I rode China's superfast bullet train that could go from New York to Chicago in 4.5 hours — and it s

[Daniel808]

Low population density doesn't mean you don't need to upgrade your Dying old Infrastructure, in this case High Speed Rail (HST).

China maybe have Total population almost 1.4 Billion Manpower, but you need to remember.
Western area of Heihe-Tengchong Line, only have 6% of population. That's mean only 85 million people.

But that doesn't mean China don't need to Upgrade their Infrastructure in Western Area, in this case High Speed Rail.
For example, Lanzhou - Urumqi High Speed Rail Network

Lanzhou - Urumqi High Speed Rail Network

Low population density is not a reason to keep your dying old infrastructure keep alive, and don't upgrade it
That's only a Ridiculous excuses for low IQ people.
But Chinese have higher IQ, so you cannot fool Chinese members

It's the same reason like Indian horde in here always say, It doesn't matter how poor their life, how dirty their living environment, how unhygienic their food as long as they have Supa powa Democrazy, India is much much better than other country


@TaiShang @GS Zhou @Cybernetics @LKJ86 and many others

85m people is still the size of Germany, and the lines are funded by the central government.

You talk population density before, then you need to bring 2 aspect there.
Population and size area.

85 million yes it's the same size of Germany population, but since when the Western Area of Heihe-Tengchong Line in China is the as large as Germany???
you mean, Nazi germany in their peak?

China's Western Area of Development is much much bigger than Germany, and for sure this area population density is much lower.

But Low population density doesn't prevent China to upgrade their infrastructure, in this case building a massive High Speed Railway Network int that area (Western China Area)

Again, I think you needed your eyes and head check.

WHERE EXACTLY DID I SAY UNITED STATES DID NOT MAINTAIN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE DUE TO LOW POPULATION DENSITY?

I said low density is the reason American do not need High Speed Rail, High Speed Rail is not the same as old infrastructure, which include subway, highway, A-Road, B-Road, port and etc, which is a consensus here in this topic agreed by multiple member across different nations. I also said both Air and Ground infrastructure needed upgrade, and I also discuss why US did not upgrade their infrastructure except for a few with my exchange with @Oscar above.

Why you so emotional with that Big Red typing?
I don't bring Super South Vietnam here, so please calm down.

My friend have a research about Emotional instability with IQ level, but that's another disscussion for another time. Not relevan to bring it here.

Okay back to topic

In this case (this thread) what I mean about not upgrading your infrastructure is not building High Speed Railway Network (HST)

And since when, because you have low population density that's mean you don't need High Speed Railway Network?

Western China have Low population density, but that doesn't mean they don't upgrade their infrastructure there, in this case building a High Speed Rail Network.

For example, Lanzhou-Xinjiang High Speed Railway Network.
That's in the Western China, who have Low Population Density.


Like I said before,
Low population density is not a reason to not have High Speed Railway Network. That's only a ridiculous excuse.

It's like Indian members in here say, they don't need any good living condition, healthy and hygienic food, good Infrastructure, Clean government, as long as they have Democrazy everything is Fine and good.

a Ridiculous excuses for ridiculous people.


Look at this drama, again
@AndrewJin @GS Zhou @Cybernetics @Han Patriot

 

[Mista]

I'm in DongGuan.
I used to think the prices should be exact the same, it turns out to be not.
Learn that the prices may vary (not too much) base on where the store is, which city / the location..... take 3 cities nearby as an example:

1. Dongguan, my location: 20.5 RMB = 3.23 USD
2. ShenZhen, 40km from here, down town, also: 20.5 RMB = 3.23 USD
3. Guangzhou (Canton), Canton tower store: 22.0 RMB = 3.47 USD
View attachment 474270

The price is low, and it seems never change (both KFC and McDonald's). If I recall correctly, it should have been almost the same price back in 10 years ago. It's almost cheaper than chinese fast food now.

10 years ago, a simple chowmein costed 3.5-5.0 RMB, now it costs 8-10 RMB (last year, I ordered a chowmei in a small store. When I handed a 5 yuan paper to the storekeeper to pay, he looks puzzled, and said it costed 10. My face flushed and said I thought it's 5. He asked "when it was the last time you buy a chowmein?" - "9 years ago, I guess" - "I see"!).

Can I call KFC / McRonald's "conscientious" for being that? .. haha...

I remember when I was in Chengdu and I wanted to order a plate of chicken rice in the mall, but the price was 32 RMB. I was shocked at how expensive it is.

 

[saltyashell]

Too much emotional attachment to a fast train here. Every country has different needs and economic structures. The Chinese are unique in that land acquisition is not a problem for them for railways or roads since it's all owned by the government. Land acquisition is the single biggest bugbear for any large infrastructure project. So getting the land cheaply/free and ON TIME increases the viability of any project. The profitable lines in China can subsidize the non profitable lines.But claiming that direct profitability is not important is far-fetched , as in a semi developed country like China , reliance on future developments in sparsely populated areas , as reason for massive investments is not believable.
Bottom line is that China has the money , the technology and the land and can expand it's HSR at a fast pace. While USA does not have a overbearing need for HS trains as currently it's cheaper to travel by plane.And financially it's unviable to make investments with no assured returns.

 

[jhungary]

Why you so emotional with that Big Red typing?
I don't bring Super South Vietnam here, so please calm down.

My friend have a research about Emotional instability with IQ level, but that's another discussion for another time. Not relevant to bring it here.

lol, talk about EQ level when you lot obsessive with the IQ number or what not, I don't mind you call me whatever, but you have no point then, you have no point. Don't mud around with IQ/EQ level. Because talking about it constantly is a sign of insecurity of the stuff you keep talking about. Hence, usually people who lack IQ/EQ level would constantly talk about it.​

by the way, bold red (not big red) mean emphasis, it's to bring you directly into the point and contrasting the other, if you want to call emphasising is low EQ, then...….

Okay back to topic

In this case (this thread) what I mean about not upgrading your infrastructure is not building High Speed Railway Network (HST)

And since when, because you have low population density that's mean you don't need High Speed Railway Network?

Western China have Low population density, but that doesn't mean they don't upgrade their infrastructure there, in this case building a High Speed Rail Network.

For example, Lanzhou-Xinjiang High Speed Railway Network.
That's in the Western China, who have Low Population Density.

I wonder why you lot never even read other people post seriously before replying.

HSR ONLY fiscal feasible with HIGH POPULATION DENSITY AND (VERY IMPORTANTLY) LOW OPERATION COST. US offer neither.

Western China indeed have low population density compare to rest of China, but first of all, most low density in China still have between 800k to 1 million mark, which is Tier 1 city level in US) which still by no mean low population if you compare to the United States AND at the same time, their infrastructure cost is low, land price is low, overhead is low. How much the land price in Western China compare to Mid-Western United States?

Problem is, the different between Western China is low density US city is that even major US city (where land price would be primo) such as state capital would still be low density, how do you justify building a HSR between Kansas City, MO to Denver, CO (Both major city within their state) when you are looking at around US$3000 per sq ft development cost with both city have a combine population of not more than 1.5 millions population and a distant of 900km?

And that is the Mid-Western case, not at all anywhere near the coast, where the land price and infrastructure price is Primo. Try San Diego, CA to San Francisco, CA, how would you justify the cost to build or upgrade the existing 800 km rail corridor when you are looking at the expansion of track at around $7000-$10000 per sq ft with a population that served no more than 2.5 millions?

It's quite stupid to be honestly to compare low density city in China and low density city in the US, Lanzhou have a population of 3.6 millions it would be 2nd biggest city in the US, Xinjiang even have 21 millions population (more than top 8 US cities put together). And you try to compare two US low density city that wouldn't have more than 2 millions population combine? And how much for a single sq ft cost to develop in city like Lanzhou and Xinjiang?

Again, what work in China does not mean they work anywhere else. Different country have a different situation, you cannot use what work in China then it must have worked in the US. maybe the US a 100 years ago when land cost is about a nickel per sq ft? Most certainly not at current form.

 

[Cybernetics]

Too much emotional attachment to a fast train here. Every country has different needs and economic structures. The Chinese are unique in that land acquisition is not a problem for them for railways or roads since it's all owned by the government. Land acquisition is the single biggest bugbear for any large infrastructure project. So getting the land cheaply/free and ON TIME increases the viability of any project. The profitable lines in China can subsidize the non profitable lines.But claiming that direct profitability is not important is far-fetched , as in a semi developed country like China , reliance on future developments in sparsely populated areas , as reason for massive investments is not believable.
Bottom line is that China has the money , the technology and the land and can expand it's HSR at a fast pace. While USA does not have a overbearing need for HS trains as currently it's cheaper to travel by plane.And financially it's unviable to make investments with no assured returns.

Land acquisition is also expensive in China, it is by no means free or near free, on time may be true (except 1st tier cities). Even if you think the government owns it, they still pay a large sum to those living on it. That is why it opts to build much of its tracks on viaducts (reduces land needed for acquisition) rather than a traditional embankment foundation. You might hear in Western news that Chinese are against land acquisition, maybe some are possibly due to shady real estate developers or stubbornness but vast majority are envious of those who got their land acquired. Many farmers got rich overnight through land acquisition, its a rural man's ticket to wealth. Exact compensation structure may vary. They exploit the compensation around land acquisition by building (sometimes shabby) multi story houses or even worthless structures, since they have to be compensated based on the floor area and other forms of value not the market value. Some get multiple new houses and apartments in the city from this, since the government can't just make them go homeless without giving them the ability to live normally. The residence are resettled and receive assets that are worth something on the market, these assets enable many to start businesses or become land lords. Personally I never saw land acquisition as a bad thing until Western media started talking about it, which doesn't paint the overall picture, at least not how I saw it.

For example during the mining boom, I have seen shrewd farmers build large housing structures (larger than what even multiple families would need) near the site to be acquired. The mining company pays them compensation based on floor area, then buy real estate in 2nd-3rd tier cities. Some even get compensated for their purposely placed ancestral graves and court yard walls they just built. Then they build another large "residential" structure right beside the just acquired land in anticipation of expansion. The company acquires the land and compensates. By this point the farmer would have owned a few properties in the city and live comfortably as a land lord, ambitious ones start their own businesses.

 

[Daniel808]

lol, talk about EQ level when you lot obsessive with the IQ number or what not, I don't mind you call me whatever, but you have no point then, you have no point. Don't mud around with IQ/EQ level. Because talking about it constantly is a sign of insecurity of the stuff you keep talking about. Hence, usually people who lack IQ/EQ level would constantly talk about it.​

by the way, bold red (not big red) mean emphasis, it's to bring you directly into the point and contrasting the other, if you want to call emphasising is low EQ, then...….



I wonder why you lot never even read other people post seriously before replying.

HSR ONLY fiscal feasible with HIGH POPULATION DENSITY AND (VERY IMPORTANTLY) LOW OPERATION COST. US offer neither.

Western China indeed have low population density compare to rest of China, but first of all, most low density in China still have between 800k to 1 million mark, which is Tier 1 city level in US) which still by no mean low population if you compare to the United States AND at the same time, their infrastructure cost is low, land price is low, overhead is low. How much the land price in Western China compare to Mid-Western United States?

Problem is, the different between Western China is low density US city is that even major US city (where land price would be primo) such as state capital would still be low density, how do you justify building a HSR between Kansas City, MO to Denver, CO (Both major city within their state) when you are looking at around US$3000 per sq ft development cost with both city have a combine population of not more than 1.5 millions population and a distant of 900km?

And that is the Mid-Western case, not at all anywhere near the coast, where the land price and infrastructure price is Primo. Try San Diego, CA to San Francisco, CA, how would you justify the cost to build or upgrade the existing 800 km rail corridor when you are looking at the expansion of track at around $7000-$10000 per sq ft with a population that served no more than 2.5 millions?

It's quite stupid to be honestly to compare low density city in China and low density city in the US, Lanzhou have a population of 3.6 millions it would be 2nd biggest city in the US, Xinjiang even have 21 millions population (more than top 8 US cities put together). And you try to compare two US low density city that wouldn't have more than 2 millions population combine? And how much for a single sq ft cost to develop in city like Lanzhou and Xinjiang?

Again, what work in China does not mean they work anywhere else. Different country have a different situation, you cannot use what work in China then it must have worked in the US. maybe the US a 100 years ago when land cost is about a nickel per sq ft? Most certainly not at current form.

Let's talk about relation between emotional instability with IQ level in another thread for another time.

Not here, and make this good thread out off topic.


Again, don't be so emotional with big red bold capital word you type, We don't talk about Super south vietnam here.
Be cool ! Don't act childish here !


Who say US need to build HSR network across Rocky mountain, midwest area??
I never say about that.


Some region in US have Higher population density than Western China Region.
Like South-east US, or along Eastern seaboard.
They have higher population density than Western China Area.

But america don't have any High Speed Railway Network in that region, meanwhile Western China Area who have lower population than that region have massif High Speed Railway Network.


Again ridiculous excuses, for ridiculous person.

You cannot fool Chinese members, my little south vietnam friend. sorry

Land acquisition is also expensive in China, it is by no means free or near free, on time may be true (except 1st tier cities). Even if you think the government owns it, they still pay a large sum to those living on it. That is why it opts to build much of its tracks on viaducts (reduces land needed for acquisition) rather than a traditional embankment foundation. You might hear in Western news that Chinese are against land acquisition, maybe some are possibly due to shady real estate developers or stubbornness but vast majority are envious of those who got their land acquired. Many farmers got rich overnight through land acquisition, its a rural man's ticket to wealth. Exact compensation structure may vary. They exploit the compensation around land acquisition by building (sometimes shabby) multi story houses or even worthless structures, since they have to be compensated based on the floor area and other forms of value not the market value. Some get multiple new houses and apartments in the city from this, since the government can't just make them go homeless without giving them the ability to live normally. The residence are resettled and receive assets that are worth something on the market, these assets enable many to start businesses or become land lords. Personally I never saw land acquisition as a bad thing until Western media started talking about it, which doesn't paint the overall picture, at least not how I saw it.

For example during the mining boom, I have seen shrewd farmers build large housing structures (larger than what even multiple families would need) near the site to be acquired. The mining company pays them compensation based on floor area, then buy real estate in 2nd-3rd tier cities. Some even get compensated for their purposely placed ancestral graves and court yard walls they just built. Then they build another large "residential" structure right beside the just acquired land in anticipation of expansion. The company acquires the land and compensates. By this point the farmer would have owned a few properties in the city and live comfortably as a land lord, ambitious ones start their own businesses.

Well said, my friend @Cybernetics
Directly kill baseless opinion from our south vietnam friend

 

[TaiShang]

Having ridden the HSR in china, i would say its nice but the finances side has to be carefully examined.
Except for the shanghai beijing route , all other chinese HSR lines are running in operational loss. The chinese government is basically subsidising the HSR travel for its passengers and for how long can this continue ?
Either the prices will have to be raised or the speeds reduced. Higher speeds equals to more energy consumption.
I doubt the US government or any US company will agree to a loss making venture , since this is a recurring expense.
And i am reffering to operating profit , recovering investment costs is not even in the picture.

Looks like you are extremely well-informed.

***

China Railway Corp announces record 2017 results
CGTN
2018-05-06

China Railway Corporation (CRC), the state-owned high-speed railroad operator, reported a net profit of about 1.8 billion yuan (283 million US dollars) in 2017, a five-year high, up 69 percent year-on-year.

The company's revenue is on a 10-figure pace for the first time, standing at one trillion yuan (160 billion US dollars) last year, up 11.9 percent year-on-year.

In 2017, CRC registered a pre-tax profit of 12.468 billion yuan, turning around the losses of 2016 when the company had a pre-tax profit of -1.173 billion yuan.

CRC was able to report a net profit in 2016 mainly because of an annual government subsidy to support public transportation paid to the company.

The company also saw slower debt growth in 2017. An additional debt of 272 billion yuan was registered, while that was 620 billion yuan in 2016.

CRC saw 17.11 percent year-on-year growth in transportation revenue to 694.3 billion yuan in 2017, the second annual growth since the company was incorporated in 2013 after the railway operation business was split from the previous Ministry of Railway.

Revenue from passenger transportation totaled 319.7 billion yuan, rising 13.5 percent year-on-year, while freight transportation revenue increased by 23.6 percent from a year before to 266.2 billion yuan, according to the annual report.

According to the Q1 2018 report, CRC had a revenue of 179 billion yuan in the first three months, up 5.7 percent year-on-year. Passenger transportation income stood out as the biggest contributor. The company invested about 92 billion yuan in fixed-asset investment in Q1, about 12.6 percent of its annual FAI target.

Having ridden the HSR in china, i would say its nice but the finances side has to be carefully examined.
Except for the shanghai beijing route , all other chinese HSR lines are running in operational loss. The chinese government is basically subsidising the HSR travel for its passengers and for how long can this continue ?
Either the prices will have to be raised or the speeds reduced. Higher speeds equals to more energy consumption.
I doubt the US government or any US company will agree to a loss making venture , since this is a recurring expense.
And i am reffering to operating profit , recovering investment costs is not even in the picture.

Looks like you are extremely well-informed.

***

China Railway Corp announces record 2017 results
CGTN
2018-05-06

China Railway Corporation (CRC), the state-owned high-speed railroad operator, reported a net profit of about 1.8 billion yuan (283 million US dollars) in 2017, a five-year high, up 69 percent year-on-year.

The company's revenue is on a 10-figure pace for the first time, standing at one trillion yuan (160 billion US dollars) last year, up 11.9 percent year-on-year.

In 2017, CRC registered a pre-tax profit of 12.468 billion yuan, turning around the losses of 2016 when the company had a pre-tax profit of -1.173 billion yuan.

CRC was able to report a net profit in 2016 mainly because of an annual government subsidy to support public transportation paid to the company.

The company also saw slower debt growth in 2017. An additional debt of 272 billion yuan was registered, while that was 620 billion yuan in 2016.

CRC saw 17.11 percent year-on-year growth in transportation revenue to 694.3 billion yuan in 2017, the second annual growth since the company was incorporated in 2013 after the railway operation business was split from the previous Ministry of Railway.

Revenue from passenger transportation totaled 319.7 billion yuan, rising 13.5 percent year-on-year, while freight transportation revenue increased by 23.6 percent from a year before to 266.2 billion yuan, according to the annual report.

According to the Q1 2018 report, CRC had a revenue of 179 billion yuan in the first three months, up 5.7 percent year-on-year. Passenger transportation income stood out as the biggest contributor. The company invested about 92 billion yuan in fixed-asset investment in Q1, about 12.6 percent of its annual FAI target.

 

[jhungary]

Let's talk about relation between emotional instability with IQ level in another thread for another time.

Not here, and make this good thread out off topic.


Again, don't be so emotional with big red bold capital word you type, We don't talk about Super south vietnam here.
Be cool ! Don't act childish here !

Well, you started this, so, maybe you should talk to yourself over it. Maybe Super INDON style? I don't care

And it's stupid to think raising one "allegedly" nationality is an insult. I never understand what's up with these especially with non Chinese wannabe like you.

Who say US need to build HSR network across Rocky mountain, midwest area??
I never say about that.


Some region in US have Higher population density than Western China Region.
Like South-east US, or along Eastern seaboard.
They have higher population density than Western China Area.

First of all, Rocky is in "PACIFIC NORTHWEST" not mid west. The mid west example I raise is actually from the foot of the rocky and KC is next to Mississippi River, both are due west of the Rocky. And SF to SD is both west of Rocky. Maybe you once again know shit about America and pretend to be a big boss? Indon ?

Also, I have already go over the top 10 US city and the availibilty to build HSR over it, and it's not possible as all top 10 city would span thru over 10,000 KM and across the US with only severing 20 millions population. Read them here, I am not going to write that again.

OMG, you are really dumb.

Population density and cost of running, this is the second time...…..

New York City and Los Angeles have a 2500 mile gap in between, that's almost 4000 KM, with less than 12 millions population (8 if you just count NY Metro, and not count greater LA area) in between, are you suggesting any sort of new rail project is profitable to raise and build between LA and NYC? The longest HSR in China is Beijing to Hong Kong, which run a little over 2200 km (about 1600 mile) and Beijing alone have a population 24 millions.

Let me also give you a hint. In term of population, the following is the top 10 US City

1.) NYC - 8.6 millions (density of 28491/sq mile)
2.) Los Angeles - 3.9 millions (density of 8483.2/sq mile)
3.) Chicago - 2.7 millions (density of 11898.29/sq mile)
4.) Huston - 2.3 millions (density of 3660/sq mile)
5.) Phoenix - 1.6 millions (density of 3119.8/sq mile)
6.) Philadelphia - 1.5 millions (density of 11685.02/sq mile)
7.) San Antonia - 1.49 millions (density of 3240/sq mile)
8.) San Diego - 1.40 millions (density of 4325/sq mile)
9.) Dallas - 1.31 millions (density of 3876/sq mile)
10.) San Jose - 1.01 millions (density of 5776/sq mile)

Just to connect all these city together would have a train network of 10852 km, from east to west in a crow fly, longer if you have to go around the rocky. And with all 10 destination have roughly a total population of 25.3 millions, Beijing Along have 24 millions, any route bearing from Beijing to any single destination would earn more profit than connecting all top 10 populated city in the US. The rest of US city is negligible.

Only stupid would say HSR is profitable in the US, railway from a long time is a sort of pleasure travel. Most American city rely on Air hub to connect between cities. Because you don't need any infrastructure beside an airport to make the connection.

Funny how you ask me which part of US I am from, but not knowing how sparsely dense US city is before opening your mouth, typical dumb-dumb action

But america don't have any High Speed Railway Network in that region, meanwhile Western China Area who have lower population than that region have massif High Speed Railway Network.


Again ridiculous excuses, for ridiculous person.

You cannot fool Chinese members, my little south vietnam friend. sorry

The only region dense enough to build HSR in the US already have a HSR line, read the OP article again. New England Region is the only area US suitable and profitable to earn enough money to sustain the operation, However, would it still be justify to upgrade to Chinese level? No.

At the current form Acela Express only reach top speed in a 37 mile stretch of North Eastern Expressway, otherwise it ran thru all the old railway hubs and limited from 15 to 70 mph some still using Civil War era switch/signal facilities, any upgrade even with that area is not recommended, I mean, try to acquire land in places like New York City, Washington DC, Baltimore, Massachusetts? Equipment wise would already be $5.2 billions just to rebuild the existing track, signal box and track control according to Amtrak. That won't not be justify serving just a little over 20 millions passenger and merely 580 million per year profits. With a farebox recovery rate of 90%?

Try Harder, INDON

 

[Daniel808]

Well, you started this, so, maybe you should talk to yourself over it. Maybe Super INDON style? I don't care

And it's stupid to think raising one "allegedly" nationality is an insult. I never understand what's up with these especially with non Chinese wannabe like you.





First of all, Rocky is in "PACIFIC NORTHWEST" not mid west. The mid west example I raise is actually from the foot of the rocky and KC is next to Mississippi River, both are due west of the Rocky. And SF to SD is both west of Rocky. Maybe you once again know shit about America and pretend to be a big boss? Indon ?

Also, I have already go over the top 10 US city and the availibilty to build HSR over it, and it's not possible as all top 10 city would span thru over 10,000 KM and across the US with only severing 20 millions population. Read them here, I am not going to write that again.

​

The only region dense enough to build HSR in the US already have a HSR line, read the OP article again. New England Region is the only area US suitable and profitable to earn enough money to sustain the operation, However, would it still be justify to upgrade to Chinese level? No.

At the current form Acela Express only reach top speed in a 37 mile stretch of North Eastern Expressway, otherwise it ran thru all the old railway hubs and limited from 15 to 70 mph some still using Civil War era switch/signal facilities, any upgrade even with that area is not recommended, I mean, try to acquire land in places like New York City, Washington DC, Baltimore, Massachusetts? Equipment wise would already be $5.2 billions just to rebuild the existing track, signal box and track control according to Amtrak. That won't not be justify serving just a little over 20 millions passenger and merely 580 million per year profits. With a farebox recovery rate of 90%?

Try Harder, INDON

Like I said, you really have Emotional stability problem.
Please, go to doctor for your own good.

If in internet you cannot control your own emotion, I wonder how temperament are you in real life.

I can go on and go on to kill your baseless opinion, it's very easy.
But enough for me to discuss with people who cannot control his own emotion.
This is Worthless. Unhealthy discussion


And why you insult me with 'indon'
I never insult you as vietcong.



Mods Please take care this insult from MR.PROFESSIONAL @Slav Defence @waz @Horus @WebMaster
Really really Professional

 

[jhungary]

Like I said, you really have Emotional stability problem.
Please, go to doctor for your own good.

If in internet you cannot control your own emotion, I wonder how temperamen are you in real life.

I can go on and go on to kill your baseless opinion, it's very easy.
But it's enough for me to discuss with people who cannot control his own emotion.
Worthless


Abd why you insult me with 'indon'
I never insult you as vietcong.

Mods Please take care this insult from MR.PROFESSIONAL @waz @Horus @Slav Defence
Really really Professional

So when you use "bolded" front, it is stressing a point. When I use red bolded front, suddenly I was losing my cool? LOL

Indon is the Spanish word for "Indian" or "Native". It come from the word indo + n, same way a Chinese is called "Chino" in Spanish, I don't ever see you as a Chinese. When I see you that happily called me a "South Vietnamese", don't start a nationality calling game when you are not up for it?

Or maybe you try to escape that you failed to address all my other point rather than deflect the word choice I use? But hey, that's a given. But yeah, WHAT A GREAT EQ EH?? LOL

 

[seesonic]

Something is wrong with you. Bye

Are you saying India is a fake democracy?

 

[beijingwalker]

What develops the fastest is actually the subways all over China ,not HSR.