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.