A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but they get those seats in a free election. I think it was about seven years ago when the PAP's candidate for Prime Minister lost three seats, he had to resign in embarrassment. I am not claiming that Singapore is the best with civil liberties, I wouldn't want to live there, but the government has the overwhelming support of the people. There are many negative things you can say about Singapore, but it is prosperous, has a free economy and has free elections.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

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?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought your thesis was that right-wing dictatorships inevitably turn into democracies as they grow richer, while Communists prevent economic growth and will not relinquish power. But in Singapore, you have a dictator continuing to preside over a wealthy, growing economy. And in China, you have Communists presiding over rapid economic growth.

Perhaps the sole example of a benevolent despot?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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."

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!).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think Spanker's counting on being part of the wealthy ruling elite -- in which case, this is the ideal system.

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.

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

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

[Spanky]

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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kerry told me that we're that way, too.

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?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ironweed
Board mottos, like socks, should be changed more often than that.

Well, some mottos have enduring value.

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, some mottos have enduring value.

The last one was yours, huh?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Juan Cole

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.

Democracy for everyone except the Palestinians, right?

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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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