The economist intelligence unit has chosen the worst place to live in 2004...I won't tell you, you have to guess. :p

I looked it up, so I know the answer is...

Shhh... don't say anything...;) I should say it's rather obvious. (at least to me)

I have to admit that I was surprised by the answer; not because I thought it was a good place to live, but because I didn't realize it was that bad.

Yes it is rather bad, and it's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, to me that proves that the outside world doesn't care, I am seriously contemplating a comparison to another state is that is causing a lot of problems. This state has to be neutralized, but I know it won't until it's too late.

economist <-> intelligence

:(

not as long as they engage in value judgements, they did this one with 'hardship ratings' too ?

hehe...

not as long as they engage in value judgements, they did this one with 'hardship ratings' too ?

Well I agree that it is a value judgement on the part of the economist. I wanted to start this thread so I could see how much ppl could see where the problems really are.

My guess would be North Korea, because of all the cannibalism and asian growth, but bolivia is another good candidate.

The only question I have to ask now... is when do I tell the answer? Fine tommorow as my Christmas present, make sure you vote.

my house..the plumbing is busted

Well, cannibalism is one way to control overpopulation....

I don't like your options. No mention of Iraq? How about race, sexual orientation, wealth and other factors affecting the attractivesness of a location? Besides, "the economist" is worthless crap.

Undecided, I'm guessing you mean Turkmenistan because of its severe instability? Am I right:confused:?

LOL, oh well... all of the choices you gave would be bad, I just thought that Turkmenistan might be the worst.



:eek:

That the US was not on the list!!

It is not that bad yet, but we are slowly creeping to be a Police State, what you think all these warnings of Terrorists attack is for?.

http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm


Godless.

Because if I put it on everyone would vote for it...and it's not the answer.

Undecided, I'm guessing you mean Turkmenistan because of its severe instability?

Instability in Stalinist Turkmenistan? I don't think so, quite the opposite.

The Answer is Turkmenistan, yes it beat North Korea, and Afghanistan for the worst place to live. It is really that bad, Stalinism has been control of that nation since the collapse of the USSR, it's important that those regions didn't want to separate from the USSR, only the European states did. He retained the Soviet system and improved on it. He has made friends in high places in the west. The president has created a cult of the personality, naming common household items after himself, and months, and it's getting as bad as the NK cult. He claims not unlike the NK leaders that he is the protector of their race, and he is like a demi- god. Can you believe he is going to have purges, in 2003! But of course the same powers that were bitching about Iraq’s human rights record, yet they ignore this one.

Could you add America to the poll Undecided?
Then I'd have somewhere to vote for:)

Dee Cee

Originally posted by DeeCee
Could you add America to the poll Undecided?
Then I'd have somewhere to vote for:)

Dee Cee

LMAO!

Originally posted by thefountainhed
How about race, sexual orientation, wealth and other factors affecting the attractivesness of a location?

How about virtue & intelligence ? How about asthetics, how about weather ? Indeed many other factors that can all function in a certain perspective you can approve or disapprove of ethically, you point out perfectly why the economist should not engage in value judgements due to it's defining nature.

Originally posted by Undecided
I wanted to start this thread so I could see how much ppl could see where the problems really are.

Don't you think you have to have an agreed definition of problematic amongst all other lesser problematic issues, before anyone 'can see' where the problems really are ?

Originally posted by Godless
It is not that bad yet, but we are slowly creeping to be a Police State, what you think all these warnings of Terrorists attack is for?

It is absolutely brilliant, as the entire system serves nothing whatsoever. It doesn't prevent attacks, it only scares people into accepting drastic measurement's taken against their fundamental rights. Once again, the democrats achieve by rhetorics what dictators achieve by force.

Don't you think you have to have an agreed definition of problematic amongst all other lesser problematic issues, before anyone 'can see' where the problems really are ?


Well in this context the economist was looking obviously at human rights, because her economy is growing like a bitch. Now I can't personally say which is worse et al. But let's face a reality here, Stalinism sucks if you work for amnesty, I mean it increases the workload. :D