Just tell him it will be the next one, and leave it alone. He didn't say by when- do you ever notice that the liberals who post here seem to be very poor in lawyer skills? Just asking.

And Singapore is terrible for civil rights- I was there and there was a big arrest of a Priest and a few others. The crime? They said the government was bad. Trial date? No. They'll be in jail until the government decides they don't need be in jail anymore.

Read this then. I think you'll see that it wasn't one or the other.

eta: If your French is rusty, you might prefer this English-language account from a Beirut newspaper.

Central America
 

There are many places in the world where the government has the overwhelming support of the people but you wouldn't want to live there. We invaded one recently. Overwhelming support is one way of saying it; suppressing dissent is another. For example, Singapore's Internal Security Act allows the government to arrest and hold people indefinitely without charge or trial.

As noted already, the elections are hardly free, but what the hell, as long as it has a free economy, who cares?

Wolfie
 

Lets look at Asia following world war II. The strongest growth after world war two was Singapore and Hong Kong. Both the freest economies. Then followed by South Korea and Taiwan - the next freest economies. After that the other Asian Tigers, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These countries were late in the game until the late sixties and early seventies when they opened up their economies and experience strong growth (after right wing coups I might ad). India had a higher standard of living than South Korea in 1948 but then adopted the Soviet model for its economy. By 1988 South Korea's per capita income was ten times that of India. India per capita income is below all those I mentioned above. In 1991 India started implementing free market reforms and their growth topped two percent for the first time since 1948. The reforms have come in spurts and slowly, but India has slowly been opening up over the past twelve year and now they have around 7% growth per year. They are still way behind the Asian Tigers mentioned bove, but are catching up. However, they had a higher per capita income after the war than all the Tigers. After the communists took over in China, the per capita income went down until 1985 when they started to open up their economy under Deng Xiao Ping. In 1985 their per capita income was around half of Indias. However, since they started opening up their economy earlier China now has a higher per capita income. At the bottom of the list is Vietnam. As I said before they, they were at the top of the bunch in 1975 but after the communist takeover they dropped to the bottom. Since 1995 the government has played with economic reforms but keeps reversing their initiatives leaving the country very poor. Burma has had a socialist dictatorship for many years. They are controlled by the military, but the military has followed the socialist model, putting them in the bottom three. Then of course there is north Korea. After the Korean war the whole peninsula had pretty much the same economy. Now the estimates are that the average South Korean is thirty times as wealthy as their North Korea counterpart. I left out Japan because they were a developed country prior to the war. However, I am sure if Japan has gone communist, they would now be at the bottom.

Wolfie
 

Nice idea in theory but totally untrue. That is why I like to use the per capita income stats.

I get my news here-- http://www.elkhabar.com/ I just think it's a less bias vehicle

I said "next" because I meant next, sister. I wasn't setting a deadline for the change, just thought it should be in the queue.

Do you ever notice that the neocons around here will set up a straw man even when the topic is purely administrative?

Wolfie
 

To the extent that you are arguing that the Soviet Communist economic model is a poor one, I suspect no one here disagrees with you. You seem to be gratified about countries like China and Vietnam, whose Communist regimes have opened up markets but retained power, apparently because it they prove the wisdom of free-market economy policy relative to the Soviet Union. I am more concerned that these countries show that repressive political regimes have found ways to adapt and keep a hold on power.

They bussed in a not-inconsequential number of people in across the border and padded the numbers with Syrian workers and Palestinian refugees. Additionally, it is rumoured the Syrian secret police and Hezbollah heavily pressured people to show up (a la North Korea).

Adding further to the mix is that the rally was less a pro-Syria rally and much more of a pro-Arab, anti-UN/US rally, which would also explain the higher numbers.

I just surf there for the pictures.

http://www.elkhabar.com/01.jpg

For a good time, check this out
 

www.jeffgannon.com

Pure comedy gold.

"While I am on hiatus from the White House briefing room, I'm going to post the question I would have asked had I been there."

Central America
 

I am talking about the economic systems. I don't care what they call themselves. China was a dictatorship that imposed a socialist system. Today they are like other right wing dictators. They are imposing capitalism.

Bollocks.

When you and flower argue about what song to be next in spin class it means in a few minutes. next motto is different. We hadn't changed it for over a year.

I was just helping Ty deal with your threat- then RT caved anyway. WTF- you got naked pix of her or sumthin?

Central America
 

Oh right. Saddam got 100.00% of the vote. Wow.

So much for the winds of change
 

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ria/index.html

Central America
 

Yes, and he should be embarassed to lose three seats, given that they generally don't allow more than two candidates on the ballot. Go study the history of the opposition party, including (as Ty posted) libel suits, redistricting, and all-around strong efforts to minimize opposition.

As for the PM, if it was someone other than the former PM's son, who is now PM, question the reason for the resignation.

Wolfie
 

What I am saying is:

1) Free markets equal growth - socialist policies equal slow growth, stagnation or negative growth. This is true whether the country is democratically free or not.

2) Countries that adopt free markets, if not prosperous, they become prosperous and prosperous countrys tend to become Democracys.

3) Countries that stay poor are easier for dictators to control and therefor tend stay under authoritarian rule more often than the countries that experience growth.

stp

Your reference to Palestinian refugees is sad, since one of the things that has destabilized Lebanon is those refugees:

• The Christian-dominated system of Lebanon fell apart for a number of reasons. The Israelis expelled 100,000 or so Palestinians north to Lebanon in 1948. The Christians of Lebanon refused to give the Palestinians Lebanese citizenship, since the Palestinians were 80 to 85 percent Muslim and their becoming Lebanese would have endangered Christian dominance. Over time the stateless Palestinians living in wretched camps grew to 300,000. (In contrast, the Maronite elite gave the Armenians who immigrated citizenship so fast it would make your head spin.)

Juan Cole

Democracy for everyone except the Palestinians, right?

Central America
 

Perhaps the sole example of a benevolent despot?

For a good time, check this out
 

Ha.

"Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before."

spanky, bilmore, slave, you can stand down. Jeff's got your back (oops!).

Wolfie
 

True. Mel Brooks said it best: it's good to be the king.

Wolfie
 

Perhaps if you had said this fifty years ago, you would have a nobel prize.

Board mottos, like socks, should be changed more often than that. And flower and I never argue about the songs, because he cries if we don't play his Tiffany CD.

Please. Do you know how much those cost? I'm just a lawyer.

The Chinese so called communists are making a huge mistake. They do not understand that economic growth leads to democracy. They think they will be able to retain power but that is not the case. The only dictators that are able to hold on are the ones that keep their people poor. In both Burma, Vietnam and in North Korea the governments have kept the people poor so their regimes are not really under threat internally. However, dictators that institute economic growth eventually get kicked out - South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, Chile etc.

Wolfie
 

Well it serves you right for believing a political candidate. You don't see me quoting Shrub, do you?

Now, to reply in earnest to your point.

The US has a healthy middle class, which is the great strength of our economy. The same is true for Japan, Canada, etc. The ME, Africa, and Latin America lack a middle class. I don't want to go through a whole bunch of modeling and statistical analysis here, but I'd be willing to bet we both agree it is the existence of a large and upwardly mobile middle class that is the real support for a truly democratic state. Wherever a middle class develops, you will see totalitarian regimes, of either the right or the left, wither and die, or be overthrown.

So quit it with the silly partisan shit and geet back to being an intelligent, reasoned debater, will you?

Well, some mottos have enduring value.

The last one was yours, huh?

The first thing that strikes me from this article is this laughable, and needless statistic:

• In fact the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections were deeply flawed. 42 percent of the electorate did not show up.

So 58% did show up? Gee, only 60% of the American electorate showed up in 2004, and that was the highest total since 1968. What a disaster.

Let them go back to Jordan where they belong and vote all they want.

I'm starting to think of you as our China Hand.

http://www.davidsoul.com/images/chinahand1r.jpg

That's down 42 percentage points from when Saddam was in power, though.

Central America
 

Have any of you guys ever been to Singapore? To compare Singapore to countries with rigged elections is absurd. The ballots are secret and there are multiple partys. I lived in Tokyo for three years and spent a great deal of time in Singapore. The two are not very different. In Japan, someone can be held without any reason by the police for thirty days. Then what they do is let the person go and when they leave the police grounds they grab the person again and hold them for another thirty days. People spend years in Jail under this system. Prosecutors have a 99% prosecution rate. And this ain't because of plea bargaining and deciding not to prosecute. There are no juries, and almost all the judges are former prosecutors. If a person is convicted of a capital crime, they disappear into the system. No one can meet with them and the date of the execution is kept secret. When the system decides to execute, they are executed in secret and then the family is notified to pick up the body.

If you ask the Japanese about this system, they all defend it. I never met one Japanes citizen who thought their system should be more like the U.S. They will tell you there is little crime in Japan and so their legal system is much better than ours. It is the same thing in Singapore. I used to complain to singaporeans all the time about their legal system. How can you execute someone for a few joints? I would talk to kids and they would all tell me that they don't want to become a toxic waste dump like the U.S. When I told them many people in the US think drugs should be legal, they looked at me as though I must be insane. All the western lawyers and bankers that work in Singapore that I know all had the same experience. They were hard pressed to find a Singaporean, in or out of the country, who didn't like their government and their system. They all supported the government. And this was not because they were afraid. They were all just brainwashed.

Central America
 

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm confused about your point. Are you saying the highest form of social order is the benevolent despotic regime with a free market economy and free elections that ratify the existing regime? Or do you view them (Singapore, Japan) as currently at a transition state to an ideal balance of free market economy/free elections/individual liberties?

What's the ideal formulation of individual liberties in a democracy?

Wolfie
 

Nice idea in theory but totally useless. If you want to even begin to approach accuracy, you have to consider income distribution. There's a reason why Thailand's peasants sell their 11 year old daughters to brothel owners in Bangkok and Phuket, and it isn't because it's good for tourism.

Central America
 

I have, and have thought about the system extensively (well, at least more than 5 minutes). It has its advantages, but it by no means constitutes a democracy in the sense we use the word here. Yes, people can vote. Yes, generally they are happy with teh way the government runs. But, no, single-party rule that is ensured in the ways that it is in Singapore is not true democracy--there are simply too many speech restrictions and limitations on ballot access that limit the degree to which it can fairly be called democratic. Yes, it's better than a lot of places, but it has a way to go.

I'll also hit some Poli* Sci 101: If it were a true democracy, why would single party rule continue? Equilibrium in true democracies generally results in an even distribution of seats across parties (the equilibrium number of parties depends on the nature of the electoral system), as parties move to capture a majority. I don't believe that Singapore has been so far from equilibrium for its entire existence--rather, something is preventing the fractioning of the PAP into "liberal" and "conservative" wings--namely, extra-democratic party discipline.

* please note that it is Poli with an "i" not a "y" -- it is not the study of multiple sciences.

Central America
 

No, we should invade Iran to foster the flowering of democracy in places like Singapore and Japan. Keep up, dunce.

Central America
 

Fine with me. I don't have very many draft age relatives.

Central America
 

I have not been posulating at all about the perfect system or the perfect social order. I am simply saying:

1) Free markets lead to prosperity that leads to democracy

2) closed markets do not lead to prosperity allowing dictators to stay in control.

People were trying to argue that prosperity did not lead to Decmcracy and I was just showing that prosperity does leaed to Democratic societies, but in these democratic societies the people do not necessarily choose a system like ours with all our invidividual liberties. But just because the people do not choose our individual liberties does not mean the people are not in control. Singapore, Japan, South Korea all are Democratic societies. The people choose the government. But the governments that they choose are ones I wouldn't choose. They choose security and order over individual rights. In the poor systems where the econommies are closed, like Burma, Vietnam, North Korea - the people have no say in how the government is run.

Many of them didn't come from Jordan. They came from Israel, which does not recognize any right of return. (And yes, I understand why -- I'm not trying to have that argument.)

Wolfie
 

Actually the brothels in Thailand are mostly full of girls from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Let see if you can guess what the common denominator among these three countries is.