Liberal Forum

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote: Here's a hint, moonbat. Comparing one Socialistic action by Obama with an entire country's economy makes no sense whatsoever.

Word definitions don't magically change based on whether you are criticizing Obama or extolling the virtues of state ownership of the market, son.

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote:And not that you'll pay the slightest attention to reality, Heritage's index is relative. If Singapore ranks near the top infreedom, then de facto it is among the least Socialist in the world.

You claimed to employ only two definitions of socialism, yet persist in this third one.^ You claim that, BY DEFINITION, havng Heritage rank you as relatively free makes you "not" socialist.

So that is THREE definitiions that you prattle on about - always depending which one suits your immediate partisan purpose. How effeminate can you possibly be, man-titties?

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote: To fairly and accurately judge Singapore's system, you must compare it to, say, Italy or France or Greece or other more strongly Socialist countries.

But you're not fair or accurate, obviously.

Why not compare it to the dictionary definition of the word socialist. instead? Why do YOU get to declare what it "must" be compared to? and in comparing, what indicators do you insist we compare? Merely demanding a "comparison" is just silly child-speak. It's foot stomping in the name of politics.

Are you even an adult? What kind of adult would insist on comparing an Asian city state situated in the intercontinental trade routes to mature European democracies with tens of millions of citizens? Could Singapore have made a difference in WWII? Can Singapore produce the Concorde SST? Does it have a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council?

Shall we compare that tiny island city state to China? To Russia? To the USA?