What's new

Economic targets: Govt has failed to deliver on most of its promises!

Its kind of stupid fun to argue with a 16 year old (from your posts, I am guessing your age as there is rarely anything mature).But allow me to elaborate on your bold points above:
1) Let's define a "leader".....show me a leader in recent modern history that destroyed a running democratic system after 70 years of Marshal Law. Show me a leader who tells people to attack the Parliament, who threatens almost EVERY SINGLE institute that exists in the country with false rumors and he hasn't produced ONE real fact. But, paranoia is so much that he thinks everyone's after him. That's not leadership kid, that's mental disorder called Bi Polar or Paranoid Schizophrenia. No leader promotes violence. No leader for his OWN greed of power, turns a society into a violent force to overturn a huge majority's elected officials. Anyone who does that, is an anarchist, wants things his way for his own power, doesn't work like a team for the betterment of the country and if you add paranoia to it, is a mental patient.

2) Leaders have positive influence on the society. This guy and his team in every single congregation and public relations statements, openly lies, threatens other, threatens the system and promotes "let's burn down the nation". Is this a leader to you?

3) Allow me to give you a basic definition of a leader based on science and research. These guys from MIT and across the globe spent BILLIONS in researching and they researched and watched every leader since the 1900's:

During the 1900s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies done on different leaders in different part of the globe. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
  • Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
  • Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:

One of the MAIN traits of a leader are:
Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future. The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.

The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now how much positive ANYTHING you see in IK's behavior and what he's teaching others and in instigating violence and extreme behavior?

The ONLY positive reinforcement that he can do (which he will never do), is to tell people to wait for the next elections and vote smartly and bring in the right people.

However, if he couldn't provide any proof to any wrong doing if that really happens, and he's damaging the entire country, a positive reinforcement would be for the people to get rid of IK's party just like they did to Zardari!
70 years of Marshal Law.
That's a lie.

Show me a leader who tells people to attack the Parliament, who threatens almost EVERY SINGLE institute that exists in the country with false rumors and he hasn't produced ONE real fact.
That's a good question, Altaf Hussain is probably the closest you'll get to that. It's definitely not Imran Khan

, openly lies, threatens other, threatens the system and promotes "let's burn down the nation"
You are lying, again. That is a lie. If you can prove any of Imran Khan's statements a lie, go ahead and prove it, don't just say 'I can prove it'. Also, he never said 'lets burn down the nation'. That's another lie from you.

Now how much positive ANYTHING you see in IK's behavior and what he's teaching others and in instigating violence and extreme behavior?
You obviously never listened to any of his speeches. He talks about the importance of education, the importance of democratic right and the importance of democracy. He educates the people. Just take this most recent rally, he talked about how West Germany and East Germany were divided and how democracy helped them become developed nations. That is very positive because that's all news to over 70% of Pakistan's population. Most of them usually have no idea about stuff like that.

On the other hand, there wasn't a single instigation of violence or any form of verbal abuse, just like most (if not all) of his speeches.

He also talks a lot about sectarianism, how it's bad, how sunnis and shias shouldn't fight and about unity in the country. Listen to his speeches before you comment on them.

if he couldn't provide any proof to any wrong doing if that really happens
You people did get plenty of proof. Almost every constituency that has been investigated till now showed massive 'irregularities'. Ch.Nisar (the Interior minister) admitted in Parliament that up to 70,000 votes in a particular constituency were (or, as he worded it, 'probably are') 'unverifiable'.

The reason he gives is that magnetic ink was not used. So now we're left chasing the magnetic ink and we find out that out of all the samples tested, apparently, the ink used was not of good quality because they did not know that it was expired or something really retarded like that, depending on who you ask.

Despite all that, we still have this going on:
Parliamentary panel ambivalent over use of EVMs for polling – The Express Tribune

There is absolutely no doubt that there were massive irregularities in the election. If PMLN didn't do it, why did they constantly oppose an investigation? Imran Khan clearly demanded an investigation in only 4 constituencies for 14 months. During the last 2 months, he threatened to start a protest. They could have easily prevented it, start a proper investigation and then use these results to reform the electoral system. IK would be happy and Pakistan's future elections would be free and fair, what more could someone want (unless they rigged the elections)?

In other news, this:
After recount, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan loses to PTI candidate in Rawalpindi PP-7 – The Express Tribune

There's plenty of proof for all that. Way more than you give for Imran Khan's alleged 'violence and anarchy'. You are accusing him here, burden of proof is on you. Provide proof.
 
You're asking all the wrong questions. You don't get the point of my rants friend. Instead of asking, why the PPP didn't fix things, ask why the things got broken in the first place and ask why the PPP was put in power, and why we expected them to fix it.

And again, you're repeating yourself. Military rule is deceptive. It may seem good but it is always unsustainable. Military rule always has to end, and if it doesn't end, there is usually bloodshed. We Pakistanis have been lucky that hasn't happened yet. Everytime they show up, they create this false state of well being, and when they go, the weak system has to take their place and pick up from where they shattered when they the dictators took power. The poor governance and political musical chairs of the 90's was Zia's fault. And the hell between 2008 and 2013 was Mushy's fault.

You can debate the technicalities of it and for face value, but don't lose track of what it actually means.

You still didn't got the point. Yeah, Military rule is bad in countries but our so called democratic rule is much worst than military rule. Let us start from shortage of electricity. Let's say musharraf didn't imposed marshal law and NS was in power do you think that he would try to fulfill the shortage of electricity at that time? The simple answer is no. N league didn't tried to fulfill the shortage of electricity from 2008-2013 when they power in power in Punjab why? Still now they aren't trying to fulfill the shortage of electricity they are just making big commission from the projects. The same applies for war on terror situation because N and PPP are also slaves of america. Even PPP got power for 5 years and they didn't full the shortage of electricity. All 3 are equal in this mater. So how you and I are claiming that musharraf or ppp or n league government was better.


Let me clarify why I am saying that musharraf government was better.

The Literacy rate was much better in his reign compare to today.
The Health facilities was much better compare to now.
The corruption ratio was very low compare to now.
The inflation rate was low compare to now.
The Exports and our GDP was growing better than now.
All the basic services of life was better in musharraf reign compare to now so how still you can say N league or PPP is better?
 
Its kind of stupid fun to argue with a 16 year old (from your posts, I am guessing your age as there is rarely anything mature).But allow me to elaborate on your bold points above:
1) Let's define a "leader".....show me a leader in recent modern history that destroyed a running democratic system after 70 years of Marshal Law. Show me a leader who tells people to attack the Parliament, who threatens almost EVERY SINGLE institute that exists in the country with false rumors and he hasn't produced ONE real fact. But, paranoia is so much that he thinks everyone's after him. That's not leadership kid, that's mental disorder called Bi Polar or Paranoid Schizophrenia. No leader promotes violence. No leader for his OWN greed of power, turns a society into a violent force to overturn a huge majority's elected officials. Anyone who does that, is an anarchist, wants things his way for his own power, doesn't work like a team for the betterment of the country and if you add paranoia to it, is a mental patient.

2) Leaders have positive influence on the society. This guy and his team in every single congregation and public relations statements, openly lies, threatens other, threatens the system and promotes "let's burn down the nation". Is this a leader to you?

3) Allow me to give you a basic definition of a leader based on science and research. These guys from MIT and across the globe spent BILLIONS in researching and they researched and watched every leader since the 1900's:

During the 1900s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies done on different leaders in different part of the globe. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
  • Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
  • Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:
One of the MAIN traits of a leader are:
Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future. The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.

The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now how much positive ANYTHING you see in IK's behavior and what he's teaching others and in instigating violence and extreme behavior?

The ONLY positive reinforcement that he can do (which he will never do), is to tell people to wait for the next elections and vote smartly and bring in the right people.

However, if he couldn't provide any proof to any wrong doing if that really happens, and he's damaging the entire country, a positive reinforcement would be for the people to get rid of IK's party just like they did to Zardari!



It's getting worst talking to a moron. First of all tell me where is democracy in Pakistan? Your leader come in power with rigging and there is no system which can punish him except the public power. If you are not that much dumb you should study the revolution of Iran, or how people of Egypt got free from Husni Mubarak you will understand what change is. Still, If you don't understand than don't reply as I don't want to do argument with a stupid. You are even more stupid than I thought. What could I say you :D. You are going so ahead about telling me about a leader? I know what is a leader. You don't know what is the system of Pakistan that's why you are saying that. Why don't you raise your voice for yourself and asians in US. As I remember what exactly happened with you guys after 9/11. You guys are still being treated as second citizen and telling us about our rights? Actually you are a fool who is still mentioning his foolish opinions without having knowledge about ground realities.
 
Last edited:
You still didn't got the point. Yeah, Military rule is bad in countries but our so called democratic rule is much worst than military rule. Let us start from shortage of electricity. Let's say musharraf didn't imposed marshal law and NS was in power do you think that he would try to fulfill the shortage of electricity at that time? The simple answer is no. N league didn't tried to fulfill the shortage of electricity from 2008-2013 when they power in power in Punjab why? Still now they aren't trying to fulfill the shortage of electricity they are just making big commission from the projects. The same applies for war on terror situation because N and PPP are also slaves of america. Even PPP got power for 5 years and they didn't full the shortage of electricity. All 3 are equal in this mater. So how you and I are claiming that musharraf or ppp or n league government was better.


Let me clarify why I am saying that musharraf government was better.

The Literacy rate was much better in his reign compare to today.
The Health facilities was much better compare to now.
The corruption ratio was very low compare to now.
The inflation rate was low compare to now.
The Exports and our GDP was growing better than now.
All the basic services of life was better in musharraf reign compare to now so how still you can say N league or PPP is better?

You know what? Forget it. You win.

Musharraf was the best leader we've ever had and he should reign until the end times, all civilian governance should be dismantled immediately and make way for him.
 
You know what? Forget it. You win.

Musharraf was the best leader we've ever had and he should reign until the end times, all civilian governance should be dismantled immediately and make way for him.

My points are valid. I don't say Musharraf was the best I say he was comparatively better than NS and AZ. My vote for now is only for IK not for Musharraf. I agree with you that Musharraf did lots of mistakes but still he is better than NS and AZ that's my simple point.
 
My points are valid. I don't say Musharraf was the best I say he was comparatively better than NS and AZ. My vote for now is only for IK not for Musharraf. I agree with you that Musharraf did lots of mistakes but still he is better than NS and AZ that's my simple point.

Okay friend, I respect your opinions. But you still haven't understood the point I was trying to hit home. I'm glad you chose democracy over military rule, IK and PTI are a different story and I won't debate them here.

The sad day when such thinking will prevail is not too far off. It is already making inroads towards becoming a majority.

These are just standard trends.

It's a repeating cycle throughout our history. Poor civilian governance, military takeover, temporary and false stability from military takeover and unsustainable prosperity which sets us up to fall twice as hard when it ends. When the military leaves, in comes an inexperienced and infant civilian system that is burdened with somehow resuming that unsustainable prosperity, it fails. Poor governance, back to square one, people start to think that the democratic system is to blame and that military rule is preferable, despite the fact that the military rule caused a weakened system in the first place. In comes a dictator once more to save the day and provides some prosperity until he is eventually made to give way to a yet more dysfunctional and juvenile system.

These cycles repeat themselves. Here's praying, this time round we break free of this cycle. In this sense, the war in our country has been somewhat of a blessing, I have to say blessing carefully because of all the needless suffering too, but it can be seen as a blessing for putting some Pakistanis out of their self induced coma.
 
Okay friend, I respect your opinions. But you still haven't understood the point I was trying to hit home. I'm glad you chose democracy over military rule, IK and PTI are a different story and I won't debate them here.


I did deeply understood your point that Musharraf was responsible for Terrorism, Shortage of electricity etc but what I say is if there would be PML n or PPP at musharraf time they would do the worst compared to Musharraf because we can see their governance from 2008-13 and from 2013-14. If we aside these things the basic things required for common man life was much better in musharraf reign compared to today. I do respect your points and I do support democracy. I will vote for PTI for real democracy in Pakistan.
 
.........
These are just standard trends.

It's a repeating cycle throughout our history. Poor civilian governance, military takeover, temporary and false stability from military takeover and unsustainable prosperity which sets us up to fall twice as hard when it ends. When the military leaves, in comes an inexperienced and infant civilian system that is burdened with somehow resuming that unsustainable prosperity, it fails. Poor governance, back to square one, people start to think that the democratic system is to blame and that military rule is preferable, despite the fact that the military rule caused a weakened system in the first place. In comes a dictator once more to save the day and provides some prosperity until he is eventually made to give way to a yet more dysfunctional and juvenile system.

These cycles repeat themselves. Here's praying, this time round we break free of this cycle. In this sense, the war in our country has been somewhat of a blessing, I have to say blessing carefully because of all the needless suffering too, but it can be seen as a blessing for putting some Pakistanis out of their self induced coma.

I join you in prayers that perhaps this time around it will be different to break this cycle, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Hey, that is what prayers are for, right? :D
 
I did deeply understood your point that Musharraf was responsible for Terrorism, Shortage of electricity etc but what I say is if there would be PML n or PPP at musharraf time they would do the worst compared to Musharraf because we can see their governance from 2008-13 and from 2013-14. If we aside these things the basic things required for common man life was much better in musharraf reign compared to today. I do respect your points and I do support democracy. I will vote for PTI for real democracy in Pakistan.

Please consider this, last point. When a you plant a tree and don't give it enough time to blossom, when all you want is the fruits it will bear, do you uproot it before it can blossom? Democracy is fragile and it requires decades of poor governance, struggle, purification, filtering out, it's an ongoing process.

The democracies of the west went through centuries of poor governance and later still imperfect governance, they got to where they are by sticking to something and persevering. We take one taste of hardship and turn full circle. The way for Pakistan to progress is for the people to bring it about themselves, no leader will do it for you, you use the democratic system the way it is intended and you will see the benefits.

Vote for whoever you like, just don't vote in some bloody revolution or vote in people that will take the very right of vote away from you again.
 
Please consider this, last point. When a you plant a tree and don't give it enough time to blossom, when all you want is the fruits it will bear, do you uproot it before it can blossom? Democracy is fragile and it requires decades of poor governance, struggle, purification, filtering out, it's an ongoing process.

The democracies of the west went through centuries of poor governance and later still imperfect governance, they got to where they are by sticking to something and persevering. We take one taste of hardship and turn full circle. The way for Pakistan to progress is for the people to bring it about themselves, no leader will do it for you, you use the democratic system the way it is intended and you will see the benefits.

Vote for whoever you like, just don't vote in some bloody revolution or vote in people that will take the very right of vote away from you again.

I do understand your point and I am supporting democracy but not a fake democracy like the present one. I support IK for a real democracy in Pakistan. Today, I don't support a military rule and I wasn't supporting in in 1999. I was just saying that a dictatorship did better governance than a fake democracy.
 
Please consider this, last point. When a you plant a tree and don't give it enough time to blossom, when all you want is the fruits it will bear, do you uproot it before it can blossom? Democracy is fragile and it requires decades of poor governance, struggle, purification, filtering out, it's an ongoing process.

The democracies of the west went through centuries of poor governance and later still imperfect governance, they got to where they are by sticking to something and persevering. We take one taste of hardship and turn full circle. The way for Pakistan to progress is for the people to bring it about themselves, no leader will do it for you, you use the democratic system the way it is intended and you will see the benefits.

Vote for whoever you like, just don't vote in some bloody revolution or vote in people that will take the very right of vote away from you again.

I'd be fertilizing some plot of land somewhere from 6 feet under before the fruits are born. o_O
 
Join politics. You can help teach the nation a lesson they will never forget. Bag the fruits and the plot of land.

No, I'd much rather complain endlessly about the ills that befall Pakistan before I pack my bags for some greener pasture elsewhere ! :ashamed:

Preferably in Wales on a farm with a nice English lass and three Armstrong Jrs. ! :D

Jokes aside; I think that change is happening. I know that people don't hold a very favorable view of IK and PTI. I don't agree with his politics either but if they've managed to achieve one thing - Its to slap people out of their endless stupor; the average Pakistani is right now more politically aware and if not that than at least more politically interested than hes ever been in this country's existence.

And that is an encouraging thought because these parties now have to perform here and there no matter how insignificant they maybe just be relevant 'cause no one's traditional vote-banks are secure and with these baby steps the country would probably crawl forward as even greater political awareness and frustration gives further impetus.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom