gdp's Comments

Council on Hemispheric Affairs : China Looks South: Problematic Investments in Latin America

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:36:21 +0000

The fundamental reality that the Americans are incapable of competing in an honest, practical fashion is no surprise to any other nation over the past 100 years. The blundering, inept incompetence of American companies has never been supported by anything but the USA military force, and the eagerness of American diplomats to threaten to bomb other nations 'back to the Stone Age' if they don't stop competing with the US on a economic level. The Americans have used every stunt they accuse the Chinese of using over the past 100 years, as their normal dishonest business dealings. They have no one to blame but themselves for having taught how an honest rival how to play the game their way.

Council on Hemispheric Affairs : China Looks South: Problematic Investments in Latin America

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:35:23 +0000

Here we see the throughly conditioned obedience of Western citizens to the utterly false propaganda of their media and governments. The article is scurrilous, 100 percent fairytale fantasy world speculation, without the slightest basis in fact or evidence to support its bigoted bias. The offshore investments of China are a tiny fraction of the foreign investments of companies based in the USA. The defamatory, slanderous, and libellous media hate-mongering against the Chinese is merely the hysterical and malicious inability of Americans to cope with any competition, resorting to the unfair business practice of demonizing their economic rival, because they have no talent or skill to compete on a level playing field.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 08:54:14 +0000

There is an excellent article in today's Times of London on the benefits system of the UK, citing many of the statistics, and naturally completely contradicting your laughably stupid and ignorant claims. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnis... Enjoy, pinhead.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 06:30:29 +0000

No one care about your personal live, and no one cares about your selfish, self-centered, egotistical, vain, conceited, childish obsession with you, you, you. No one cares about one person, one woman, one single mother family out of tens of millions. No one should ever need to be told something so obvious and simplistic. If you sincerely think men leave women and children for no good reason you are a pathetic fool. It takes a lot to drive a man out of a comfortable bed with regular meals and a roof over his head. There are many variables and couples are a two-way street by definition, but if you think women are innocent and blameless you are just plain wrong, and so blockheaded there is no hope for you in the world. There is always right and wrong on both sides. No person in a couple is ever innocent and blameless. Never.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 06:08:30 +0000

Try keywords like welfare, or benefits, or social services, etc., with the keyword prostitutes, and see what you get. My reference sources are all internal government papers, not available to the public. I know that sounds self-serving, but I can't change the facts. The truth is that the huge majority, between 75 and 85 percent of all 'single mothers' are simply lifelong welfare bums, or women who simply got tired of working, and tired of getting along with any male. Simply because males left them, and refuse to live with them, does not automatically make them good people, good women, or good mothers. Raising a child without a father is extremely bad for the child, and obviously child neglect and failure to provide the necessities of life. Good mothers don't do those sorts of things to children, which should be self-evident to any good person. What a person says is not slander or hate speech when what the person says is true. I will add that your childlike attempt to keep your inner world nice and pretty is very sweet and cute, and makes me smile and chuckle at your delightful innocence. ____Arithmetic is counting, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, and math is statistical analysis.__

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 05:58:49 +0000

PaperTiger, this is really good, very entertaining, and definitely merits a thoughtful response. The major limitation of your argument is that you're careless over details, and misinformed about other details. I merely guessed that the number of single fathers might be five percent, and I added a question mark to the sentence, clearly indicating that was only a guess, and I definitely was not suggesting it was the correct number. Sadly for your assumed policy position, the reality is that the majority (more than half, or greater than 50 percent) of the single mothers in the Western world are, in fact, part-time or full-time prostitutes. That is a fact, known to all governments, law enforcement agencies, and social service agencies in the Western world. I regret disturbing the tranquility of your prejudices. Where on earth you could goggle to verify that information, I have no idea, since it's obviously something most governments don't publicize. If they can, most governments try to hide any evidence that their countries have any prostitutes at all.

Macleans.ca : Jewish public servant wins anti-Semitism case

Fri, 28 May 2010 03:35:00 +0000

I'm obligated to agree with RunningGag. I can't see the motivation for co-workers giving someone a hard time for leaving early on Friday's an taking religious days off. I get the vague impression the scenario describes someone who was generally obnoxious in the first place, and her co-workers just picked on her conversion as a way of really getting under her skin. The entire event seems very juvenile.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 02:40:50 +0000

I wrote the basis of his disagreement was prejudice, not the disagreement itself. My comments about 'single mothers' was a generalization, which is what humans do to talk about very large subjects best described in the statistics of probability and percentages. While it is obviously true that a tiny percentage of all 'single mothers' are competent and honest, the entire world, including all governments, know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of all 'single mothers' are not good people, good women, or good mothers. When you talk about specifics and exceptions, you are simply using the dishonest, deceitful trick of trying to change the subject, from the general to the specific. That is cheating, and it doesn't count. It certainly doesn't change the arithmetic and math of the majority percentage of all single mothers. That is an immutable fact. In other words, since you obviously don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, your opinion on the subject is very light-weight and trivial. Everything in your post is trivial, and not worth discussing.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Fri, 28 May 2010 02:23:13 +0000

No, that is not right, and that is not what the columnist described. You're putting the cart in front of the horse. The conditions are not every single-person household, they are households in which every single person doesn't work. The source of your confusion is your failure to read, not the writing mistakes of anyone else. Your central dilemma is that you're wrong, and you refuse to admit it. So what? No one cares about your juvenile vanity. We can all see you're wrongheaded, and that's all we need to know.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Thu, 27 May 2010 23:45:57 +0000

I can see you're overjoyed at all the attention you're getting. Busy, busy, busy answering all those objections as fast as you can. Anyone can tell you're desperate for attention. What I consider is not relevant. We are discussing what the three levels of government -- local, regional, and national -- consider. Just to clear the topic, no, I don't consider one person a family. What matters, ignorant imbecile, is that governments don't consider one person a family, either, which you would know without needing to ask if you had read the previous post I gave you. To repeat, since crudity is obviously the only type of dialoque you can understand, that is why statistical agencies, especially those that make reports to governments, divide the population of a tax jurisdiction into households, because virtually any taxation system around the planet sets credits and deductions for personal tax on the basis of the type of household submitting a return. Do you get it now, retard, or will you need to ask yet another moronic question any 12-year-old could figure out in her own head?

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Thu, 27 May 2010 21:26:44 +0000

For crying out loud. Residences of one person are including in the definition of 'household'. Are you really implying that you didn't already know that? Be honest -- did you actually graduate from Grade 8? How was that wizardry accomplished? Did your parent bribe all your teachers and the office staff, including the principal and vice-principal? 'Household' is the essential, central definition required to perform statistical analysis of a tax jurisdiction. Do you know what a taxation system is? A government cannot set taxation rates without a breakdown of their population into households, precisely because the breakdown into families doesn't work, since as you describe, many residences only include one person. Do you truly not know this basic information that any citizen of any nation must know to understand governance? How ignorant can one person possibly be? The information reported is not 'misleading'. You are ignorant. That is the fact of the matter.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Thu, 27 May 2010 20:12:21 +0000

Wow, you are truly stupid. Declaring that you and another poster disagree is not a legitimate, valid excuse. You are wrong, and that is the end of the subject. Again, your lack of any standards of good and bad for human behavior makes you something that crawled out of a sewer. The BBC is a stated-funded TV and radio station. For a real reference source, you must go to a newspaper or magazine. You know, real writing, as opposed to pretty pictures? An English newspaper would tell you all about the people in the UK on benefits from so-called disabilities. Again, declaring you disagree doesn't hold water. No one cares whether you disagree or not. Welfare garbage are garbage, whether they're disabled and have a cellphone or not. Your trouble is that you don't have the human conscience to recognize right and wrong.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Thu, 27 May 2010 19:55:34 +0000

The statistic applying to the UK is often referenced in English (I.e., published in England) news media. Expecting another person to do all your work for you is typical of a liberalist. If you aren't already reading English news media regularly, then it's no wonder you display such utter ignorance about the world. Try, 'The Times', the 'Independent', the Daily Telegraph', the 'Guardian', (for the extreme left-wing), and the' Daily Mail', (for the extreme tabloid right-wing). Welfare is called 'benefits' in the UK. Try doing a search at each news media site on that keyword, and be prepared to be inundated. Even though you obviously haven't graduated from Grade 8, I'm sure you can think of more focusing keywords yourself.

Macleans.ca : We’re too broke to be this stupid

Thu, 27 May 2010 14:17:28 +0000

Prejudice against others simply because they don't agree with your views is immature and unintelligent. Fox News is more fair and balanced than liberalist news media conglomerates. The fact that one-sixth (that's about 17 percent) of all households in the UK don't have a single working family member is a severe problem in social services in that country. Those families are a very serious financial burden on the taxpayers of the UK,. The statistic refers only to long-term, generational households, and deliberately does not include those on temporary unemployment. What evidence or prove do you have for your icuckoo notion that 'single mothers' are not bad for a country's economy, or for their children? In Canada, the USA, and the UK, a very large percentage of the people permanently on social services are currently the third generation of 'single mothers', and all the available evidence shows that 'single mothers' are extremely bad for a society, the economics of a community, and their children. Thus, all of your commentary appears completely mindless prejudice, made solely on the basis of total ignorance of plain fact, and revealing only your own extremist and bizarre biases and presumptions.

Macleans.ca : Degrees of tension

Thu, 27 May 2010 05:54:57 +0000

I don't think this article is of any importance, either. It's just typical of the way society is run in North America these days. We won't see that change in my lifetime, so why get excited about it? As far as evidence is concerned, anyone can walk into to any Indigo branch and count the books on the shelves. Pick any shelf at random, anywhere in the store -- an average of seven out of 10 of the books on that shelf are written by Jews. That's a very odd, puzzling ratio on a continent where Jews make up around 2.5 percent of the population. Wherever you see a Jewish name, that book represents 7.5 Canadian or American people who aren't Jews, who didn't get their book published, or didn't have their published book accepted by a bookseller. Ninety-seven point five percent of the Canadian and US population is a lot of people who don't get their books published or sold. Not that I care, of course.

Macleans.ca : Memo to MPs: your public wants to know

Sun, 23 May 2010 02:50:04 +0000

So a politician cannot stand up in front of the cameras, recorders, and males and females of the media circus, and tell people the truth. He would be laughed out of office if he did. So females continue to get away with their habitual behavior, while males do the work and pay them off. Naturally, politicians don't want to discuss this disgusting part of their professional life, because, number one, it's embarrassing, and number two, none of them can prove what they say. Saying nothing is their only choice, and that has been true ever since there have been wealthy and powerful men and females.

Macleans.ca : Memo to MPs: your public wants to know

Sun, 23 May 2010 02:49:02 +0000

However, in public life, that is not the case. A female can destroy a politician's reputation and public career with just an accusation, and all females in the Western world know that. Since gold-diggers (substitute your own word) nearly always want nothing but money, the most practical way to get rid of them is to give them some to go away. Believe or not, little girl, this method of disposing of a female pest almost always works. Wealthy and powerful men simply need to give them enough money, that's all. Now look at the other side of the coin. No one can prove a negative, and a male can never prove that an accusation is false. All he has is his word, which other wealthy and powerful men are perfectly prepared to believe, since they're smeared with the same slime every day themselves. The public however, is typified by the commentators here, who have never experienced five minutes of being wealthy and powerful, and who clearly never will. They don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about. On top of that, imagine the reaction of the ordinary Western female to the story. The very gods forbid anyone should imply that females are nothing but whores.

Macleans.ca : Memo to MPs: your public wants to know

Sun, 23 May 2010 02:48:08 +0000

Here we have a fine example of normal citizens exposing their ignorance. The major flaw of democrary is that these people are allowed to vote. Let's see, how to describe sex to an eight-year-old. . . . Believe it or not, little children, wealthy and powerful men get hit on about 10 times a day. Yes, little girl, even men in their 50s and 60s, so long as they have enough money and power. Usually, gold-diggers (a polite euphemism for such women and the occasionally male) can be safely ignored. However, sometimes (about once a week), they can become obnoxious. When a wealthy and powerful man works for a corporation, he can count on trust and support from his board or senior executives, and the female is nothing more than an irritant.

Macleans.ca : A syphilis epidemic hits China

Fri, 21 May 2010 00:54:01 +0000

The usual news entertainment media industry sensationalism, making a mountain out of molehill, and stirring up a tempest in a teapot. Sixty babies out of 100,000 is around 0.06 percent of all families or households, not exactly an epidemic. I give the story about three days to become common knowledge on the Chinese internet, with the immediate effect of stopping the disease dead. The only reasonable conclusion on the story is that Maclean's was desperate for anything to fill a few column inches of space, and some female intern grabbed the first story about sex and death she could find.