23 Jul 2014 7:26 pm
The minister of finance cannot make changes to the company on a whim. There's a protocol to follow just like any other company. I've already agreed that it's socialism, but your attempt to compare it to the Federal Government taking over GM is beyond stupid. It basically stops with government holding a stake in a corporation.Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:20 am » wrote:
You said "shareholders," which of course you know to be a lie. There is only one "shareholder:" the government of Singapore. Government ownership of the means of production WAS socialism, before you came out, son.
And you don't get to say what I want - unless you agree that I get to say what you want (which will be anonymous bathroom cock, of course).
What have we learned? We have learned that your definition of socialism is a crowd-sourced, partisan, go-along-get-along definition. A conjob definition. A definition handed to you at the memory hole, where you made a burnt offering of your PREVIOUS definition of that word to your one true god - repuke ideology.
What must it be like, I wonder, to come on this board and feel a need to pretend that government ownership of the means of production is not socialism, so long as it is formatted in a manner pleasing to Heritage (whose pleasure would be to call Singapore socialist, but for its economic success)?
What IS that like, for you? It's not as if we do not BOTH know that Obama investing in GM equaled socialism, NOTWITHSTANDING NO DAY TO DAY OVERSIGHT - SIMPLY SHAREHOLDER STATUS (and not even the only shareholder). We BOTH know that you call it socialism when it suits youHeritage, and capitalism when it suits you Heritage. That's zero integrity, bub. That's a wiggling, niggling little fellow, is what that is.
Are you ever going to explain your 30% calculation???