Liberal Forum

Str8tEdge » 24 Jul 2014 4:41 am » wrote:Hey Cannonpointer? Can you tell us why economists consider Singapore to be a capitalist nation? Why heritage ranks it as the 2nd freest economy in the world?????

I was unaware that you, gooey and glory hole were economists.

Oh wait. Is this one of those global warming things, where you just SAY that all the experts are with you, and pretend the poll happened on my day off?

Y'know, I gotta tell ya, I might need some help from YOU on plumbing the motives of economists - even granting that your unsourced claim is accurate.

Let us say that it is - that the overwhelming majority of economists agree on Singapore being capitalist - and ignoring that I have already conceded the issue, many times, happily crediting capitalism with Singapore's every virtue and flaw. Tell me, would these be the SAME economists who look upon the federal reserve bank and see, rather than a naked emperor, a regal being in splendid attire?

I think that it would - which rather puts their reliability into question, doncha think?

Now, as to Heritage: Heritage is paid to create narratives favorable to the interests of their sponsors. It's called a "think tank," but the employees are not paid so much for "thinking" as they are for producing thoughts that steer the public narrative in the way their sponsors want.

Now, since the peasants in Singapore have not pooled their resources and hired Heritage, their circumstances don't figure in Heritage's rankings. But me and you - we value freedom and human dignity - right? So how the average guy gets treated by government - that matters to US, even if Heritage doesn't take it into account, right?

Now, if your position is - as mine - that laissez faire capitalism leads to violent exploitation and enormous underclasses, then I can see why it's important to you that I fully acknowledge Singapore's status as a purely (or very nearly purely) CAPITALIST nation.

Rest assured that I do, kid. I truly do agree that Singapore is the second purest laissez faire capitalist nation on earth.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 11:17 am » wrote: So sorry - I have a policy of not repeating golden words. You've asked that thrice, but I shall continue in my policy of only answering it once. But please - do feel free to ask again. Just know in advance that it's been asked and answered.

And one more favor, if I may impose: When you post laughy faces and mock my use of the word "plight" in reference to the conditions of ordinary Singaporeans, PLEASE refrain in future from IMMEDIATELY, in the same post, admitting that they are at the effect of "repressive social laws" which neither you nor Heritage "endorses." You see, being subject to "repressive social laws" seems like what one might call a "plight" - yet immediately before ADMITTING there were conditions that would constitute a "plight," you laughed and mocked my use of the word.

Can you see how that might make you seem effeminate, or unmanly, to a more steady, less flaky poster? I sure hope so, and that you'll do me that little favor - just try to talk out of only one side of your mouth per post. I don't mind the constant fight clubbing - just not in the same post. Okay? Thanks in advance.

You also ridiculously claimed there are slaves, and you called Singapore a "hell hole."

I'll repeat all of that claptrap however often as I want.

As well as all your hugely exaggerated claims like about public beatings, which are a rarity.

So of course you'll keep bleating about it as if it's typical of ordinary Singapore life.

Detroit, former model of success of liberal Socialistic policies is a hell hole, far, far, far, far more than Singapore.

Never heard you complain about that or the failed model.

RichClem » 24 Jul 2014 9:23 am » wrote: Their top rate is half the US's, so it's half as progressive.

1. I never claimed that we don't have a progressive tax system - or that it was less progressive than theirs.
2. If there are several different rates, ranging from 0% to 20%, that is what economists and tax professionals refer to as a "progressive tax system." I said they had one, and you posted the proof. I'm glad you agree we can work together.

RichClem » 24 Jul 2014 9:23 am » wrote: Both of which are less socialistic than the US.

I am delighted to see that you have dropped Detroit as your personal yard stick for a nation's success, and are holding Singapore's feet to the fire by insisting that if they can be shown to be "less socialistic than the US," then any taint of socialism is removed, and their freedomy reputation is redeemed.

You seem absolutely committed to refusing my surrender. I have told you repeatedly that I concede: Singapore is the second most pure capitalist nation on earth, and as such is a standing monument to what effect our adopting a more laissez faire approach on these shores will have,

You and I might disagree on whether living in a capitalist slave pit will be pleasant and freedomy - but we certainly CAN agree that Singapore is the second best example of what life under more pure capitalism will be like for average folks.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 11:42 am » wrote: As well as all your hugely exaggerated claims like about public beatings, which are a rarity.

I have a neighbor who rarely robs banks. He'll appreciate your liberal attitude.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 11:42 am » wrote: Detroit, former model of success of liberal Socialistic policies is a hell hole, far, far, far, far more than Singapore.

Never heard you complain about that or the failed model.

Ah, back to Detroit.

Well, I suppose Singapore needs all the help it can get.

"Better than Detroit" - Hey, they could put that on their "Welcome to Singapore, Watch yourself or You'll get a Good Caning" sign at the airport.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 6:53 am » wrote:

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 10:27 am wrote: ~ "There are sources all over the internet. Don't blame us if you're too lazy to read them." ~

Top Ten Glory Hole Clem Excuses for Singapore

10. The beatings are actually fairly rare.
9. The poor are taxed at almost as low a rate as the rich.
8. If it's economically free, how can it be socialist (a variant of, If it's a date, how can it be rape)?
7. Neither I nor heritage endorse Singapore's repressive social laws.
6. Most of the downtrodden peasants will retire millionaires, due to government planning.
5. I have condemned it as socialist, you liar.
4. It is the opposite of socialist, you liar.
3. I have only two definitions for socialist, you liar.
2. The term "socialist" has no definition, you liar.

And the number one Glory Hole Clem excuse for Singapore (drum roll please)...

Hey, it may be a brutal police state - but it's not as bad as Detroit.



Paul Schaeffer, ladies and gentlemen! Paul!

shintao » 25 Jul 2014 11:57 am » wrote:
RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 10:27 am wrote: ~ "There are sources all over the internet. Don't blame us if you're too lazy to read them." ~

He's a wonderment. He really is quite a wonderment, that Glory Hole.

I wonder if he'll storm out soon? He's sure getting the **** kicked out of him - like a piñata
at a quinceañera.


Consider the beating he'd rather take than just admit he screwed up. What a character.

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 8:48 pm » wrote:
You found out again what an imbecile you are.

I wasn't denying in the slightest calling them that.

Bungle clear English much?

No, I don't. But you do - mainly because you find yourself defending Heritage's ***-pulled definitions. Here you are, repeating your denial of ever having called the bailout socialist:

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 2:19 pm » wrote: You're a burnout, a psychotic and a serial liar.

We continued:

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 2:54 pm » wrote:
Oh, my bad! Did I make that up - that you previously called a relatively small investment in GM socialist?

Final answer, richie?

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 3:03 pm » wrote: That is my final answer. You're a psychotic and a serial liar with no integrity.

So bleat all you want.

Hm.

Whom should we believe, today Clem or yesterday Clem?

One of you effeminate **** is telling whoppers again.

Str8tEdge » 23 Jul 2014 9:03 pm » wrote:
Not in a union and out of all the hospitals in this area, only one I know of has unionized RN's and that's SLU hospital.

The one with the good benefits and higher pay scale that everyone has their app in at?

Yeah - I think I heard of that one. But you're doing fine without all that stupid pay and stuff. You've got your midnight bedpan rounds to give meaning to your life, Devry. That online trade schoole certificate was a smart move, considering you **** off yur opportunity to go to college and be a real professional like your siblings and your parents and grand parents.

Who cares - the trust fund will save you. That trust fund is better than boot straps, when ya really think about it.

You can pull yourself up by your trust fund, Devry.

RichClem » 24 Jul 2014 9:27 am » wrote: More ways Singapore is less Socialistic than the US.


Its top corporate tax rate is less than half the US's.

I thought you only had two definitions of socialism, clemmie?

Now you toss out your eighth definition: Socialism is the condition of charging higher taxes than Singapore.

Wow, That is just extra special, clemmie. Every third post, you have another new definition of socialism - except when you're swearing that the word cannot be defined.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 6:53 am » wrote: Not to interfere with your endless psychotic ranting, Heritage's ranking is of "economic freedom," not social freedoms. If you asked the individuals who do the index or if you asked me, we would both strongly oppose its social authoritarianism, which has nothing to do with Free Market policy.

Yet whenever you describe a socialist economic system, you blame any and all social ills in that nation NOT on the politics of the republic or democracy or monarchy in question - no. You blame all of the social ills on the economic system: socialism.

But capitalism? It exists in a veritable vacuum and has zero impact or effect on the politics of the society that hosts it - and therefore, no explaining to do when the inevitable dispossessed and brutalized underclass fails to pull itself up by its bootstraps, eh, Glory Hole?

Very interesting, that your overblown sense of entitlement abuses you as much as do Heritage's lies, convincing you that you can slice everything down the middle, and then have all three portions, with six left over for you to consume yesterday.

Fantasy land, Clem - that's where you get to advocate, with no blowback, that we follow the example of a government that owns the entire media, owns and operates the nation's medical system at the lowest expenditure rate of any nation on earth (with the almost certain outcome of long waits, shoddy care and even death panels), owns 88% of the housing units in the country, publicly beats citizens for offenses as minor as littering and has no formal charter of rights for its citizens - a nation which has repeatedly been singled out by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations for official government brutality and endemic human trafficking.

"But but but Heritage and I do not endorse THAT aspect of Singapore's system. We were just fawning over the mighty and wonderful Singapore these last several months because of the GOOD stuff - the stuff Laissez Faire Capitalism does - the freedomy stuff."

What about the poverty, the brutality, the human rights abuses, Clem?

"The bad stuff? There's no socialism in Singapore, except for just enough to do all that bad stuff, and not one bit more. Other than that, it's totally freedomy - now with new "economic freedom" freedom - the most elite and exclusive freedom to date!"

Your father called, Glory Hole. He wants his jism back.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 12:32 pm » wrote: I thought you only had two definitions of socialism, clemmie?

Now you toss out your eighth definition: Socialism is the condition of charging higher taxes than Singapore.

Wow, That is just extra special, clemmie. Every third post, you have another new definition of socialism - except when you're swearing that the word cannot be defined.

Are you really this utterly stupid?

Naaah, you're just lying.

Socialism has two definitions; control via outright state ownership of the economy or control via vast laws and regulation of an economy.

If a government collects half your salary via taxes, it "OWNS" half your salary and collects it through law.

That's so clear even a psychotic can understand it.

And given how broadly Socialism intrudes on citizens' lives, there are many ways to measure the degree of Socialism.

What about the poverty, the brutality, the human rights abuses, Clem?

"The bad stuff? There's no socialism in Singapore, except for just enough to do all that bad stuff, and not one bit more. Other than that, it's totally freedomy - now with new "economic freedom" freedom - the most elite and exclusive freedom to date!"

That's as stupid as complaining in a math class that they're not teaching English.

Do you want Heritage's or my opinion about civil rights and social freedoms? Then read Heritage's statements about them.

Or ask me about mine, rather than lying about both of us.

You haven't written one single word against the genocide China committed in Tibet.

Therefore, by your silence you supported it.

See, anyone can play that silly troll trick.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 12:03 pm » wrote:Top Ten Glory Hole Clem Excuses for Singapore

10. The beatings are actually fairly rare.

Oh my, the troll is such a talented liar. They just roll off his keyboard as fast as his little fingers can type.

I didn't "make excuses" for Singapore. I was refuting your stupid claim that it's a "hell hole."

And btw, where are all the "slaves" you kept mentioning?

Produce proof of that, and maybe you can recover a shred of integrity.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 1:21 pm » wrote: And given how broadly Socialism intrudes on citizens' lives, there are many ways to measure the degree of Socialism.

As many as there are ways to wish it away, pretend it isn't there, ignore it, throw rhetoric over it?

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 1:21 pm » wrote: That's as stupid as complaining in a math class that they're not teaching English.

Do you want Heritage's or my opinion about civil rights and social freedoms? Then read Heritage's statements about them.

Or ask me about mine, rather than lying about both of us.

So if I gush over an authoritarian police state, you would be wrong to assume that I don't particularly care about the crimes it is committing?

I don't trust you to hold that position when the shoe is on the other foot, Clem But we will never know. You're not going to see me manipulated by ad men into recommending a dictatorship as worthy of emulation. with emphasis on how "free" it is - "economically"or otherwise, kid.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 1:21 pm » wrote:You haven't written one single word against the genocide China committed in Tibet.

Your infatuation with China and insistence that they are no longer communist - not even the premier, to hear you gush - is all the evidence I need of deaf ears. Why bother?

But more to the point, kid, I am not the one supporting open borders for their wares, to help them build their economy. That is you. I do not recommend them as a proper trading partner, or defend them as reformed from their totalitarian ways. That is also you. I don't brag about their growing middle class, while watching our own shrink in order to make that happen. Again - you. So if one of us is equanimous about Tibet, the rational suspect is you.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 1:21 pm » wrote:Therefore, by your silence you supported it.

See, anyone can play that silly troll trick.

It isn't silly to hold a man accountable for his recommendation that we emulate a police state. But holding a man as favoring a thing on grounds that t he has not yet criticized it, in the absence of any praise or other indication of approval? Yeah - that was silly, Clem Everything can be made silly, by silly men.

If I came in here hee-hawing what a wunnerful and free nation China was and how we oughta be more like them, there might be at least a hint of sanity in dredging up their past behavior - though I would think you could find something more recent, if you were not, yourself, so enamored of the yellow peril.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 1:26 pm » wrote:
Oh my, the troll is such a talented liar. They just roll off his keyboard as fast as his little fingers can type.

I didn't "make excuses" for Singapore. I was refuting your stupid claim that it's a "hell hole."

And btw, where are all the "slaves" you kept mentioning?

Produce proof of that, and maybe you can recover a shred of integrity.

Asked and answered, Clem.

I'll rely on sources that have NOT advised emulating a police state for how to maintain my dignity, Clem. Yours is in tatters, defending a police state in one utterance and disowning it in the next, fight-clubbing yourself into near submission before gathering a second wind to attack yourself with renewed vigor.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 2:27 pm » wrote: Asked and answered, Clem.

Do you really think anyone will fall for a skeptic-level troll lie?

.

F*** you and your a-n-s-w-e-r-e-d t-h-a-t a-l-r-e-a-d-y bulls***.

You're a troll. Trolls lie, and you've told more lies today than I could correct in a month.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 2:24 pm » wrote:So if I gush over an authoritarian police state....

Your infatuation with China.....

If I came in here hee-hawing what a wunnerful and free nation China was and how we oughta be more like them

It isn't silly to hold a man accountable for his recommendation that we emulate a police state....

If I came in here hee-hawing what a wunnerful and free nation China was and how we oughta be more like them...

F*** you and your endless lies.

You're a troll. Trolls lie.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 2:24 pm » wrote:Your infatuation with China and insistence that they are no longer communist - not even the premier, to hear you gush - is all the evidence I need of deaf ears. Why bother?

Giving an objective opinion about China's strengths and faults is "gushing?"

You're a troll. Trolls lie.

Communist countries do not have strong, growing economies, moonbat. That's a literal impossibility.

China's government is authoritarian.

China's government is violent.

China's government is repressive.

China's government is a threat to its neighbors.

A lying troll would call that "gushing."

But thanks to greater economic freedom, China's government is slowly being pushed in the direction of greater political freedom, especially at the local level.

And thanks to greater economic freedom, not only is the average Chinese citizen not starving as they did under relatively pure Socialism, they're becoming much more prosperous.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 2:38 pm » wrote: Communist countries do not have strong, growing economies, moonbat. That's a literal impossibility.

If a capitalist government builds factories for them, and gives them unfettered access to the worlds largest consumer market, and allows them to exploit an endless supply of virtual slave labor, and exempts them from any of the environmental or safety standards which it imposes on factories at home, and provides them with a fleet to ship their slave-made goods, how in the name of Zeus and Thor could they AVOID growing their economy?

Have you told the Premier of the Communist Party that you have designated the People's Republic an emerging capitalist utopia - and has he thanked you for applauding the destruction of our own manufacturing base in order to make that happen?

In your glee and satisfaction over "capitalist" China's burgeoning middle class, have you ever felt a fleeting bit of remorse at the decline of our own - and that of our working class as well, in order for that to happen?

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 2:38 pm » wrote: But thanks to greater economic freedom, China's government is slowly being pushed in the direction of greater political freedom, especially at the local level.

And thanks to greater economic freedom, not only is the average Chinese citizen not starving as they did under relatively pure Socialism, they're becoming much more prosperous.

I count as cheap the "humanitarianism" that is reserved for people whose farts you will never have to smell and whose differing opinions you will never have to tolerate, while that same "humanitarianism" is withheld from your neighbors and kinsmen who have the first and rightful claim to your natural affection. "Bootstraps" is your answer to their distress. "Take ours," is the answer you are happy - eager - to give people who are really just a vague concept of humanity - not humanity itself, up close and in your life.

Yours is the humanitarianism of show, of theater. Your sympathies lack the authenticity to be sustained in the world of face to face contact. But you can have nice "feelings" for a bunch of **** chinamen you'll never meet -and that makes you a regular Albert Schweitzer, a very liberal fellow in doling out your shallow affections and your nation's treasure.

Selling your birthright for a bowl of gruel is shameful. But selling your CHILDREN'S birthright?

Pathetic.