conclusions from available facts, how did you brilliant dare to accept publicly that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?
Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see for
I am amaze that you will reply to "Mostwanted5125" remarks - {in Italics} - into your present reply to my last response ?
If I am petty, I would look at this as an added insult to the verbal assault towards "common sense" that you have preferred to adopt from the moment that you registered your "nick".- which is further seen in your wilful ways in arguing against common sense.
I am even more surpirsed that you will see this as a test of patience, when you have persisted in using idiocy to prove your position.
Can there be any objectivity in this exercise to prove your idiocy is wrong, when you insist on its correctness ?
Who had wrote a law saying tat I cannot reply to another person within the same reply ? The message actually is for u to see and the important point is to reduce verbal abuses. However u completely skip tis main point and jump to silly issues like reply to 2 people within the same reply or just insult my log in name. U really lost objectivity and u act just like a turtle snapping on anything. It is a surprise u refuse to treat yourself and act like a gentleman and prefer to become a low class person working only on verbal abuses
Am I merely repeating or are you not repeating the fact that your "Theory" is related to "the whole idea" that I have presented ? Is there anything wrong with this fact being repeated ? Was it not about this paragraph itself that you got it wrong from the start claiming it to be a "theory" - and attributing this "theory" to be my creation ?
I can see why u just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Tis is because u have nothing else to talk about. I already said tat the "theory", is your idea which is pasted in blue. U agree in here tat I am mentioning your "theory", if u prefer, "idea" as mentioning tis paragraph.
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
Now the only problem is, u do not like the word "theory" to be used for tis idea but instead prefer the word "idea". I got to ask, why the word "theory" cannot be used to describe the blue worded paragraph ?
I have already stated many times tat u have concluded tat singapore is not political stable in future and it results in CEO making significant risk in singapore so much so tat it is worse the china in terms of risk. Tis is looking into the future which u cannot do. Then wat is wrong with the use of the word "theory". The despicable thing u do it simply to ignore tis point repeatedly. R u ashamed tat u cannot answer tis point and tat is why u shamelessly ignore it ?
Have I only attacked your preferred word - "implosion" - and nothing else ?
Again, another dishonest attempt to make yourself look like the victim - by simply confusing two separate issues into one ?
Hmm... yes tat is the only thing u r talking about and despite me answering many times, u just continue to talk about nothing but "implosion" and treat it as though it is a great deal. U can read back your response on tis paragraph and frankly speaking u only talk about the choice of the word "implosion". In tis reply, u also never stated wat other things u had mentioned. If u wanted me to respond, then u have to state out wat is your other point
How did you so brilliantly conclude from "my paragraph" that Singapore will implode - which you intend to mean as "collapse" - as seen from your own given definition ?
Now, you are again being exposed for your dishonesty by making a "false lie" in your statement - The bottomline is I never claim singapore is gonna "collapse".
Yes I do give the definition of "implosion" and so ? In the sentence I have clearly stated tat it is YOUR idea tat is it gonna "implode" and I conclude it as WILD GUESS. And u can claim I say singapore is gonna collapse ? Wat happened to your grammer ? How can anyone who pass english in PSLE ever make such a mistake ? If u want to prove I claim tat, then please interprete tis statement instead of just focusing on a word.
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
U see, u chose the words "krakatoa volcanic eruption", a description of a great catastrophic in nature, conclude singapore is gonna have poor political stability, even worse in china and tat make all the CEOs tat had invested here to be in trouble over their failed investment.
Then now u say I am the one claiming singapore is collapsing because I chose the word "implosion".
Tis is just lame
Was this part of my reply on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM ?
Tat is part of your reply on 10 Jul 123
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
Theory: Tis is a theory since u r predicting the future which u cannot do and thus tis is not the truth. It is a guess or conjunction. If u felt it is not a guess, then u have to prove with hard evidence tat the events listed in "implode" is certain to happen
Implode: U claim singapore will suffer a severe setback in future so much so tat it can be as catastrophic as a volcanic eruption tat resulted into bigger risk for its investors and singapore being less politically stable than china. To me, a definitive single word is difficult to describe for tis failure and therefore I choose "implosion" since it has an idea of a catastrophic failure. U have a problem with tis ? Why can't I choose a word I like tat describe tis particular failure ?
wild guess: I think your "idea" is bullsh!t.
So wat is wrong with the statement ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses
Was the "fight" over the word "stability" now ?
Nah... u r forgetting. U started the fight on the word "unpredictable". U r the one flip flopping and bringing out word by word for case study.
You have developed an uncanny skill in arriving at this position, and somehow forgotten what you have said earlier, and picking out past words only when convenient to your present hopeless position.
Read your own definition of what "IMPLOSION" is about.
The choice of words, and the choice in your conclusion with a theory that was decisive in its end - were all yours to make from reading my paragraph.
I don't know about u, but the other people who is really reading tis is probably laughing at u writing "kakatoa volcanic eruption" first yet prohibit people from using "implosion". And all u r talking about now is simply how I should phrase one sentence... Tat is really just so silly.
Let me ask u. Wat is the message u r trying to drive by writing so much on tis one sentence ?
Am I not entitled to make my own conclusiong by extending ST's remarks ?
If I am wrong to do so, are you suggesting that you were also similarly wrong in concluding that "Singapore will implode" ?
U see, u can only talk about "implosion" and nothing else. And did u manage to prove I had use the word "implosion" wrongly ? U can't.
Now u claim u r "extending your own conclusion" using ST remarks, however from below it is clear making the claims for ST
With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-
R u ST ? How can u say ST claims that "stability is no longer a pull factor" when he never say tat. R u ST's clone ? Wat a joke. It is not u, u cannot claim for him or use your own conclusion and claim he said tat. If u humbly accept your error, u will not be so embarrassed now. And u say I expose my errors ? U mean "implosion" ? Tat is all u can say and u have never proven it
So January 2008 is more recent then the events in June-July 2008 ?
Did you not attempt to support JBJ as your favorite opposition ?
I am surprised that you will wish for the last nail to be placed on JBJ.
With regards to CSJ' supposed libel, it is only in the little minds of the LKY's mindless digits that will see it the way it is programmed.
U mean about
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices
They have been doing tis since donkey years.
JBJ is my favourite opposition, and I do not want him to be "nailed in place". The fact is now, he is not nailed. So how can u say the gov is in such a high state of insecurity ?
U wana dispute, then dispute la. U already extend the reply so long, wat is, with a few more passages ?
Did you not conclude that Singapore will "implode" - and by your definition - "collapse" ?
Did you prove yourself to be correct in your "claim" that you were correct in interpreting "tat singapore gonna implode" by reading my paragraph ?
Arrr... u see u can only link back to the "implosion" argument. Otherwise u have nothing else to say.
Was it not a fact that you were deliberately deceitful continuing with your "True Lie" - from Pg 2 through Pg 4 - in making your statements insisting - "tat singapore gonna implode" from reading my statement about "pent-up social pressures leading to some karakatoa volcanic outburst" - Yet you can only conclude with Hu's statement of "china's high level of corruption" to "china screwing up big time" in backtracking of orders, and patent rights abuses - when Hu's concern was with the high level of corruption left unchecked will lead to china's collapse.
China's ability to thrive despite the corruption was due to the fact that actions were already taken to nab the big fishes, and that corruption persist in China's society based on a lower profile unlike in the past.
Again another lie u have made. I had already stated tis before in 1.4 before
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
When I explained that it is not a wild guess and even Hu Jintao acknowledged to the problem, u begin to attack on me claiming I have made a conclusion on china collapse. And the line is
They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there.
This sentence merely say tat business tat invested in china faces probems before such as backtracking of promises (suzhou industrial park) and copy of design and sell it in another name (LV). There is no statement here tat claimed china is gonna collapse. "They" in the statement represent china official and "u" represent a fake CEO which u implied yourself to be. There is no other way u can understand from the above statement. I have been pointing out tis fact repeatedly but u r just not honest and sincere in your debate and just repeat and repeat without reading at all.
And wat is your answer. U want to force me to make a conclusion tat I state China is collapsing which I repeatedly refuse and stated my stand. After tis u just repeat back the same old thing again. Aren't u simply a waste of time ?
At least, you have used the word - important" with the word "stability" - so many times, that it has allowed me to clearly form the conclusion that it is an important factor for your position.
Am I being difficult, or have you now decide to be hones about your own deliberate attempt at pushing idiocy to its limits - to be purposefully difficult yourself ?
Tat is right it is important. But tis is different from "most important". Since u claim "implosion" is a mistake, and u said the below
No you did not use the exact words "most important" - and neither did I use the exat word - "imploded".
Since u appear to classify them as the same sort of mistake, r u confessing u make a mistake here ?
It began with you throwing a challenge in questioning that no CEO will invest in Zimbabwe, and I showed that you had no CEO talent to be in any position to take any decision to invest in Zimbabwe, and showed that even China will invest in Zimbabwe like Singapore Inc does globally. You disputed the fact that even China will invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and facts were presented - which got you to reject these as being State investment that are incomparable to private Corporate investments.
And wat is my reply which u repeatedly refuse to answer ?
I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not.
Why r u avoiding the points in red ? I have pasted them repeatedly for many times and u refuse to answer them. Why ? The above r important points and u just ignoring them is simply low class
Now I moved on to show you that even private UK companies have planned or even returned to trade in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - and you bring up the subject that EU sanctions will stop these from happening.
And wat is wrong with it ? If u invest in such a place, u will face risks and these companies r facing them now. Isn't tat a point tat show the importance of political stability ? Do not forget, u claim POLITICAL STABILITY IS NOT A PULLING POINT. Tis is the real argument we r having
Did I mention anywhere that EU is the entire world, or is this not another of your juvenile outburst in throwing another tantrum when you have already been cornered ?
Did I not mention tat your examples r all from EU or US, both setting sanction on Zimbabwe ? So wat shining examples r u providing ?
Are the companies that invest in Zimbabwe MAFIA, loan sharks, murderers, kidnappers - when you have also decided to accept that China does invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and the three UK companies that I have given in my references are more respectable then your claims. {Did you not mention somewhere earlier that you will normally provide proof before making any claims ?}
With less and less countries prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into Zimbabwe ?
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt officers and they will really treasure u since lesser people r willing to deal with them.
I am saying Zimbabwe appears like the mafia, loan sharks, murderers and kidnappers. U know the Zimbabwe gov literally use force to threathen the people, kill oppositions, kidnaps people and confiscate territiories. Poor comprehensive skill on your part again
One thing for sure is, the UK and China companies u provide r arms traffickers. And the evidence is in the report u provided
Does one need to see your words "most important" printed before understanding how important the "political stability" is to your argumentative position ?
From all the replies u have quoted, I have never claim it is the "most important" factor. U also agree I never claim it is the "most important" factor. Then wat do u base on to say I claim it is the "most important" factor ? Nothing. It is again your lousy conclusion and seeing how u conclude ST's statement, we all know how good u can conclude. I already given u the analogy of a geography teacher telling his students geography is an important subject repeatedly. Ist tat equal to him claiming geography is the MOST important subject ? Something is really wrong with u
Singapore investors have invested in Myanmar, Indoneisa, and Thailand, and had gone into Vietnam in the period when UN sanctions had just lifted after Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. Even BP continue to invest in Russia despite its legal tangles with the Putin Government, Total had gone into Iran despite the abhorrtent rule of the Ayatollahs, and we see companies scrambling to enter Indonesia and even buying up their fund-starved banks. I have already shown that there are companies prepared to invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and Singaporeans have even invested in crime prone South Africa; while others have gone into Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mozambique.
Finally u r talking about something more relevant to the discussion.
I agree with u tat there r people who invest in countries tat r starting up. However, they do not purposely invest in these places because it is politically unstable. They do it because there r many other major benefits such as new economy starting up, cheap, new market and many other benefits tat attract business. However tis doesn't mean political stability is not important. For business like long term high capital intensive industries, political stability is an important factor to look up for. I have already said before. Singapore do attract a niche market for such industries.
You missed out whole paragraphs that debunked your views - as in the quoted piece concerning the "MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS" that you have placed in "political stability" - but will make a useless reply to a paragraph that was intended for your earlier statement that had no value in itself.
Which r the whole paragraph tat U claimed I had missed ? As said, most of your writing r too long and also contain nothing but insults and tat is why I choose a paragaraph out of the few and reply to it. If u find tat I am not replying to any important points, then list it out. I answer ALL your queries. U never answer any of mine
Was there a dispute about the fact that NOT everybody is right minded ?
Then I have to say tat there will be a lot of false claims tat can disrupt society. Tis is not desirable
I had already stated much earlier that you represent one who is surely not "right minded" based on your choice in your "nick" = then again, you ignored this point.
Tis is nothing but a verbal abuse and u consider tat as a point ? U r really drained
The statement that I have made is clear enough, and it is for you to make your preferred conclusion as to what has been written.
Then i can conclude u r shallow and low class enough to just verbal abuse people due to their log in name.
With or without the word "almost" - your position remains the same. Is there any difference in belaboring the point ?
There is a difference. With the word almost, it is absolute which is clearly wrong. With the word "almost", it is no longer absolute and it becomes right. Wat have u got say about the below para then ? U made an error and pass it to me, aren't u the one passing the credit ?
So you intend to dodge your own error in claiming that I have made the statement, simply with a single missing word "almost" from your original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the credit to me ?
That is your own preferred conclusion based on your own perverse thinking ?
If no one opposes your manner of arugment, does that mean you are perpetually correct ?
Is not true ? Then I expect a reply from u otherwise i will record it as another flip flop u had made
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue, 50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown, and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
Was this about George Bus and Chen Shui Bian, or only Presidents ?
The problem with this ongoing "discussion" is that you refused to accept the situation that you have been proven to be bankrupt in your values and thought processes, but will refuse to accept the clear facts presented by redefining and changing your postion with new clarification and new arguments.
Is there a need for me to win in this argument ?
My stand is always tat most people r not right minded. I have shown the case where presidents, like chen shui bian and bush, r not right minded. I don't understand why u can claim I am "bankrupt" in values and thought when u have pin point nothing.
Based on your perverse logic, am I to expect you to believe that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart" ?
U know wat is really "bakrupt in value" and though processes ? U bring out the above nonsensical one liner tat tells nothing. I question why do u not answer my previous point and then u become all defensive over it. Tat is the real bakrupt
If the question is never on the definition of the word, why go through all the trouble in finding a definition ?
Com'on la... U r the person who insist I do not know the definition of the word, play tantrum and refuse to answer any of the point and when I brought out the dictionary definition, u turn around and blame on me claiming why do I go through all the trouble to find the definition. I should ask u the question. Why go through all the trouble in getting the definition when u have nothing to talk about it ?
If these three personalities are significant - how did you so brilliant back-tracked earlier that it is not about these three personalities, and is about the Presidencies ?
Huh ? Do u know wat u r even talking about ?
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared ? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
And wat is the problem ? Did I just talk about the presidency ? I talked about in a general population. U just have a weak comprehensive skill
How many of these personalities have you counted in the global population of how many billion humans on this globe ?
Hmm.. so I give u tons of examples of people who make false claims and u just say tat they r not representative of the whole world population. Then wat about u ? Wat have u shown to prove tat most people r right minded ? Don't forget it is your initial claim on the topic of right minded people and doing nothing doesn't mean they r right minded. It is again many thousands compared with your zero example
Only by the displayed standards of pervers thinking that will lead only you to believe that "Right-Minded" people in a perfect society will accept communism.
Do you even know what is the Communism is all about based on Karl Marx political philosophy, or are you basing your understanding on what has been fed to you ?
Despite u saying so much things, u cannot dispute the fact tat if everybody is right minded in a society, communist is a good model to follow
Why did you selectively made extracts from the various paragraphs in the various replies that I have made, and quoting these in a dishonest and "out-of-context" form ?
This is not the first time, and you have not responded to my post but have instead digressed into old issues rehashed again to divert attention from your failed points.
IF u think I have stated out of context, then proved it. Otherwise based on your own thinking, u r considered as not right minded yourself. Wat have u got to say for tis. I am gonna stick back the reply again
Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again
Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?
U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded
This surely confirm again your desparation in shoring up your devastated positions that have been consistently shredded and left you hopeless floundering, and now grabbing on thin straws to stay afloat.
This point has been stated clearly in my most recent post that you have now given your reply - by simply rehashing your old position without even any effort to redefine or add new points.
Can you prove what was stated in my last reply on Pg 8 - which you are addressing now - to be erroneous in any way ?
I find u being more desperate in fact. U claimed I had repost my old points, when u simply refuse to answer the allegations. If u r graceful enough to accept your mistake or prodive a rational explanation, then I have to stop. But u just ignore the point, shoot out some verbal abuse and then claim a lot of things. Do u think your lousy attitude will make me not stick with the same point till u counter it ?
First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"
Tis is another of your flip flopping example
Your inability to find "my report" to follow "my models on hw a 'democratic economy' works" - is due to your own inability to comprehend the reference pieces that were intended to educate you.
You had preferred to concentrate your understanding based on the introductory passage without attempting to read the entire reference piece that would have shown you how a "democratic economy" can exist, function and succeed - from the basic level of management-worker relationship, to one where the Government still have an active part without being overwhelming in autocratic controls - working with society and industry.
Again u r just talking nonsense here. I have quoted out important paragraphs, interprete and explain. U ? U claim there is something in there, refuse to quote out any paragraph and refuse to back the challenge of showing the relevant sections. Wat does tis show ? U just lie in your definition of "democratic economy". U want to say u r not a lier ? PROVE IT. SHOW ME THE RELEVANT PASSAGES IN YOUR OWN REPORT
If you are interested - the link without the fancy dressings is:-
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089
It is still a dead link
Wild guesses ? As in the manner that you made your "Theory tat singapore will implode" by reading my paragraph ?
Yawn... see, u just prove my point. U only harp on the word "implosion" and "stupidissmart". I have told u statistical evidence point to the fact tat singapore had more proportion of the people being millionaires. U provide no statistic information on singapore millionaires being home grown. Wat can u conclude ? Singapore had more proportion of the people being millionaires, and tat is it
I do not know why but halfway through it seems your reply had cut off again. Since u proposed I should "lead the charge", so I paste back all the replies which u failed to answer.
How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?
Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see form what percentage of migrants in the Department of Statistics ?
And how do u know these car washers can't be ordinary migrants ? I already told u before. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. If tis group of people r not your so called 50% of the migrants, then where do tis big group of people go to ? Adding 50 % of the population is a big amount. Out of 3 person u see, 1 is a migrant. And then u claim they r not ordinary people who r seen to work ordinary.
Should there be no relationship ?
Was it not highlighted in at least two of my earlier replies ?
U mean u claiming they r not here as ordinary citizen ? I don't see the hightlight.
If my statement in the preceding paragraph has no relations, how did you arrive at this conjecture ?
Are you capable of handling statistics ?
U claim singapore attract a lot of foreigners I also say hong kong also attract a lot of chinese into the territory. Chinese r not considered forreigner and it is not within your report scope
Are you having any difficulties in understanding what was stated as my reply, or did it not suit your own plot ?
It is just funny tat u refuse to answer even your own question. If it is a plot, u r the one devising it. U r the one tat ask tis question first
If it was so, why did you not initiated the charge ?
I already reply u previously, u did not reply. So obviously I can conclude u concede.
Only you will wish that these is no reply, when you had refused to read the reply that was already given, but insist on my reply to fit your own preferred plot.
Did I not mention that even as India was a political democracy, its economy was under the autocratic control of its bureaucracy ?
If it was not until PM Mamohan Singh's decision to liberalise India's economy from autocratic control that saw India blossomed and produced all the millionaires.
U r not answering to the point. Then isn't it obvious tat democracy in politics had nothing to do with "democracting" the economy ? U claimed tis indian PM liberalise india economy. But the fact is he done it too late. China who is not democratic yet had "democrat" their economy. Tat is why their economy is better and they r more influential. So wat is the point of democracy in politics when it is mutually independent to economy ? U refuse to answer the above point and talk about other stuffs. I put it in number form for u
4.3.1) India is democratic for many years. China is not democratic
4.3.2) U claim india economy is not "democratic" in the past and surprisingly claim china economy is for many years. Tat is your explanation why china's economy is better than india despite india being democratic
4.3.3) Then the question is, Wat is the point of democracy in politics, if it does not lead to it to be a "democratic" economic ? Why people choose democracy is simply because they should get a better life. They should not choose it because the westerners sing praise of it.
And now u talk about something completely different. U r claiming we should not compare with china since it is not a democratic country. Why not ? Why compare
Singapore Versus India + Hong Kong
and not
Singapore + China against Hong Kong + India ?
U r again out of point
I also realise u refuse to answer on your civil servant reply. I pasted it again for u to reply
I got to ask also... wat happened to your civil servant reply ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter now ?
does all the replies have to be that long?
considering his lousy attitude and tons of insults, I have no choice but to reply on all his points and make sure he eat back all his words.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:does all the replies have to be that long?
as i don't read 'em, scrolling down also become tedious....
boy then u should imagine how difficult it is for me to jump up and down and between pages to find out wat happened in the discussion
and the stupid thing is atobe actually paste 2 of his same replies back to back and drag the page longer
Originally posted by redDUST:as i don't read 'em, scrolling down also become tedious....
good idea. Lets keep posting until we put this thing on the next page ehh?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:considering his lousy attitude and tons of insults, I have no choice but to reply on all his points and make sure he eat back all his words.
Yes. But if you make long paragraphs and text, its more prudent to try to write so that it seems interesting so that people will read right? I hope I have not offended you in any way. Just that like few people reading it. I thought I say something about it.
it is actually easier for me to read back messages if they r on the same page :p
u know the "find on this page" option is easy to travel to and fro within the same page :p