Lee Kwan Yew: India not in the same league as China
RichAsianKid
1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
newspaper?)
2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
interpretation) at first glance:
(a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
(b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
Still....
I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.
http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg ) but also lazy and don't
follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
=================
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not-in-the-same-league-as-china_1324461
For Singapore's father, India not in the same league as China
Sreejiraj Eluvangal / DNA
Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:22 IST
New Delhi: The 81-year-old Lee Kuan Yew is not known to be diplomatic.
Singapore's Gandhi and Nehru rolled together, Yew has been credited with
transforming the island nation from a vulnerable, resource-constrained
colonial outpost to one of the most advanced nations on the planet in
just around three decades.
For Yew, who shared his insights with an attentive and admiring audience
at an Indo-Singaporean event in the Capital on Wednesday, India is not
quite in the same league as China. He believes China has a considerable
headstart in the development game that is hard for India to overtake or
even match.
"Both can grow... But India's GDP is half that of China's. It's growth
does not exceed that of China's," he said, pointing out various
opinion-makers believe that the two Asian neighbours should not be
clubbed together at all any longer.
He pointed out that China is years ahead of India in terms of
infrastructure. "China has
50,000 km of eight-laned highways, 20,000 km of high-speed trains," he
pointed out, adding that India's lack of connectivity between its cities
and villages is severely hindering the country's development. "Better
transportation can easily add another 2-3% to India's GDP growth," he said.
Having served at the head of Singapore government from 1959 to 1990, Yew
is credited with not only bringing economic development, but also
reducing corruption and forging a truly Singaporean identity.
When asked why he thought South Asia lagged behind East Asia in living
standards and economic development, he pointed to the Confucian culture.
Confucius, a ancient Chinese scholar and philosopher who lived before
the Buddha is known for the hard-nosed practicality of his teachings.
Yew pointed out that Confucian ethos placed as much emphasis on hardwork
as on intelligence and ability.
"There is a great emphasis on drive. You don't get ahead based on brains
alone. You need all three of discipline, persistence and ability...
There is a tremendous faith [in Confucian societies] that through
education and hardwork, you will do better in life... Even the poorest
Chinese make sure their children are educated," he pointed out.
Yew, who is known for his candid and often unflattering appraisal of
Western culture and values, also fielded some questions about the "end"
of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and its status as the
World policeman. He, however, disappointed the enquirer with a quip:
"Imagine the world without a policeman!" Yew, currently serving as
Singapore's 'Minister Mentor' also felt all the hooplah about the demise
of the dollar was misplaced. "What will you replace it with?" he asked,
predicting that it will continue to be the currency of global trade for
"a long time" to come.
the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy Boudha
Lee Kuan Yew is a Chink ,
so China is Lee Kuan Yew 's Motherland .
n Dec 17, 12:39 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
> Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg) but also lazy and don't
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
> =================http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not...
charlie vietcong
from Thailand
is also 100% Hakka Chinese ,
that was why these two trust each other in their shares
swarping ,
between Temasek and Shin corp .
.
n Dec 17, 12:39 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
> Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg) but also lazy and don't
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
> =================http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not...
Arindam Banerjee
> Singapore's Gandhi and Nehru rolled together, Yew has been credited with
> transforming the island nation from a vulnerable, resource-constrained
> colonial outpost to one of the most advanced nations on the planet in
> just around three decades.
>
> For Yew, who shared his insights with an attentive and admiring audience
> at an Indo-Singaporean event in the Capital on Wednesday, India is not
> quite in the same league as China. He believes China has a considerable
> headstart in the development game that is hard for India to overtake or
> even match.
>
> "Both can grow... But India's GDP is half that of China's. It's growth
> does not exceed that of China's," he said, pointing out various
> opinion-makers believe that the two Asian neighbours should not be
> clubbed together at all any longer.
>
> He pointed out that China is years ahead of India in terms of
> infrastructure. "China has
> 50,000 km of eight-laned highways, 20,000 km of high-speed trains," he
> pointed out, adding that India's lack of connectivity between its cities
> and villages is severely hindering the country's development. "Better
> transportation can easily add another 2-3% to India's GDP growth," he
> said.
Problem for China here is that they have sunk a lot of money in all that
infrastructure. India has not, so India has more options. With a
innovative Govt. Indians can do many new things with new technology.
> Having served at the head of Singapore government from 1959 to 1990, Yew
> is credited with not only bringing economic development, but also
> reducing corruption and forging a truly Singaporean identity.
No doubt.
> When asked why he thought South Asia lagged behind East Asia in living
> standards and economic development, he pointed to the Confucian culture.
This is recent. When the British ruled India things were reversed. I
remember reading in Grade 1 how poor the Chinese were, in the 40-50s.
> Confucius, a ancient Chinese scholar and philosopher who lived before
> the Buddha is known for the hard-nosed practicality of his teachings.
> Yew pointed out that Confucian ethos placed as much emphasis on hardwork
> as on intelligence and ability.
If all people are practical, no theoretical innovations can be made.
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:_8GXm.63714$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Indian cultural ethos is heroic, individualistic, freedom-loving and
spiritual. This is most clearly shown in all standard Hindi films - upto
1989 at any rate. Purely practical people cannot be idealistic, for they
deal with what can happen as opposed to what might happen. In short, they
are basically second-rate, creativity wise. Of course, this does not mean
they will be poor - far from it. Second rates are in an ideal situation to
reap the benefits made by the first raters, the chaps who did the original
inventions that is. Modern China had absolutely no use for copyright,
patent rights, etc.
>> "There is a great emphasis on drive. You don't get ahead based on brains
>> alone. You need all three of discipline, persistence and ability...
>> There is a tremendous faith [in Confucian societies] that through
>> education and hardwork, you will do better in life... Even the poorest
>> Chinese make sure their children are educated," he pointed out.
Indians don't lag behind either, at least outside India. In India they are
exposed to many different languages, religions, stories, types of food,
festivals, cricket...
>> Yew, who is known for his candid and often unflattering appraisal of
>> Western culture and values, also fielded some questions about the "end"
>> of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and its status as the
>> World policeman. He, however, disappointed the enquirer with a quip:
>> "Imagine the world without a policeman!"
I think that the police were invented in 17th century England. In
aboriginal Australia there was no police, no jails, no roads, etc. They
managed for 40000 years.
Yew, currently serving as
>> Singapore's 'Minister Mentor' also felt all the hooplah about the demise
>> of the dollar was misplaced. "What will you replace it with?" he asked,
>> predicting that it will continue to be the currency of global trade for
>> "a long time" to come.
Who knows...
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Dec 21, 4:32 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Arindam Banerjee
AB: Unity in diversity, is what Indians have been taught in schools.
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Diversity means killings and wars .
rst0wxyz
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
Spoken like a true Chinaman of old - Lee Kwan Yew: India not in the
same league as China
Arindam Banerjee
Diversity means killings and wars .
ants, bees, etc.
Panthera Pardus
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
Tell me something, oh wise one obsessed with IQ and genetics, (and
I've asked you this before as have others like P. Rajah and you have
never answered) why was was China poorer than India on a per capita
basis for centuries? Tell me wise Chinese sage, why modern China ,
even with its high paced growth, is poorer on a per capita basis than
Brazil, Mexico, the Bahamas or Barbados (note that 3 0f the 4
countries here have very large black population, yet still outperfom
China in terms of per capita income)? Is RAK going to explain that
these 4 countries are superior genetically to the PRC. Judging by
RAK's earlier words, that is the only possible conclusion.
RichAsianKid
Then the obvious question is why Brazil, Mexico, and India etc can't
parlay their initial advantages into real gains in the 21st century
while way more modest countries not just China, but also Taiwan, Korea
were able to do so.
Or why free democratic English-speaking India - in spite of everything
going for it - still lags behind in 21st century growth compared to
that evil evil oppressed & totalitarian China where its own system is so
stacked against its own people condemning their own to forever misery.
Then of course there's an environmental component, no doubt, duh!! Think
Zimbabwe and South Africa - once Africa's bread-basket, they're now
pathetic basket-cases. How come? Do their own people not shoulder any blame?
Or this too: is it true North Korea is congenitally more stupid than the
South? Is it true that former East Germany is way more stupid than the West?
You get the picture.
Why is it that blacks in America (no less) - still continue to fail in
spite of affirmative action while progeny of Jews spectacularly succeed
- in spite of the latter's claim of widespread rampant "anti-semitism"?
Please, are we *really* equal? :)
Panthera Pardus
We may not all be equal but the question is why was China poor for SO
LONG. Why, even after THREE DECADES of growth, is China still poorer
than Brazil or Mexico? And regarding this comment from you: " Then
the obvious question is why Brazil, Mexico, and India etc can't parlay
their initial advantages into real gains in the 21st century while way
more modest countries not just China, but also Taiwan, Korea
were able to do so." Um, RAK, you are aware that India IS GROWING in
terms of GDP correct? Also, as many other posters have pointed out,
India liberalized much later, in 1991 as opposed to 1978 for China.
Personally the India I see today is vastly different from the India I
grew up in during the 1980s. I expect it will look a lot different 20
years from now as well.
Vishnu , om Mangalam Mangalam
RichAsianKid
Oh? Seriously??!! Even at a superficial level explain this one to us:
How is it possible India is lagging further and further behind China
*after* India's 1991 liberalization? Again and just to be redundant
here, if India is so smart, how is it possible with all the right
prerequisites going for it India *still* continues to fall behind China
*after* that magical year of 1991 in spite of being hobbled? Do you not
think that India's lack of human capital and low IQ is a contributing
factor?
As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
to expect parity of outcome, either.
P. Rajah
On a "superficial level", consider this:
When a major project is proposed in India, various permissions have to
be obtained, along with a process of determination of compensation for
people who lose property and jobs. There are sometimes also conflicts
when the project is inter-state, and the various states have to be in
agreement before the project proceeds. This takes time, and sometimes
ends up in court.
A similar project in China is simply ram-rodded through, with virtually
no consideration for people, particularly since much of the land that is
utilized for highways, dams, new urban centers, etc. is state-owned, and
since the people have no rights to speak of.
Of course, this "hobbles" the pace of India's progress, but at least
those affected get due process. I wouldn't expect someone like you to
understand that, since you personally are not in the position of losing
your home, being re-located hundreds or thousands of miles away and
being "assigned" a new menial job, with no compensation or consideration
of your rights.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE12Ad01.html
http://www.ciel.org/Ifi/volreslet.html
> As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
> thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
> to expect parity of outcome, either.
You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266019.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iodine-illness-afflicts-millions-in-china-cretinism-is-its-worst-manifestation-dwarfism-is-another-more-common-are-the-disfiguring-goitres-such-as-those-pictured-here-to-be-found-on-7-million-chinese-they-are-all-caused-by-iodine-deficiency-peking-is-looking-to-protect-the-next-generation-by-treating-salt-teresa-poole-reports-1413650.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10599620
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html
RichAsianKid
> India is too fracture to g row .
>
Agree komin, look at this graphic summary of the Pew Report from
December 2009:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2s7j6ti.jpg
Notice how high India ranks on the social hostility scale? And don't
miss her cousins Bangladesh and Sri Lanka or Pakistan. All in spite of
relatively high government restrictions.
Now, while it is true that China has even severe government
restrictions, just cross-reference to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan at
the bottom left corner of the chart. That suggests to me that the
Chinese government is being cautious (perhaps overly so, and I agree
"better safe than sorry): that is, even if China were to relax religious
restrictions, chances are, based on culture, racial kinship, as well as
precedence, China will not end up like some shithole in South Asia or
the Mid-East, Tibetans and Xinjiang Muslims notwithstanding.
RichAsianKid
If process is more important than outcome, hey, gee, good for you!! Like
teaching or counselling a kid, "as long as you tried". Right?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
(Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it takes
a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>
>
>> As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
>> thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
>> to expect parity of outcome, either.
>
> You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
> parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
> dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
> differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
> germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
>
>
> I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
> growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
> have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
> high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
> countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
> double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
> Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
> to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
> wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
> country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
> into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htm
> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266019.html
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iodine-illness-afflicts-millions-in-china-cretinism-is-its-worst-manifestation-dwarfism-is-another-more-common-are-the-disfiguring-goitres-such-as-those-pictured-here-to-be-found-on-7-million-chinese-they-are-all-caused-by-iodine-deficiency-peking-is-looking-to-protect-the-next-generation-by-treating-salt-teresa-poole-reports-1413650.html
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10599620
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html
>
Re-read my original answer to Pardus whom you're now valiantly defending.
Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were to
nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof) goes,
correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and yes
perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes. The
folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a nation
- is somehow irrelevant.
And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple number:
what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
see it's emulating China. No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta
swallow your pride.
Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>
P. Rajah
If the outcome that you are looking for is power projection as an
authoritarian state, and not "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness", sure the Chinese model is good. The Nazi model was even better.
> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it takes
> a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to get
back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is "so
silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that you
allow your ego to take its place.
"Valiantly defending"? You are truly pathetic! You don't even give the
man 24 hours to respond, and you accuse him of running away and having
me "defend" him!
> Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were to
> nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof) goes,
> correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and yes
> perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes. The
> folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a nation
> - is somehow irrelevant.
And you have "spectacularly" failed to prove that either:
(a) China has superior "cognitive capital" as a people or
(b) that India does not in relation to China.
> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple number:
> what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on. There
have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
participation in the newsgroups.
> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
> see it's emulating China.
No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the Chinese
people, and their prosperity and happiness.
> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta
> swallow your pride.
>
> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or kill
civilian protesters.
And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
ltlee1
Due process? What due process?
Like this one?
"Filed in 1957 by a long-dead farmer, the case had droned on across
the decades, consuming the time of lawyers and litigants alike. "This
scarecrow of a suit has in course of time become so complicated that
no man alive knows what it means," the justices said, quoting
Dickens'
fictional description of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House.
"Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable
young
people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of
it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties
[to it] without knowing how or why. It drags its dreary length before
the court, perennially hopeless."
"If the system were just slow, the crisis would not be so acute. The
trouble is that while the Supreme Court may still be clean,
corruption
is now rampant in the rest of the system. The Centre for Media
Studies, in a 2005 survey, estimated that the public paid around
$580m
in bribes to lawyers, police and court officials in an average 12-
month period, often to speed or slow down paperwork in a largely
uncomputerised, inadequately funded and understaffed system. The
courts serve the interests of those who benefit from the status quo,
including the quarter of MPs in Delhi who have criminal charges
pending against them and little interest in promoting judicial
reforms
that might expedite their trials." "
> I wouldn't expect someone like you to
> understand that, since you personally are not in the position of losing
> your home, being re-located hundreds or thousands of miles away and
> being "assigned" a new menial job, with no compensation or consideration
> of your rights.
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE12Ad01.htmlhttp://www.ciel.org/Ifi/volreslet.html
>
> > As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
> > thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
> > to expect parity of outcome, either.
>
> You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
> parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
> dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
> differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
> germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
>
> I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
> growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
> have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
> high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
> countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
> double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
> Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
> to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
> wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
> country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
> into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htmhttp://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266019.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iodine-illness-afflicts-milli...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10599620http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
baldeagle
> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
.> ...............consider this:
. > When a major project is proposed in India, various permissions
> have to be obtained, along with;.....There are sometimes also conflicts
> sometimes also conflicts when the project is inter-state, and the various
> states have to be in agreement ...............This takes time, and sometimes
> ends up in court.
>
> A similar project in China is simply ram-rodded through, with virtually
> no consideration for people, particularly since much of the land that is
> utilized for highways, dams, new urban centers, etc. is state-owned, and
> since the people have no rights to speak of.
>
You have generalized superficially... about the difference between
projects management in China and India. You failed to see the
rots in India. You are bias against China...telling us untruth.
In India, the super rich, the powerful but corrupt politicians
are the ones who caused delay and failures of any major
projects.
Let me give you a personal experience of my uncle from Hong
Kong who wanted start a garment factory in Mumbai 15 years
ago...to make branded clothings for the US markets.
He had to obtain permits, approvals, endorsements from over
20 agencies and authorities...paying huge sum in "gifts"...from
powerful politicians, top government servants to the lowly
policemen.
After long 3 years of mind boggling amount red tapes to overcome,
he got the last and final stamp to start building his factory.
Then,
he was instructed to stop work.. as the rules and laws had changed
because of a change in leaders. He had to start all over again...
losing a lot of money and a lot of sleep.
Two years later, he also planned to expand his operations into
mainland China, starting from Shanghai region. He approached
the Souzhou Industrial park(SIP) with his plan.
The local authorities immediate assigned an executive to help
him,...getting the necessary approval, and paper work done, ...
SIP build the factory according to his needs and lease it to him...
and he even got tax holiday for starting a factory in SIP.
The SIP executive was the only party he has to deal with,
no multiply permit, approval, or endorsement from any other
authorities..... Just one stop operations.
His factory in Souzhou was operational within 18 months. This
was the first of his many factories in China.. now providing jobs
for over 2 thousand Chinese workers. His plan for an Indian
factory,... remained buried in the files of some bureaucrates.
As for the 3-G dam, you are misinformed or you purposely
give an anti-China spin.
The truth... All the land in the affected area are STATE LAND,
not land owned by the farmers.
The farmers were all adequately compensated,. ..they were
given new houses (FOC), land to work on (again FOC), a small
fund to help them over the transition period....new schools for
their kids...facilities like electricity, water and other
infrastructures
were made available free of Charge. (they pay only nominal sum for
the use of power and water). Absolutely, no court ruling was
necessary for the Chinese peasant to get these compensations.
Give me one example, Indian farmers were given such
compensation when they were relocated.
RichAsianKid
The greatest crime the Nazis could ever possibly commit in the annals of
human history is they lost the war.
>
>
>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>
> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to get
> back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is "so
> silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that you
> allow your ego to take its place.
Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
response, only if he has one.
But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
See above. As I said:
"Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
response, only if he has one.
"But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)"
(Are you?)
>
>
>> Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were
>> to nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof)
>> goes, correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and
>> yes perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes.
>> The folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a
>> nation - is somehow irrelevant.
>
> And you have "spectacularly" failed to prove that either:
> (a) China has superior "cognitive capital" as a people or
> (b) that India does not in relation to China.
I'd like to know what makes you think (let alone "prove") modern Indians
in India have equal or superior cognitive capital to modern Chinese in
China? List the preponderance of evidence that Indians in India are
equal to or higher in intelligence compared to Chinese in China say.
Where is it?
(Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians.
So, how come?
How's that even possible?
In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
Prayer? Religion?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
>
>
>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>
> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on. There
> have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
> naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
> that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
> participation in the newsgroups.
Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
have a real real advantage!
>
>
>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
>> see it's emulating China.
>
> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
> from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
> journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
> shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>
> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>
> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the Chinese
> people, and their prosperity and happiness.
You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
case of India, failed outcome.
Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
>
>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>
>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>
> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or kill
> civilian protesters.
>
> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
Well?
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Indians have British Empire Trains .
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Afghanistan .
should US also ask India to provide Indians troops for
Afghanistan ?
Free Tibet
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:04:07 -0800 (PST), baldeagle
<botak...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>As for the 3-G dam, you are misinformed or you purposely
>give an anti-China spin.
>
>The truth... All the land in the affected area are STATE LAND,
>not land owned by the farmers.
>The farmers were all adequately compensated,. ..they were
>given new houses (FOC), land to work on (again FOC), a small
>fund to help them over the transition period....new schools for
> their kids...facilities like electricity, water and other
>infrastructures
>were made available free of Charge. (they pay only nominal sum for
>the use of power and water). Absolutely, no court ruling was
>necessary for the Chinese peasant to get these compensations.
When plans for the dam were first approved in 1992, human rights activists
voiced concern about the people who would be forced to relocate to make
room for it. Inhabited for several millennia, the Three Gorges region is
now a major part of western China's development boom. To date, the
government has ordered some 1.2 million people in two cities and 116 towns
clustered on the banks of the Yangtze to be evacuated to other areas before
construction, promising them plots of land and small stipends�in some cases
as little as 50 yuan, or $7 a month�as compensation.
Chinese and foreign scientists, meanwhile, warned that the dam could
endanger the area's remaining residents. Among their concerns: landslides
caused by increased pressure on the surrounding land, a rise in waterborne
disease, and a decline in biodiversity. But their words fell on deaf ears.
Harnessing the power of the Yangtze has been a goal since Nationalist
leader Sun Yat-sen first proposed the idea in 1919. Mao Zedong, the father
of China's communist revolution, rhapsodized the dam in a poem. The mega-
project could not be realized in his lifetime, however, because the
country's resources were exhausted by the economic failures of the Great
Leap Forward in the late 1950s and then the social upheaval of the Cultural
Revolution from the mid-1960s a to the early 1970s. Four decades later, the
government resuscitated Mao's plans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster
~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
Date: Wed Dec 30 06:30:57 2009 GMT
From: free...@nym.mixmin.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAks686EACgkQViYZwngkfDt+jwCeJgJJLtchDPhBsNqyy8ZruaVm
Vh8AoKaIlM9UULsxBlDqHSTf5v6yOjhR
=AysN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
P. Rajah
Even if you made this up, I agree that this is a possible scenario. As I
have been at some pains to get into you and ARAK's head, there is a
difference between doing business in a democracy, particularly one where
corruption is endemic(as in India), versus an authoritarian state.
Obviously, neither you nor ARAK know the difference between the two. My
entire argument with you two clowns is the fact that you keep
attributing this to some pie-in-the-sky "superior IQ", rather than the
actual hindering factors.
> As for the 3-G dam, you are misinformed or you purposely
> give an anti-China spin.
Where did I mention the 3G dam? You don't happen to work for the Chinese
Ministry of Propaganda, do you? You certainly seem to be employing some
of their tactics.
> The truth... All the land in the affected area are STATE LAND,
> not land owned by the farmers.
Precisely my point.
> The farmers were all adequately compensated,. ..they were
> given new houses (FOC), land to work on (again FOC), a small
> fund to help them over the transition period....new schools for
> their kids...facilities like electricity, water and other
> infrastructures
> were made available free of Charge. (they pay only nominal sum for
> the use of power and water). Absolutely, no court ruling was
> necessary for the Chinese peasant to get these compensations.
The difference is that in China, the peasants get no say in their level
of compensation. Is that perhaps a little too difficult a concept for
you to grasp?
> Give me one example, Indian farmers were given such
> compensation when they were relocated.
Just one? Even someone like you should easily be able to locate reports
on compensation to Indian land-owners relocated because of eminent
domain. The difference between India and China is that in India the
land-owners contest their compensation, and may thus hold up
implementation of projects. China would just bring in the military and
move the annoying land-owners.
P. Rajah
>> Of course, this "hobbles" the pace of India's progress, but at least
>> those affected get due process.
>
> Due process? What due process?
> Like this one?
>
> "Filed in 1957 by a long-dead farmer, the case had droned on across
> the decades, consuming the time of lawyers and litigants alike. "This
> scarecrow of a suit has in course of time become so complicated that
> no man alive knows what it means," the justices said, quoting
> Dickens'
> fictional description of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House.
One more racist Chinese fella "jumping in front of" ARAK.
In India, unlike in China, a single lawsuit can hold up acquisition of
land for a highway, a railroad, a dam, a power plant, until disposition
of the case. It might take time, but that is due process. Unlike
criminal cases, civil cases are not subject to speedy trial
requirements, which anyhow exist neither in India nor in China.
P. Rajah
If that was a crime, why has no Nazi ever been prosecuted for losing the
war rather than the actual crimes they committed? No, don't try to
answer that, it was a rhetorical question to an idiotic proposition.
>>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>>
>> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to
>> get back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is
>> "so silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that
>> you allow your ego to take its place.
>
> Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
> within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
> response, only if he has one.
It appears you took almost 12 hours to respond this time. Sometimes I do
not browse the newsgroups for days. Again, it does not matter how long
it takes, but for you to have accused Pardus of cutting and running is
juvenile. Oops, sorry, I forgot: you are.
> But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
> not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
> in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
> already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
> not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
> hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
> easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
I "jumped in front of" Pardus? You do realize that you are posting in a
public forum and not via e-mail, right? Penang and Baldeagle seem to
regularly "jump in front of" you, but that doesn't appear to make your
brow wrinkle. Once more, not surprising given your demonstrated bigotry.
And speaking of the points raised here, you have failed to justify your
views. In particular, you have repeatedly failed to address the
uncomfortable issue of China's backwardness relative to India prior to
1972, which I have to point out _yet again_ and for the umpteenth time,
you have not addressed even in this, your current response. At this
stage, I have no option but to declare that you have _absolutely_ no
explanation worth a damn, and that you have involuntarily conceded defeat.
Yeah, see above.
Where is your evidence? Graphs from white supremacist
websites(apparently your only source) do not qualify as evidence, but
even giving those some consideration, I have over the past few months
pointed out the severe flaws that exist in them. One such flaw is the
unsupported extrapolation of a single IQ study of an educated urban
population to all of China. Another flaw in your "high IQ= high GDP"
theory wrt the NE Asians is that there was no way you could have
presented even a semblance of evidence for that prior to 1970, when,
with the exception of Japan, the entire area was squarely in third world
territory. Measured IQ for American Blacks today is higher than it was
for American whites in the 1940s. Were American whites of the 1940s(who,
btw, were higher IQ than Chinese of that time period) of low cognitive
ability? Your failure to acknowledge those flaws does not in any way
validate that "evidence".
> (Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
> is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
> list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
> Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
Where is the evidence that the Chinese are superior in intelligence to
the Indians? Your pathetic reliance on vdare to provide you with such
"evidence" and your insistent failure to consider various economic and
political factors merely validates your own mental insufficiency.
> Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians.
>
> So, how come?
>
> How's that even possible?
Ask yourself this: could you have asked this question in 1960? Why not?
Were the Chinese retards in 1960? But I know that you will not honestly
answer this, as you have consistently refused to thus far, because
that's just the kind of racist dufus that you are.
> In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
> average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
>
> What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
>
> Prayer? Religion?
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
> they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
Don't flatter yourself that you ever had any "points". The only people
who agree with you are your fellow Chinese racists, including one
jackass who lives in Cambodia.
>>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>>
>> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
>> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
>> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on.
>> There have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
>> naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
>> that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
>> participation in the newsgroups.
>
> Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
> more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
> have a real real advantage!
What I was suggesting, for the benefit of your unmitigated racist mind,
is that literacy does not equate to intelligence. Exhibit A: your question.
>>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
>>> see it's emulating China.
>>
>> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
>> from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
>> journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
>> shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>>
>> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>>
>> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>>
>> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the
>> Chinese people, and their prosperity and happiness.
>
> You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
> case of India, failed outcome.
I cannot even begin to quantify or categorize the stupendous ignorance
of your remark. Who else but one of the world's biggest jackasses can
quantify a GDP growth rate of 8-10% as a "failed outcome"? Who else but
one of the world's biggest jackasses can justify killing innocent people
demonstrating for liberty? Who else but one of the world's biggest
jackasses would overlook a national policy of harvesting organs from
prisoners, many of them political? All available descriptors for the
supremely inept cognitive ability that you display are totally
inadequate for the task.
> Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
> nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
We aren't speaking of evolution. We're speaking of modern civilizations
and human rights. Clearly, human rights is not at the top of your list
of priorities, as long as _your_ human rights are not in danger of being
violated. But you've already established yourself as merely a
self-absorbed, spoiled little twit with no comprehension of the reality
beyond your little Tommy Hilfiger-decorated world.
>>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>>
>>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>>
>> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or
>> kill civilian protesters.
>>
>> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
>> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
>
>
> Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
> not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
> pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> Well?
You keep saying, with transparent fallaciousness, that India has
"failed", that India "didn't pick itself up", that India is "falling
behind", etc., without the slightest regard for honesty and
truthfulness. The fact is that, regardless of whether racist clowns such
as yourself acknowledge it or not, India is progressing at a reasonably
rapid clip despite certain impediments such as a global "great
recession", and that that rate of progress is generally regarded as
admirable except by vacuous idiots such as yourself, Baldeagle, Itlee
and Penang. If you think the India of today is comparable to the India
of 1991, I would peg your IQ at right around 35, sufficient to maintain
bodily functions, but not for much else.
Btw, here's an article that might raise your IQ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1262150280-1xvMPCQC8aHdsPKvEVtbrA
RichAsianKid
Real power never needs justification nor sanction nor permission.
Thought the left understood this principle well.
>
>
>>>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>>>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>>>
>>> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to
>>> get back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is
>>> "so silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that
>>> you allow your ego to take its place.
>>
>> Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
>> within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
>> response, only if he has one.
>
> It appears you took almost 12 hours to respond this time. Sometimes I do
> not browse the newsgroups for days. Again, it does not matter how long
> it takes, but for you to have accused Pardus of cutting and running is
> juvenile. Oops, sorry, I forgot: you are.
Still patiently waiting for Pardus' reply.
>
>
>> But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
>> not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
>> in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
>> already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
>> not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
>> hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
>> easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
>
> I "jumped in front of" Pardus? You do realize that you are posting in a
> public forum and not via e-mail, right? Penang and Baldeagle seem to
> regularly "jump in front of" you, but that doesn't appear to make your
> brow wrinkle. Once more, not surprising given your demonstrated bigotry.
>
> And speaking of the points raised here, you have failed to justify your
> views. In particular, you have repeatedly failed to address the
> uncomfortable issue of China's backwardness relative to India prior to
> 1972, which I have to point out _yet again_ and for the umpteenth time,
> you have not addressed even in this, your current response. At this
> stage, I have no option but to declare that you have _absolutely_ no
> explanation worth a damn, and that you have involuntarily conceded defeat.
What matters is quite simply what *is*. China trumps India. Period.
China's GDP is 3.6 times higher than India's. And that's only economic
power. Imagine that.
And now, just to be redundant, RAK already posted: "Chinese do not have
this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians."
"So, how come?"
"How's that even possible?"
"In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?"
"What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?"
"Prayer? Religion?"
Sad isn't it, in spite of all that tailwind, in spite of how hard you
brown Indians try, it's still not quite enough.
Now just imagine that. :)
We're still waiting for evidence that India's cognitive capital =
China's or higher than China's?
One piece of evidence is http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Show us your conterevidence. Show us your datapoints here please!
Do you need surrogate quotes from the "next generation" i.e. Math
Olympiad, btw? Hey just asking!!! Don't kill the messenger OK???
Any case, how does India fare compared to China looking towards the
future? I'm more than happy to quote them for ya (but only if you
ask....) :)
>
>
>> (Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
>> is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
>> list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
>> Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
>
> Where is the evidence that the Chinese are superior in intelligence to
> the Indians? Your pathetic reliance on vdare to provide you with such
> "evidence" and your insistent failure to consider various economic and
> political factors merely validates your own mental insufficiency.
>
>
>> Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
>> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
>> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
>> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
>> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
>> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
>> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of
>> Indians.
>>
>> So, how come?
>>
>> How's that even possible?
>
> Ask yourself this: could you have asked this question in 1960? Why not?
> Were the Chinese retards in 1960? But I know that you will not honestly
> answer this, as you have consistently refused to thus far, because
> that's just the kind of racist dufus that you are.
Maybe pigs can fly, and hope springs eternal.
Sure!!
Fact: http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
What makes you think India will not end up like Sri Lanka or Nepal or
Bangladesh anyway, vs how China will not end up like Taiwan, Korea, or
Japan?
>
>> In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
>> average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
>>
>> What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
>>
>> Prayer? Religion?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
>> And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
>> they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
>
> Don't flatter yourself that you ever had any "points". The only people
> who agree with you are your fellow Chinese racists, including one
> jackass who lives in Cambodia.
Only women call men sexists btw.
Just for perspective.
>
>
>>>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>>>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>>>
>>> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
>>> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
>>> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on.
>>> There have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters,
>>> philosophers, naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to
>>> support the notion that literacy does not equate with intelligence
>>> has been your participation in the newsgroups.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
>> more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
>> have a real real advantage!
>
> What I was suggesting, for the benefit of your unmitigated racist mind,
> is that literacy does not equate to intelligence. Exhibit A: your question.
>
>
Thank you.
>>>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I
>>>> now see it's emulating China.
>>>
>>> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting
>>> organs from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or
>>> jailing journalists or controlling its citizens access to information
>>> or shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>>>
>>> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>>>
>>> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the
>>> Chinese people, and their prosperity and happiness.
>>
>> You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
>> case of India, failed outcome.
>
> I cannot even begin to quantify or categorize the stupendous ignorance
> of your remark. Who else but one of the world's biggest jackasses can
> quantify a GDP growth rate of 8-10% as a "failed outcome"? Who else but
> one of the world's biggest jackasses can justify killing innocent people
> demonstrating for liberty? Who else but one of the world's biggest
> jackasses would overlook a national policy of harvesting organs from
> prisoners, many of them political? All available descriptors for the
> supremely inept cognitive ability that you display are totally
> inadequate for the task.
I guess China should pity India. India tried very very hard, perhaps
even prostituted her soul who knows, and yet look at where she is today
relative to China. Maybe we should all be nice to India. It's all about
effort and goodwill, and that's all that counts right? Just as we should
be nice to handicapped people etc. Yeah!
The real winner doesn't follow the rules; he makes it.
>
>
>> Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
>> nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
>
> We aren't speaking of evolution. We're speaking of modern civilizations
> and human rights. Clearly, human rights is not at the top of your list
> of priorities, as long as _your_ human rights are not in danger of being
> violated. But you've already established yourself as merely a
> self-absorbed, spoiled little twit with no comprehension of the reality
> beyond your little Tommy Hilfiger-decorated world.
"Human rights" again? Wow. First there is no such thing as 'rights',
really, but even to the extent of some make-believe, ladies and gents
where are these "human rights" realized in India anyway?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445570.stm
In coveted UN Millennium goals, it's actually not China, but India,
which falls behind.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Nor should they ignore inequality even in terms of civilization, oh say,
this one:
http://i47.tinypic.com/oqzot1.jpg
So. let India be India, and let China be China.
>
>
>>>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>>>
>>>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>>>
>>> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or
>>> kill civilian protesters.
>>>
>>> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
>>> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
>>
>>
>> Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
>> not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
>> pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> Well?
>
> You keep saying, with transparent fallaciousness, that India has
> "failed", that India "didn't pick itself up", that India is "falling
> behind", etc., without the slightest regard for honesty and
> truthfulness. The fact is that, regardless of whether racist clowns such
> as yourself acknowledge it or not, India is progressing at a reasonably
> rapid clip despite certain impediments such as a global "great
> recession", and that that rate of progress is generally regarded as
> admirable except by vacuous idiots such as yourself, Baldeagle, Itlee
> and Penang. If you think the India of today is comparable to the India
> of 1991, I would peg your IQ at right around 35, sufficient to maintain
> bodily functions, but not for much else.
>
> Btw, here's an article that might raise your IQ:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1262150280-1xvMPCQC8aHdsPKvEVtbrA
>
>
China is 3.6 times the GDP of India's.
If it's so easy for India to catch up to China, i.e. we're all equal,
the fact India still didn't and can't is even more evidence of its
limited capacity, ability, and low IQ.
RichAsianKid
hole , is an Unique Son of GOD wrote:
> Chinese have High Speed Train
>
>
> Indians have British Empire Trains .
>
>
Oh never underestimate subjugated India "pride". Recall in 60th India
anniversary even the EU was suppposed to be emulating India.
P. Rajah
taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> Of course, this "hobbles" the pace of India's progress, but at least
> >> those affected get due process.
>
> > Due process? What due process?
> > Like this one?
>
> > "Filed in 1957 by a long-dead farmer, the case had droned on across
> > the decades, consuming the time of lawyers and litigants alike. "This
> > scarecrow of a suit has in course of time become so complicated that
> > no man alive knows what it means," the justices said, quoting
> > Dickens'
> > fictional description of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House.
>
> One more racist Chinese fella "jumping in front of" ARAK.
Racist?
1. I did not write the article. It written by a FT writer.
2. If the article is factually wrong or illogicial, feel free to point
out the
mistake.
>
> In India, unlike in China, a single lawsuit can hold up acquisition of
> land for a highway, a railroad, a dam, a power plant, until disposition
> of the case. It might take time, but that is due process. Unlike
> criminal cases, civil cases are not subject to speedy trial
> requirements, which anyhow exist neither in India nor in China.
No. The article is not about speedy trial only. In case you had
missed
the following part, I will cut and paste for your convenience.
"If the system were just slow, the crisis would not be so acute. The
trouble is that while the Supreme Court may still be clean,
corruption is now rampant in the rest of the system. The Centre for
Media
Studies, in a 2005 survey, estimated that the public paid around
$580m in bribes to lawyers, police and court officials in an average
12-
month period, often to speed or slow down paperwork in a largely
uncomputerised, inadequately funded and understaffed system. The
courts serve the interests of those who benefit from the status quo,
including the quarter of MPs in Delhi who have criminal charges
pending against them and little interest in promoting judicial
reforms."
Looks like due process was primarily accorded to those MPs who had
criminal charges pending against them.
P. Rajah
> On Dec 30, 12:44 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>> Of course, this "hobbles" the pace of India's progress, but at least
>>>> those affected get due process.
>>> Due process? What due process?
>>> Like this one?
>>> "Filed in 1957 by a long-dead farmer, the case had droned on across
>>> the decades, consuming the time of lawyers and litigants alike. "This
>>> scarecrow of a suit has in course of time become so complicated that
>>> no man alive knows what it means," the justices said, quoting
>>> Dickens'
>>> fictional description of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House.
>> One more racist Chinese fella "jumping in front of" ARAK.
>
> Racist?
> 1. I did not write the article. It written by a FT writer.
Is the writer Chinese? No, the racist I was referring to is you, as
should be quite obvious.
Once more, it appears that the vaunted "high IQ" of the Chinese seems to
have passed over you, ARAK, Penang and Baldeagle. The point I was
making, and will make one final time, is that the availability of due
process in India can throw hurdles in the way of unilateral government
decisions and projects, a consideration that is non-existent in China.
Btw, since ARAK has conceded defeat(by virtue of his insistent silence)
in the matter of explaining Chinese non-performance for centuries
vis-a-vis their alleged intellectual superiority, would you like to take
a stab at finding excuses for that?
ltlee1
Can?
"Can" denotes a potentiality. But is it a reallity?
Not according to the article I had quoted. It said nothing on how
judicial due
process had benefited the average Indians. Rather, it is judiciary
system is
clogging up and not functioning. It onnly benefits MPs with criminal
charge
pending. If it is your belief that the due process has indeed
consistently
improved the live of average Indians, please make your case.
Anyway, to the degree that the government is usually not a profit
center, its policy
invariably hurt some people and benefit the other. Hence, the issue is
really not
whether there are hurdles, but rather any government decison or
project is
producing legitmaite greater good.
Due process or no due process, the question is still the same. Are
Indians fare
better? On improving the lot of the common people, I agree with Lee
Kwan Yew.
Indian, at present, is not in the same league of China.
>
> Btw, since ARAK has conceded defeat(by virtue of his insistent silence)
> in the matter of explaining Chinese non-performance for centuries
> vis-a-vis their alleged intellectual superiority, would you like to take
> a stab at finding excuses for that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gods and Monkeys
> P. Rajah wrote:
> > RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> Real power never needs justification nor sanction nor permission.
> Thought the left understood this principle well.
>
If this is true, why do you never find the powerful saying this in non-
anonymity?
Even primate studies show there is a somewhat rational distribution of
reward among
the group of monkeys, gorillas, what-have-you. If you observe pack
animals not even
that carefully, you will see that the top dog is rather constrained
its behavior. It has more
freedom, but not unlimited freedom. It has a sense or instinct for
fair play, because it
knows that it (and the groups) existence depends on it.
China unconstrained will very quickly become constrained, just like
what has occurred
with European countries. The world will find a way. One way already is
that China's
women are leaving in droves, mating outside the race. Female out-
mating is always
a preferred avenue for power distribution, a peaceful way of power
sharing.
> What matters is quite simply what *is*. China trumps India. Period.
> China's GDP is 3.6 times higher than India's. And that's only economic
> power. Imagine that.
>
This is true. India is not in the same league as China. Even the plate
tectonics show India slowly being buried under the Chinese plate.
(poetry-in-motion for a you poetically inclined Hindoo doos).
Gods and Monkeys
> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>
>
China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
India
"benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
trickle
down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
Hope this helps.
ltlee1
Don't know what you are trying to prove.
China did not perform well for about 150 years. So?
Let us say a highly intelligent man was hit at the head.
He had amnesia and other neurological problems. Hence
he could not perform many mentall taks well for several
years. So?
But then he recover
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
P. Rajah
So, according to your friend ARAK, Chinese IQ must have been lagging
during that time. There is no other explanation, as ARAK has clearly
been saying.
> Let us say a highly intelligent man was hit at the head.
> He had amnesia and other neurological problems. Hence
> he could not perform many mentall taks well for several
> years. So?
Funny how your replies so predictably follow the pattern of bigots of
all manner. You provide an excuse for your own shortcomings, but claim
that that excuse cannot apply to anyone else.
> But then he recover
P. Rajah
> On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
>> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
>> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
>> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
>> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
>> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>>
>>
>
> China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
> system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
inform us.
> India
> "benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
> trickle
> down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
Funny, but when I suggest that China has benefited from "subservience"
to a "materialistic global empire" aka western capitalists seeking a
low-cost base(low wages, low cost of compliance for safety, control of
wage inflation, etc.), somehow that becomes unacceptable to the likes of
you who prefer to see this recent revival in China's fortunes as somehow
validating their racist ideas about IQ and GDP growth. I have noted
before that you don't, for the moment, link IQ with actual GDP because
you cannot defend that at this point in time. Doubtless, in 50 years or
100 years whatever it takes for China to achieve per capita GDP parity
with the west, you or your progeny will suddenly find the link between
IQ and per-capita GDP.
> Hope this helps.
Indeed it does, and I sincerely hope that you will someday find
intellectual honesty.
Xi-n Ni�n Ku�i L�!
Happy New Year!
P. Rajah
When you go to a restaurant, you have the option(you "can") of ordering
various items on the menu. Let's say you did not order fish. Is it a
reality that the restaurant did not have fish, merely because you did
not order it? Sometimes people do not litigate against a particular
project. That is to say, not every project is held up by the legal
rights afforded to the people. That is why I wrote "can throw hurdles",
which should be obvious to anyone whose mind is not clouded by racist
bombast.
Now, please do not reply until you have retrieved your brain from
wherever it fell out.
ltlee1
Sorry. But you are not thinking striaght and your analogy is off.
Suppose you went to a resturant. You can oder plain rice which will
cost you 50 cents and you can order fish which will cost you 50
dollar.
A poor guy who makes 5 dollar a day say, "I can go into the
restaurant
and order fish." Of course, the restaurant serves fish. the issue
whether
the poor guy is going to order any fish.
Again:
"If the system were just slow, the crisis would not be so acute. The
trouble is that while the Supreme Court may still be clean,
corruption is now rampant in the rest of the system. The Centre for
Media Studies, in a 2005 survey, estimated that the public paid
around
$580m in bribes to lawyers, police and court officials in an average
12-month period, often to speed or slow down paperwork in a largely
uncomputerised, inadequately funded and understaffed system. The
courts serve the interests of those who benefit from the status quo,
including the quarter of MPs in Delhi who have criminal charges
pending against them and little interest in promoting judicial
reforms."
If the FT writer was wrong, please tell.
ltlee1
May be you need to remember what different posters' had said. I do
not
share RAK's view on IQ. I think the number of smart people is
proportional
to the population in general. Of course, there are a host of factors
such as
nutrition which can affect the IQ test as well as resl life
performance.
>
> > Let us say a highly intelligent man was hit at the head.
> > He had amnesia and other neurological problems. Hence
> > he could not perform many mentall taks well for several
> > years. So?
>
> Funny how your replies so predictably follow the pattern of bigots of
> all manner. You provide an excuse for your own shortcomings, but claim
> that that excuse cannot apply to anyone else.
Sorry. I did not say the same reason cannot be applied to anyone
else? Feel free to disagree with me and present your own view. Please
don't make up things about me.
> > But then he recover- Hide quoted text -
Gods and Monkeys
On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Gods and Monkeys wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> >> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> >> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> >> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> >> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> >> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> >> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> > China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
> > system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
>
> Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
> that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
> It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
> inform us.
You asked for an explanation. I gave one. Now you raise a strawman
by saying I claim that IQ is related one to one with economic levels
through
any point in time. That's not what I said. Hindoo doo, that's not
cricket.
>
> > India
> > "benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
> > trickle
> > down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
>
> Funny, but when I suggest that China has benefited from "subservience"
> to a "materialistic global empire" aka western capitalists seeking a
> low-cost base(low wages, low cost of compliance for safety, control of
> wage inflation, etc.), somehow that becomes unacceptable to the likes of
> you who prefer to see this recent revival in China's fortunes as somehow
> validating their racist ideas about IQ and GDP growth. I have noted
> before that you don't, for the moment, link IQ with actual GDP because
> you cannot defend that at this point in time. Doubtless, in 50 years or
> 100 years whatever it takes for China to achieve per capita GDP parity
> with the west, you or your progeny will suddenly find the link between
> IQ and per-capita GDP.
You do raise a point of cart before horse. But I personally believe
that national
IQ is one of several factors linked to GDP. And the linkage is not
smooth, eg. sometimes having IQ nodes where groups congregate can
be an advantage. Whites in the US exploited the 1-2 standard deviation
advantage over blacks by enslaving them and gaining immeasurable
economic
advantage in the process. (And freeing up resources to steal native
N.American
lands.)
What's really interesting is how IQ shows up causally in GDP.
China is exploiting high intelligence (skilled positions), low
intelligence
(low wage repetitive production) differentials in the marketplace. But
that is
certainly only a part of the story. GDP is not only a number measuring
economic productivity, it is also dependent on the political and
cultural stability
of a country. The latters parts probably do correlate very well with
national
IQs. It's what has allowed NE Asian countries to weather the
harassments
of white countries and in fact turn the game around into white
countries
themselves. (The back and forth of East and West on the Eurasian
landmass
dating back for thousands of years.) Low IQ profile India takes, she
does not dish. And
she is beloved by all for this. (The patience of the Hindoo doo the
likeable dreamer.)
Only the nigger, who lacks understanding, hates India.
> Indeed it does, and I sincerely hope that you will someday find
> intellectual honesty.
>
Don't wish for things upon others that you yourself have no clue
about.
It's pretentious and dreamy, Hindoo doo.
P. Rajah
I don't see you disagreeing with ARAK, whereas you jump in when I
counter his nonsensical arguments. From that I infer that you do agree
with him, but you won't actually say it out loud. If you truly disagree
with him, argue the issue.
> Of course, there are a host of factors such as
> nutrition which can affect the IQ test as well as resl life
> performance.
>>> Let us say a highly intelligent man was hit at the head.
>>> He had amnesia and other neurological problems. Hence
>>> he could not perform many mentall taks well for several
>>> years. So?
>> Funny how your replies so predictably follow the pattern of bigots of
>> all manner. You provide an excuse for your own shortcomings, but claim
>> that that excuse cannot apply to anyone else.
>
> Sorry. I did not say the same reason cannot be applied to anyone
> else? Feel free to disagree with me and present your own view. Please
> don't make up things about me.
Take this thread for example. I responded to ARAK's nonsense with the
view that India's progress is slowed by the ability of citizens to raise
objections through legal means, rather than "spectacularly failing"
because of "low IQ". This in part explains why India cannot move as
quickly as China. ARAK's view seems to be "F**k the citizens", because
as a resident of California, he is not on the receiving end. I believe
that even though India is moving slower than China, the principles of
free speech and human rights are being broadly observed, and that is
certainly worth sacrificing a couple of percentage points in GDP growth.
Furthermore, in his praise of China's repressive government and the
usefulness of repressive government in achieving high growth rates, he
fails to explain why a Chinese government with even more repressive
control failed to achieve growth prior to the 1970s.
And your response to my query of ARAK is: "So?". Well, explain it on
behalf of ARAK, since he clearly is unable to do so and since you have
taken it on yourself to step in.
P. Rajah
You appear utterly unable to differentiate between the litigation
between private citizens or criminal cases on the one hand, and private
citizens versus government policies and projects on the other.
Your "analogy" completely skirts the issue, and makes no sense
whatsoever in the context of due process for citizens whose assets have
been acquired by the government. Anybody in India who has had a house,
or a piece of land, taken by the government without adequate
compensation can sue. And some of them sue even if the compensation was
adequate, driven by greed and sometimes political motives. If the
citizen has no money to sue, there are plenty of interested groups
waiting to jump to their aid.
Do this simple inquiry.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=india+government+acquisition+compensation
Now compare with this:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=china+government+acquisition+compensation
You will see that in India there are plenty of results for litigation in
the compensation process. For China, on the other hand, all the results
deal with government compensation policy only. _Nobody_ seems to be
suing for fairer compensation. They have no choice, they do as they are
told.
In India, in addition to the compensation issue, there are plenty of
lawsuits brought by public interest groups, for issues ranging from
animal rights to environmental issues to social issues. China has
historically not permitted this. A recent win by an environmental
group(which is actually part of the government, so it's kind of a paper
tiger) made news, because its the first time such a case has been won.
Now, what are the odds of a private Chinese environmental group bring a
lawsuit against a highway that destroys wetlands, and then actually
winning it and thus blocking the highway or causing an expensive re-routing?
P. Rajah
> On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Gods and Monkeys wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>>>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
>>>> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
>>>> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
>>>> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
>>>> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
>>>> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>>> China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
>>> system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
>> Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
>> that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
>> It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
>> inform us.
>
> You asked for an explanation. I gave one. Now you raise a strawman
> by saying I claim that IQ is related one to one with economic levels
> through
> any point in time. That's not what I said. Hindoo doo, that's not
> cricket.
"according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK". Are you actually
ARAK? And the explanation I'm looking for is in relation to ARAK's claim
that the recent growth of China, and the "spectacular non-performance"
of India's 8.5% growth is directly related to the genius of the Chinese
and the borderline imbecile minds of the Indians. I know what the
goddamn reasons actually are, and I've enumerated them to ARAK(I'm sure
you haven't missed that, since you apparently claim to be the same person).
If you didn't suffer from copromania, you might be able to think straight.
RichAsianKid
> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly
> hypotheses.
Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement of India is
probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nuke India tomorrow, everything,
including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
And to delve into this deeper, there's that issue of statistical
innumeracy on your part. Look:
http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
Look at the r^2. Is it 1 Mr. Rajah?
Why can't you accept that low Indian IQ can at least be a potential
handicap for India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Third, we KNOW that IQ correlates not just with GDP, but also with
economic GROWTH. Now, I asked this again again again: "Chinese do not
have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians."
And now you continue to remind posters here of India's headstart. Thanks!!!
Still waiting for your answer.
How come?
What alibis do you have now for your poor poor India relative to China,
Mr. Rajah? Or is it just too painful for you to bear and face the truth?
Fourth and last, I have one more to show everyone here. (You guys are
welcome!) As background and for everyone's interest, this one is from
Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University
of Tampere in Finland AND he is also father of the current Prime
Minister of Finland and former President of the European Council in
2006, Matti Vanhanen. This one looks at civilization IQ. Look at how
despicably LOW those Hindus score, compared to the Chinese and Japanese.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
And more revealingly: Hindus are even more stupid than Muslims!!
WTF????
Can you guys believe this?? Hindus are dumber than Muslims!!!!?????
<RichAsianKid chuckles>
OK, Mr. Rajah, consolation prize: you guys are still smarter than
Africans, all right? That RichAsianKid gotta admit..... There you go.
(Ahem)
No sir, the subject of this thread holds: India is not in the same
league as China. Whether in terms of IQ, or in terms of valued
socioeconomic outcomes and even including that composite human
development index.
You can ignore it, you can deny it, you can wail against it, you can
even rationalize however you want.
But hysteria and denial will not make it go away.
It's not meditation. It's the real world.
Sorry!
P. Rajah
> P. Rajah wrote:
>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_
>> undermines every one of his arguments with his failure to address the
>> issue of why China lagged India and many other third world countries
>> prior to 1972. After all, China should have had a tremendous
>> head-start on India, having been a homogeneous, united and independent
>> country well before India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would
>> crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement of India is
> probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
> little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
>
> That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
> case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nuke India tomorrow, everything,
> including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
> power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
> game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
> capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
>
> Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
Because you have failed, yet again and again, to explain China's
spectacular non-performance in the centuries leading up to 1972, in
terms of civilizational IQ or whatever you have been bleating about as
the fundamental reason for China's _recent_ progress, which still places
it squarely in 3rd world per capita GDP territory. In other words,
despite all your nonsense about Chinese IQ versus Indian IQ, China is
_today_ still very much a 3rd world country. Climbing out of the hole,
to be sure, but still 3rd world. You are at a loss to explain that in
your terms, wherefore you ignore it altogether, just as you have once
more here, and will always and forever. Instead, you utter arrant
nonsense about India as a "failure" etc., and irrelevant crap about a
nuclear war with Pakistan, because India is a couple of percentage
points behind in GDP growth. The low caliber of your intelligence
imprints itself on readers' minds the more you keep posting this
nonsense while being unable to find an explanation for the same
condition that afflicted China prior to 1972, providing instead "data"
from known racists using questionable hypotheses.
> And to delve into this deeper, there's that issue of statistical
> innumeracy on your part. Look:
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
>
> Look at the r^2. Is it 1 Mr. Rajah?
>
> Why can't you accept that low Indian IQ can at least be a potential
> handicap for India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have asked you before to explain how an old government IQ study from
urban Beijing was somehow not only extrapolated to represent the entire
country including its vast rural peasant population, and even a few
points gratuitously added on. Why are Shanghai Chinese allegedly so much
more intelligent than mainland Chinese? Did the Brits somehow shed some
of their intelligence on the natives? Furthermore, I notice you have
selected the graph that best serves your intent, rather than another
which shows "high IQ China" still in an uncomfortably low group. Look at
fig. 2 on page 2 here: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/dickerson2006ip.pdf
Fyi, the "data fitting" exercise is merely an attempt to fit data(which
may or may not be accurate) to a desirable conclusion. Also, picture
what the graph would have looked like in, say, 1964. Not very good for
you, wouldn't you say?
> Third, we KNOW that IQ correlates not just with GDP, but also with
> economic GROWTH. Now, I asked this again again again: "Chinese do not
> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of
> Indians."
>
> And now you continue to remind posters here of India's headstart. Thanks!!!
Where have I done that? It was actually the Chinese who had a head
start, as I indicated in my top-posting previous message. As with all
bigots, you can only see what you want to see. Up until 1972, India was
on relative par with China(a bit higher in per capita GDP, but that
doesn't matter when both countries were dirt poor) thanks to the Indian
government's unfortunate adoption of a "planned" economy which
essentially suppressed development by placing artificial limits on
growth and restricting private enterprise. The 1991 liberalization
essentially removed many of these restrictions. If India had adopted
liberalization in, say, 1955 when the per capita availability of
resources was far higher despite the tremendous colonial exploitation,
the story would very likely have been different today. If China had
retained(or been true to, if you like) its Marxist-communist philosophy,
the story would very likely have been different today.
The point you are unwilling to concede is that policies, strategy,
access to resources and certain random factors such as timing and
fortuitous alliances, not your fictional "civilizational IQ", are the
impelling factors in a country's development. Instead, you bring up some
lame-ass IQ theory that fails to answer anomalies thrown up by its own
premise.
> Still waiting for your answer.
>
> How come?
>
> What alibis do you have now for your poor poor India relative to China,
> Mr. Rajah? Or is it just too painful for you to bear and face the truth?
>
> Fourth and last, I have one more to show everyone here. (You guys are
> welcome!) As background and for everyone's interest, this one is from
> Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University
> of Tampere in Finland AND he is also father of the current Prime
> Minister of Finland and former President of the European Council in
> 2006, Matti Vanhanen. This one looks at civilization IQ. Look at how
> despicably LOW those Hindus score, compared to the Chinese and Japanese.
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
>
> And more revealingly: Hindus are even more stupid than Muslims!!
>
> WTF????
WTF, indeed! You bring up yet another reference from a racist, who
assigns a random "civilizational IQ" to random "civilazations"("Hindu",
"Buddhist", "Islamic" and then "western" and "Chinese"? WTF???).
"Chinese" and "Japanese" should have been together with "Buddhist"
countries, and "Islamic" should have been together with "western" since
Mesopotamia is claimed as the cradle of western society, but that would
have screwed up the happy racist conclusions, wouldn't it?
A long time ago, before complacency and the systemic degeneration that
results from complacency set in(see Fall of Rome), the "stupid Hindu
civilization" was more advanced than "western" civilization. The
ancient "stupid Hindu civilization" was at least on par with the
greatest of so-called "western" civilizations like Rome, and far above
the fictional "Judaic civilization", the civilizations of what is now
the "Islamic world", western countries such as France, Britain, Germany,
Poland, the Slavic countries and the Scandinavians. Greece, another
cradle of western civilization, bordered on 3rd world status all the way
until the recent efforts of the EU to bring it up to par with other
European countries. The "African civilization" of Egypt was also unlike
anything contemporaneous in Europe. The Mesopotamians, the Phoenicians
and the Carthaginians(who your racist author now classifies as "low-IQ
Islamic civilization") were at one time more advanced than much of
Europe. Indian philosophy even today ranks at the top of anything that
has ever been produced. Low IQ civilizations do not produce brilliant
philosophy. Uncomfortable facts for racists like you and those you
quote, and therefore not up for consideration.
> Can you guys believe this?? Hindus are dumber than Muslims!!!!?????
>
> <RichAsianKid chuckles>
Yeah, idiots tend to chuckle at agreeable nonsense.
ltlee1
I certainly know the difference between civil and criminal cases.
However, the judicial system is but one single system and both
kind of cases pass through this single system. If this system is
jammed, both kind of cases would be affected. If this system is
corrupted, both kind of cases would be affected.
>
> Your "analogy" completely skirts the issue, and makes no sense
> whatsoever in the context of due process for citizens whose assets have
> been acquired by the government. Anybody in India who has had a house,
> or a piece of land, taken by the government without adequate
> compensation can sue. And some of them sue even if the compensation was
> adequate, driven by greed and sometimes political motives. If the
> citizen has no money to sue, there are plenty of interested groups
> waiting to jump to their aid.
Can sue? Yes. They can. I never dispute the potentiality of "can
sue."
But the issue is the actual outcome.
Let us say some official decides to take a piece of land and the owner
of
the land finds the compensation inadequate. He sues. What then? What
if the case ties him up for decades during which his land he cannot
sell
his land. Is the owner really benefited from the due process. FAcing
such
outcome, would he not better off acceptin an offer for the land for
far less
than it worths?
>
> Do this simple inquiry.http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=india+government+acquisition...
>
> Now compare with this:http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=china+government+acquisition...
>
> You will see that in India there are plenty of results for litigation in
> the compensation process. For China, on the other hand, all the results
> deal with government compensation policy only. _Nobody_ seems to be
> suing for fairer compensation. They have no choice, they do as they are
> told.
Odd logic.
No body sue does not by itself means no choice. They had been plently
of
studies showing Chinese, including Hong Kong and Taiwan societies,
prefer
problem solving through human network rather than through the
judiciary.
Actually, in America as well as elsewhere, many disputes are resolved
by
third aparty arbitration, not through the court. In China, local party
cadres
often serve the role of arbitrators.
ltlee1
> RichAsianKid wrote:
> > P. Rajah wrote:
> >> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> >> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_
> >> undermines every one of his arguments with his failure to address the
> >> issue of why China lagged India and many other third world countries
> >> prior to 1972. After all, China should have had a tremendous
> >> head-start on India, having been a homogeneous, united and independent
> >> country well before India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would
> >> crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> > Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement of India is
> > probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
> > little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
>
> > That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
> > case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nuke India tomorrow, everything,
> > including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
> > power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
> > game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
> > capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
>
> > Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
>
> Because you have failed, yet again and again, to explain China's
> spectacular non-performance in the centuries leading up to 1972,
You are still fronting the nonissue.
No, the question you have to answer is this:
Low performance on IQ test and, relatively speaking, low GDP.
The coorelation is there. What is the causation? You don't have
to accept RAK's causation. Just provide your own causation.
> in
> terms of civilizational IQ or whatever you have been bleating about as
> the fundamental reason for China's _recent_ progress, which still places
> it squarely in 3rd world per capita GDP territory. In other words,
> despite all your nonsense about Chinese IQ versus Indian IQ, China is
> _today_ still very much a 3rd world country.
Most people who comment on China projected China into the future. May
be into the next 20 -30 years. And they see China the world's
foremost
manufacturer and highest overall GDP. Of course, some also projected
India
as an equally great or greater power. But some also see India not in
the same
league as China. In case you don't agree, why don't you provide your
own version.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy Boudha
Singapore will be united with China as
a new Overseas province of CHINA just like the Spratleys .
> ...
>
> read more »
Chairman Mao , expert fucker of Chinese High School Girl 's cunts in China
built
New India Air Craft Carrier this year
for fitting with new
equipments ,
and training , in
preparation for full service in 2015
n Jan 8, 9:27 am, the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy
Boudha <mahatmanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> India is DISUNiTED.
>
> Singapore will be united with China as
> a new Overseas province of CHINA just like the Spratleys .
>
> n Jan 6, 10:11 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2:35 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > RichAsianKid wrote:
> > > > P. Rajah wrote:
> > > >> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> > > >> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_
> > > >> undermines every one of his arguments with his failure to address the
> > > >> issue of whyChinalaggedIndiaand many other third world countries
> > > >> prior to 1972. After all,Chinashould have had a tremendous
> > > >> head-start onIndia, having been a homogeneous, united and independent
> > > >> country well beforeIndia, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would
> > > >> crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> > > > Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement ofIndiais
> > > > probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
> > > > little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
>
> > > > That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
> > > > case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nukeIndiatomorrow, everything,
> > > > including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
> > > > power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
> > > > game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
> > > > capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
>
> > > > Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
>
> > > Because you have failed, yet again and again, to explainChina's
> > > spectacular non-performance in the centuries leading up to 1972,
>
> > You are still fronting the nonissue.
> > No, the question you have to answer is this:
> > Low performance on IQ test and, relatively speaking, low GDP.
> > The coorelation is there. What is the causation? You don't have
> > to accept RAK's causation. Just provide your own causation.
>
> > > in
> > > terms of civilizational IQ or whatever you have been bleating about as
> > > the fundamental reason forChina's_recent_ progress, which still places
> > > it squarely in 3rd world per capita GDP territory. In other words,
> > > despite all your nonsense about Chinese IQ versus Indian IQ,Chinais
> > > _today_ still very much a 3rd world country.
>
> > Most people who comment onChinaprojectedChinainto the future. May
> > be into the next 20 -30 years. And they seeChinathe world's
> > foremost
> > manufacturer and highest overall GDP. Of course, some also projected
> >India
> > as an equally great or greater power. But some also seeIndianot in
> > the same
> > league asChina. In case you don't agree, why don't you provide your
> > own version.
>
> > > Climbing out of the hole,
> > > to be sure, but still 3rd world. You are at a loss to explain that in
> > > your terms, wherefore you ignore it altogether, just as you have once
> > > more here, and will always and forever. Instead, you utter arrant
> > > nonsense aboutIndiaas a "failure" etc., and irrelevant crap about a
> > > nuclear war with Pakistan, becauseIndiais a couple of percentage
> > > points behind in GDP growth. The low caliber of your intelligence
> > > imprints itself on readers' minds the more you keep posting this
> > > nonsense while being unable to find an explanation for the same
> > > condition that afflictedChinaprior to 1972, providing instead "data"
> > > from known racists using questionable hypotheses.
>
> > > > And to delve into this deeper, there's that issue of statistical
> > > > innumeracy on your part. Look:
>
> > > > http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
>
> > > > Look at the r^2. Is it 1 Mr. Rajah?
>
> > > > Why can't you accept that low Indian IQ can at least be a potential
> > > > handicap forIndia? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> > > I have asked you before to explain how an old government IQ study from
> > > urban Beijing was somehow not only extrapolated to represent the entire
> > > country including its vast rural peasant population, and even a few
> > > points gratuitously added on. Why are Shanghai Chinese allegedly so much
> > > more intelligent than mainland Chinese? Did the Brits somehow shed some
> > > of their intelligence on the natives? Furthermore, I notice you have
> > > selected the graph that best serves your intent, rather than another
> > > which shows "high IQChina" still in an uncomfortably low group. Look at
> > > fig. 2 on page 2 here:http://www.iapsych.com/articles/dickerson2006ip.pdf
>
> > > Fyi, the "data fitting" exercise is merely an attempt to fit data(which
> > > may or may not be accurate) to a desirable conclusion. Also, picture
> > > what the graph would have looked like in, say, 1964. Not very good for
> > > you, wouldn't you say?
>
> > > > Third, we KNOW that IQ correlates not just with GDP, but also with
> > > > economic GROWTH. Now, I asked this again again again: "Chinese do not
> > > > have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
> > > > then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
> > > > fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
> > > > much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
> > > > Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
> > > > handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of
> > > > Indians."
>
> > > > And now you continue to remind posters here ofIndia'sheadstart. Thanks!!!
>
> > > Where have I done that? It was actually the Chinese who had a head
> > > start, as I indicated in my top-posting previous message. As with all
> > > bigots, you can only see what you want to see. Up until 1972,Indiawas
> > > on relative par withChina(a bit higher in per capita GDP, but that
> > > doesn't matter when both countries were dirt poor) thanks to the Indian
> > > government's unfortunate adoption of a "planned" economy which
> > > essentially suppressed development by placing artificial limits on
> > > growth and restricting private enterprise. The 1991 liberalization
> > > essentially removed many of these restrictions. IfIndiahad adopted
> > > > No sir, the subject of this thread holds:Indiais not in the same
> > > > league asChina. Whether in terms of IQ, or in terms of
>
> ...
>
> read more »
CPC - Communist Party of China
Anti- Ballistic Medium Range interception ,
a few hundres of Km up in the space .
.
so Indian missiles coming into Chinese air space
with Indian missile
guidance radar stations
stationing inside Mongolia will be useless .
Jan 13, 5:51 pm, "Chairman Mao , expert fucker of Chinese High
> ...
>
> read more »
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
to Iran,
to counter US' s selling of
F- 16 advance fighters to Taiwan ,
F- 16 version C/ D .
On Jan 14, 9:31 am, CPC - Communist Party of China
> ...
>
> read more »
the Black LEARN GA kock of the Fucking Boudha
USA + EU
this is sure .
n Jan 14, 11:15 am, prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
> ...
>
> read more »
Fucking Komin the Pedophile Turd
>
> read more »
Further proofthat Komin the Cambodian retard sucks up to white
monkeys. Komin the pedophile Fuck is a sycophant of the Japanese and
French colonialists in Cambodia.
CPC - Communist Party of China
WE will kick Indian and US Naval forces in South China SEA
Chinese will take over Myanmar,
and Chinese will have Chinese Naval base in Myanmar .
our Chinese people in Shan state in East Myanmar
shall threaten the stability of Myanmar if
the Burmese government disobeys Chinese orders from China.
n Jan 16, 8:15 pm, Fucking Komin the Pedophile Turd
CPC - Communist Party of China
with Iran ' s friendship with Beijing as counter wieght
to US presence in the Taiwan strait .
Hormuz strait vs Taiwan strait ?
.
Jan 17, 9:14 am, CPC - Communist Party of China
Fucking Komin the Pedophile Turd
>
> read more »
Hey Komin you pedophile turd from Cambodia. You're wasting your
time. Everybody here knows who CPC is, and he sure as hell ain't
Chinese. CPC is just another slimeball pedophile wanker from Phnom
Penh, Cambodia.
wakalukong
>
> read more »