Where citizens who might want a small government that is driven by traditional Conservative values have no choice, because there is only Labour and a bunch of poseurs calling themselves National (or Liberals.. gag) who in terms of politics, are virtually indistinguishable from Labour.

Red, no one is obliqued to create a political party that meets your ideals. But there’s nothing stopping them either. In fact why don’t you start a party which espouses the ideas you’d like to vote for? In many countries you wouldn’t get a look-in, but we (for our sins) have MMP. So give it a go.

But I suspect if anyone dared to question or criticise the RedBaiter Tea Party, you’d see it as a conspiracy to shut you down and deny the oppressed masses the right to vote for you.

“Singapore at 3 on the list is mostly Buddhist and Muslim.”

Yes. Both religions that promote morality.

So I was inferring that religions weren’t promoting morality very well in the bottom five.
Of course he had a response:

Yeah, you only have to have been in any of those countries to know the reality of how religious they are in reality.

So the reality is according to Red religion has the right influence only when it suits his argument. It’s the same with him on the media, if an article suits his purpose he posts it, if it doesn’t he rubbishes the source. Same with how he treats people who post. The consummate attackist (and contradictionist).

I don’t think religion is a common factor – look at the bottom five.

Pete George – you are taking the piss right? Four out of five are Islamic.

“That and not living in tribal culture where warlords hold sway.”

Never lived in Naenae or Wainui then Brian?

Point taken. Yes – live almost next to Naenae College so know exactly what you mean.

Ha ha.. yeah, thought so. Same old same old.

As for the link. Amnesty International- nuff said.

As for your denial of the violent purges of the 1960s, I guess you will have to wait until the officially suppressed evidence sees the light of day. Until then you will need to come over and take the walking tour. As I said before: since you hate NZ so much, why not come up and join the fun in SG?

Don’t give me that crap. There’s always a choice. You’ve already described it as an oasis. You like living there. You like living in a country you profess to despise at the same time as you demand that readers of Kiwiblog ascribe to you, because of your academic status, a degree of credibility above that of any other contributor here.

In fact, you’re sending the bullshit meter completely off scale. Not the least with crazy allegations of murder against Lee Kuan Yew that you can’t prove, made up stuff about Singapore being a one party state when there’s in fact 19 parties, all at the same time as you slander me as a nutter because I think the POTUS should have to prove he was born there as the Constitution requires.

In my experience, leftist academics can never pass objective scrutiny of their reasoning abilities, and this is just another instance.

Ok. Let’s get it straight. You are alleging that Lee Kuan Yew murdered communist dissidents he perceived to be a political threat. Here’s your big chance. Make a name for yourself. Where’s the evidence??

BTW, your “objective” link does not work, and I’ll bet my house that if it ever does, its just more left wing crap and as far from objective as most of the hate driven diatribe you pedal as objective commentary.

..and another BTW, you don’t know where I live, and its another indication of your failure of intellect that you and the rest of the brain dead left wing blogosphere would jump to the conclusion that some babbling half wit libertarian’s baseless presumptions as to who I might be are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism#Tradition_and_custom

Traditionalist conservatives believe that in order for universal truths and tradition to be utilized effectively in a society that society should be hierarchical with varying degrees and classes, each interdependent upon one another, in a civic communitarian organic unity. By acknowledging that each person is different, the traditionalist respects variety and difference in birth, circumstance, education, and morals. Traditionalists think that a hierarchical society allows for the protection of the whole of the community instead of at the expense of one particular group. Sound like a green commune.

or

Natural law and transcendent moral order
One of the central principles of traditionalist conservatism is that natural law and a transcendent moral order govern man. Christ and His Word inform natural law and the universal truths of faith. It is through these universal truths of faith that man orders himself and the world around him. Most traditionalist conservatives associate with High Church Christianity, including T. S. Eliot who was an Anglo-Catholic and Russell Kirk who was a Roman Catholic.

But I can’t see how doing what the pope tells you could be called freedom.

Whatever the case, the bottom line remains: you prefer an authoritarian state to NZ, and you choose to ignore dictatorial sins simply because you wish to deny democratic voice to those you disagree with in your own country (presuming that you are a Kiwi) So, given your hatred of NZ and love of SG, what not move there? Unlike me, you have that choice and unlike me, you have the ideological motivation to do so. Or are you just a blustery windbag without the conviction to do anything more than rant from the safety of your computer about the fact that the world is not constructed in your own preferred (and quite fevered) image? Methinks the latter is the case.

A question that signals your political perceptions are typical of those whose education and intellectual development have been crippled by Progressives. You’re the product of a one party state, and because of your innate ignorance, are bound to perpetuate it. That’s how socialism, aka totalitarianism, works.

“Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.” –Mark Levin

“I want a choice between traditional Conservative values, small government, low taxes, maximum individual freedom and responsibility on the one hand and Progressivism on the other. You deny me that choice at the same time as you moan about Singapore being a one party state.”

I ask

Can you have traditional Conservative values and maximum individual freedom?

What is a traditional Conservative anyway?

Would they legalise cannabis as that is about personal freedom?

Saudis are traditional but would you agree to polygamy?

Would you accept a Maori chief in a feather cloak as your leader that’s pretty traditional.

Saddam was just trying to prevent those evil progressives from destroying his country and implementing that evil progressive stuff like freedom of press and woman’s rights and what did you say when a country that allows homosexuals,sells porn and has a huge drug problem invaded and imposed it’s form of government on it?

Well I found one of your quotes

Redbaiter (7880) Vote: 28 13 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
“something everyone should be happy about.”

..and thanks of course to the courage, unfailing dedication and persistence of George W. Bush who pressed on regardless of the politically motivated whining of the cowards and treasonists and defeatists on the left and elsewhere, who have done all they can to undermine the success of the mission for democracy in Iraq.

On Iraq, George W Bush and all of those small countries and leaders who stood by him are heroes.

It would have pleased me to see you write that Mr. Farrar.

Do you believe in democracy? do you know what democracy is?

Is democracy allowed for some but not others

Do you believe in freedom?

There is in fact about 19 parties in Singapore. No law stops any Singaporean voting for these parties if they so wish. If they had a corrupt authoritarian state, Singaporeans have the freedom to vote it out tomorrow.

There’s no huge conspiracy as leftists like to obsess over. Singaporeans do not vote for the other 18 parties because they’re mostly socialist/ Marxist/ progressive, and they simply do not like them.

For chrissakes, if they want to see what they get voting for Progressives they only have to look south to the crime ridden welfare corrupted so called “democracies” of Australia and NZ.

Virtual one party states where Progressives have worked assiduously to remove very political choice (and almost every other choice) that existed. Where citizens who might want a small government that is driven by traditional Conservative values have no choice, because there is only Labour and a bunch of poseurs calling themselves National (or Liberals.. gag) who in terms of politics, are virtually indistinguishable from Labour.

Don’t talk to me about one party states. Jezuz, my opinion of university academics is low enough already. You don’t need to drive it any further down.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2148&Itemid=181

You talk to me of “wilful blindness” when you say its a one party state-

Here’s a list of the Singapore political parties-

http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore#1.

I count about 19. Tell me this. How does a one party state have 18 opposition parties? Tell me this. What law stops any Singaporean if he so chooses from voting for any one of those 18 opposition parties?

You manufacture this big anti-democratic conspiracy theory when the reason people vote for the PAP is because they damn well like it, and they do not like the socialist/ Marxist/ Progressive leanings of almost every other party.

Furthermore, I would be amazed by your hypocrisy if it wasn’t so typical of Progressives, who in NZ have crippled our education system, destroyed the objectivity of our media, betrayed the craft of journalism, built a huge welfare addicted voting population all with the intent of destroying democracy and making NZ a one party state.

I have nothing but contempt for your posturing as someone who cares for democracy and choice when you and your ilk have worked assiduously for decades to destroy both of those things in NZ. As you would destroy them in Singapore if by any chance you gained a political foot hold there.

“at least they make a pretense of trying to differentiate.”

Yeah. Pretense. That’s quite OK with you ain’t it?? Sorry Pablo. I want the real thing. I want a choice between traditional Conservative values, small government, low taxes, maximum individual freedom and responsibility on the one hand and Progressivism on the other. You deny me that choice at the same time as you moan about Singapore being a one party state. Good grief, my opinion of academics is bad enough already. Please try not to make it any worse.

You may well argue that Labour/National are simply so close ideologically as to be indistingushable from each other therefore as good as good as a single party but at least they make a pretense of trying to differentiate.

In NZ freedom of speech or dissent isn’t silenced from fear of court action…yet.

Can you name one opposition party that has been allowed to openly compete, much less win more than a handful of parliamentary seats ( out of a possible 96) in recent “elections.” Do you have any clue what “nominated” members of parliament are? Here, have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Singapore.

Do you not realise that opposition parties cannot hold public rallies or run radio and TV adverts during campaigns? Or that they cannot hold fund-raising activities beyond limited membership drives? If you do, you are more messed up than I imagined.

Your general ignorance or willful blindness is deep, because you clearly do not see that there are gradations of one-party authoritarianism, with some relying more on economic and social cooptation rather than repression to reproduce political exclusion, and with many using institutionally rigged elections to legitimate their rule. In fact, some even allow for limited dissent so long as it does not touch the “essentials” of the regime. SG is one of these.

There is actually a huge literature on this but of course you will not see fit to read it because it is supposedly written by “progressives” and hence suspect. Suit yourself.

For those who want a more objective look at the state of affairs in the third least corrupt country, check out http://www.theonlinecitizen.org.sg.

It isn’t. This is a deliberate propaganda lie and shows that as always, leftist academics have to twist truth to serve their political allegiances. Nobody is forced to live in Singapore. Anyone unhappy (as they would be if it was indeed a one party authoritarian state) can leave whenever they want.

These leftists propagandists try to draw attention away from the fact that due to their Gramascian domination of our culture, their take over of our public institutions, our universities and schools, our media and our bureaucracy, they have made NZ much closer to a one party state than Singapore will ever be. The essence of socialism, the political system Pablo and his comrades subscribe to, is totalitarianism. To socialize all and everyone until they have no other political perceptions.

You can say what you like about Singapore’s political system. It is in terms of freedom from crime, freedom from taxes, and freedom from welfare tyranny it is so much better of a place to live than the New Zealand the Progressives (Pablo and his ilk) have destroyed.

Singapore works because Lee Kuan Yew had the foresight to keep the Progressives out. They bitch and moan because it stands there testament to what a people can achieve without the corrupt and destructive influence of Progressivism, whilst NZ sinks in a stinking crime ridden socialist quagmire, and demonstrates exactly what happens when you do let Progressives take over.