Thursday, November 20, 2008

Govt health warning

Something you definitely wouldn't get in Singapore;

13 comments:

Redbaiter said...

Oh gawd, Singapore banned chewing gum. Those nasty AUTHORITARIAN bastards are just out to deny every freedom they can.

Chewing gum was not banned because as so many dipshit liberals believe, it is a symbol of western decadence, but because it was sabotaging Singapore's pride and joy, its mass transit system. The carriage doors were failing to open and close if chewing gum ever got into the locking system, and the whole system that normally works so smoothly and carries millions of PRODUCTIVE Singaporeans to and from work everyday was under threat from constant breakdown.

Tried to buy an aerosol paint can in NZ lately have you? Try spitting on the sidewalk in Rotorua.

But it isn't the point, even though you pathetically uninformed liberals like to think it is. The real point is that Singapore has retained a social culture that scorns the financial support of the state. Their individual will to be self supporting has not been eroded or undermined by Progressives bent on altering society for the sake of political power.

Lee Kuan Yew was smart for a lot of reasons, but most of all because he understood what the Progressive movement was really about- a thousand small streams of destructive left wing ideas seeping into society so as to break it down bit by bit by bit and bring the left political power.

Its not about chewing gum for chrissakes. Singapore is a democracy and its people are free to leave. They have a choice of who to vote for at election time and they exercise that choice. There is a massive difference between the two major Singaporean parties and the citizens always vote for the Conservatives over the Progressives.

You hold NZ up as a place more democratic than Singapore. In reality, at election time, with both Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber asking for your vote, there is no such choice. What country then is really the more democratic?

Lindsay said...

Redbaiter, I am opposed to the welfare state. Read my header.

Redbaiter said...

Lindsay-

I know well that you oppose the Welfare State. (I consider you a hero for the work you have done in this area.) However the Welfare State is just a small part of the Progressive's political agenda.

Your post on chewing gum implies to me that you don't appear to see the complete picture, or recognise the whole that comes from the many pieces. Those pieces that seem separate, but are in reality all designed to bring about one specific outcome- the social ascendancy of leftist political ideology, and its gradual and unnoticeable integration into our culture.

I am trying to say that the anti-left forces in Singapore have recognised that the leftists fight on many different fronts, and they have repelled them on most of those fronts, and consequently Singaporeans do not think the way a large number of NZers do, and their society is much the better for that fact. Their culture of individual independence has been preserved.

For example- My granny tells me that once, NZers were extremely reluctant to ever apply for dole, such was the social stigma of receiving welfare. That attitude no longer exists and most NZers see welfare as a natural entitlement. This change has not occurred in Singapore, because the efforts of those who labour to bring about this change have been countered at every turn. Here, these people have won, and they're still winning. By a huge margin.

Lindsay said...

My post on chewing gum was purely coincidental. Someone sent me the joke this morning and I just happened to have been thinking about Singapore because of your comments.

The Singapore state compels people to save. I will concede that compelling people to save may be better than what we do now but it is still an infringement on individual rights and freedom. That is my problem with Singapore.

Peter said...

A democracy where only one party ever wins an election? Singapore is what China would like to be if it didn't have such a corrupt and ineffective government.

“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. ...... We decide what is right. Never mind what people think.” - Lee Guan Yew

Redbaiter said...

"better than what we do now but it is still an infringement on individual rights and freedom."

Oh Jezuz. Is 'priority' something you can conceptualize?? Hardly the damn issue is it. You witter on with your precious preoccupation with perceived compulsion in Singapore while here in NZ every freedom is slowly being taken from you by stealth and cultural manipulation because you allow it in your misguided commitment to progressivism. Get on the point and harden up for chrissakes.

Redbaiter said...

"A democracy where only one party ever wins an election?"

You tiresome non comprehending bore. Did you fail completely to recognize my point above that there is really only a one party government in NZ?? Please do not respond to any more of my posts. I just don't have time for dealing with the plaintive wailing of children and simpletons.

Redbaiter said...

"Someone sent me the joke this morning and I just happened to have been thinking about Singapore because of your comments."

Actually, I couldn't see the joke, but its suddenly dawned- the exercise balls are meant to be gum bubbles. Very deep :)

Anonymous said...

LIndsay: I have had the misfortune to run across Redbaiter's rabid authoritarian type comments elsewhere. One can not reason with those who lack reason. I wouldn't bother. He just repeatedly proves why the far right is just as bad as the far left -- certainly as authoritarian just on different issues. Neither appreciates freedom but each thinks they are morally superior to the other.

To me picking between them is like an option of stroke or heart attack. Both are deadly, both are unpleasant.

Lindsay said...

Thanks Anon, I am aware of his comments elsewhere but I think this is the first time he has commented here. Is he banned elsewhere? That would be rich. An authoritarian banned.

Redbaiter said...

"LIndsay: I have had the misfortune to run across Redbaiter's rabid authoritarian type comments elsewhere."

Oh Gawd, another simpering fag libertarian too yellow to post under his usual ID. One day you jerks will wake up to the fact that with your obsessive focus on such peripheal issues as homosexual marriage etc the real issues that are impacting on liberty are completely passing you by.

This makes you, with your faux concerns exposed as just another facet of pseudo-liberal Progressivism, a bigger long term danger to liberty than Redbaiter will ever be. As is shown by the fact that that no matter what fucked up perceptions you might have about Singapore, our freedoms are declining so rapidly that in the basics, for example being able to walk the streets at night, they're light years ahead of us up there.

Peter said...

You tiresome non comprehending bore. Did you fail completely to recognize my point above that there is really only a one party government in NZ?? Please do not respond to any more of my posts. I just don't have time for dealing with the plaintive wailing of children and simpletons.

Come on Redbaiter, you make some good points sometimes but you ruin it with this sort of thing. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you that there is no difference between the 2 major parties in NZ, although I can see why you are dissatisfied that National is so close to Labour on many issues. The simple fact is that there is only minority support in NZ for parties such as ACT and the Libz in NZ; if that were not the case then National would lean more to the right than it does now. Remember they tried that last time and the voters rejected them.

If you still think that we should have a strongly right-leaning government despite only minority support for it then you are probably better off in a place like Singapore whose leadership are quite open about the fact that they do what they think ought to be done whether the people like it or not. You'd better make sure that is really what you want though because they don't tolerate people who talk back or get in the way. It is not a democracy but they do make the trains run on time.

Anonymous said...

There is something rather demented about the one poster -- he who shall not be named. He attacks anonymous (I assume) as a "simpering fag libertarian too yellow to post under his usual ID." First, his psychic abilities must be astounding to assume that anonymous uses any other ID here other than anonymous. He has no proof of that, just an accusation using rather insulting language.

Without actual evidence he is just blowing steam. And he has none otherwise he would have offered it.

Then after attacking someone as a "fag" for pointing out his own authoritarian tendencies, this poster whines"your obsessive focus on such peripheal issues as homosexual marriage". From what I can see gay marriage was not discussed in any post here at all. And, I can only find one brief reference on the blog over all time stating you supported civil unions. So what "obsessive focus" on "homosexual marriage" is this person talking about?

Personally when someone starts calling people "fags" and obsessing about "homosexual marriage" I start to wonder about them. I can't forget how Rev. Capill wanted to protect the children.