All out to defame our governement
-
Originally posted by Gazelle:
G : yes, doesnt mean anything, please back it up!!
just compare the billions of dollars govt would be earning versus next to nothing for citizens.
G : Casino is probably the most profitable,
by your own admission, you support the statement "the whole objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes."
sustainable and least risk component of the whole IR project, hence if the government is only keen on collecting gaming tax revenue I donÂ’t see why you even question its sustainability.
profitable as it may be, which gambling company would undertake the project earning 0.00001% of the profits.
And yes, I do have the balls, and they are both functioning very well,.
but your balls are misrepresented. they appear much smaller than they normally are.
G : Plenty, the Prince of Oman, Saudi, Kuwait, Brunei, etc. However thats beside the point,
so democratic singapore is comparable to kingdoms like oman, saudi, kuwait and brunei ... so who's our king by the way?
could you please give us an example of a smart government that is doing what your claim should be done.
that which doesn't exist could be an ideal awaiting realisation
G : you are making yourself look like a mad dog trying to defend your master atobe
no, but i could be talking to a cheap bit-ch resorting to animal antics
G: It is not you are not interested, it is because you are incapable, and stop arguing like a spoilt child, that is very childish!!
the perfect description of yourself. -
I gave my NRIC - got nothing to hide about what I said. It didn't look good FOR THEM in front of the whole forum but after I did that, alot of people started speaking up against the MP. Might have not been the wisest thing to do but heck I was a teenager back then.Originally posted by maurizio13:You gave them your NRIC number?
For what?
Tell them to go fly kite or have tea with Gazelle.
I also asked the MP (sarcastically) if he wanted my address as well. Man he was pissed off to the point he actually raised his voice to say NO.
It was good that it happened because it was my first step to being an independent thinker , not a follower. That was also the start of what made me think maybe Singapore is not the place I should be in. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
G : The amount of investment one is willing to invest in the MICE, Hotels and F&B outlet is very dependent on the risk level of the project and the reason why LV Sand and Genting is willing to take such a risk is because of the casino license. Hence it is wrong to say that with or without the casino license Sheldon Adelson will still go ahead with the investment.
this is a total mirepresentation of what i said. if the reason why MICE activities fluorish is singapore's efficiency, safety, cleanliness, well connectedness, then MICE will fluorish regardless of $5 billion casino or not. hence $5 billion casino is meant for gambling profits.
G : You are very mistaken and I am not even surprise. Honestly I donÂ’t see what exactly are you driving at when you are trying to question the viability of Singapore hosting F1. IMO you are very childish.
i am not questioning the viability of F1 in Singapore. I am questioning the naive logic of concluding that someone else's profitable business must certainly be profitable for us.
G : You have already asked this once, donÂ’t have to repeat because you will embarrass atobe twice.
if you can't prove atobe said those words, you are slandering him.
G : There are statistic to support that the host nation or city will reap in about S$100 to 150m of tourism revenue during the F1 weekend, and that is excluding the ticket sales. I think you should just leave the marketing responsibility to OBS and this team.
can't remember but i think the maintenance cost was estimated to be about $100m more.
G : childish!!
finally, you realise how childish you are
G : Atobe : Considering that the China Formula ONE organiser has a contract with Formula ONE to host the series from 2004 to 2010, and that they have spent about US$3 Billion to build the Formula ONE facilities, and US$20 Million annually to maintain it, and with the gate receipts for 150,000 tickets bringing a revenue of US$36 Million from the 2004 race - it will be brilliant mathematics to find this event to produce any net gain for the Organiser, and China.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=9
i'd read this when i have the time. probably another misrepresentation by you.
G : This is the 3rd time you are asking me the same question.
and no matter how many times i ask, you can't back up your words. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
1) Singaporeans will not benefit from the IRs
SL : the benefit from the IR will largely accrue to the govt
G : The question is not about who will benefit more, it is will IR benefit Singaporeans.
SL : this is the more impt conclusion "the benefit from the IR will largely accrue to the govt"
G : Do you have what it take to support your argument or are you just like the other who is only capable to speculating BS?
SL : yes
G : yes, doesnt mean anything, please back it up!!
SL : just compare the billions of dollars govt would be earning versus next to nothing for citizens.
G : I have proof my point that you are incapable for defending the above statement.
2) the whole objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes.
SL : it is the number one reason, even oxford mushroom agrees
G : If you say so, then why does the government suggest the Venetian LV 30/70 business model and limit the floor area of gaming business in the IR?
SL : various possibilities: anything less enticing would result in less than attractive bids or bids of the wrong kind. the floor area is calculated to be sufficient enough to earn the kind of revenue the govt desires. you go to the sprawling NTUC hypermart in AMK and you'd find a very small but prominent corner selling 4D. you don't need a big space to earn big bucks from gambling.
G : If the government main objective is to collect tax, why should they border if the project is enticing or not? Plus do you know what sort of revenue the government desire?
Comparing a 4D booth to casino is just like comparing a hawker stall to a restaurant. I am wonder if you will have your wedding dinner at hawker center when you get married.
SL : if the project is not enticing enough, it may not be sustainable in the long run, thus ruining collection of taxes in the long run. lots lots. and how much bigger is the restaurant as compared to the hawker stall? you're might be the only person in this world wondering.
G : Casino is probably the most profitable, sustainable and least risk component of the whole IR project, hence if the government is only keen on collecting gaming tax revenue I donÂ’t see why you even question its sustainability.
SL : by your own admission, you support the statement "the whole objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes." profitable as it may be, which gambling company would undertake the project earning 0.00001% of the profits.
G : Stop acting like a child, I have already mentioned above that Singapore is using the Venetian LV business model as a selection criteria for Singapore IR and that majority of the IR revenue will come from non-gaming business. Stop speculating, you donÂ’t seem to even under that fundamental basic of business. Period!!
3) Singapore economy to will become like Monaco because we have F1 SL : in what ways?
G : You ask Atobe
SL : why ask atobe when it is your claim?
G : Atobe “”With the IR and these Up-Market Developments, the Government had declared that Singapore shall be the next Monaco to be a playground for the Rich and Famous”” http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=1
G : You are proven wrong again!
4) The reason why genting won the sentosa IR bid is because of PM Badawi
SL : back up what you're saying
G : Ask Atobe (thatÂ’s his claim)
SL : i quote you "4) The reason why genting won the sentosa IR bid is because of PM Badawi". it is your statement so back it up if you have the balls. don't hide behind the skirt / trousers of atobe.
G : Obviously you are not aware that this a ATOBEÂ’s claim (Go do some reading)
SL : i am aware that you have been twisting other people's words. back up your words if you have balls.
G : Atobe “the reasons that Genting can beat Eigth Wonders for the Sentosa IR, considering the visit made by PM Badawi at a critical moment of the bidding process, which is all too much to be a co-incidence”
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=1
And yes, I do have the balls, and they are both functioning very well,.
SL : but your balls are misrepresented. they appear much smaller than they normally are.
G : You can say all you want, I have already accomplish my objective here and that is to proof you wrong
5) Rich people attracted to singapore is comparable to Singaporeans going to JB to buy cheap grocery and food.
SL : rich people coming to singapore to stay will inflate housing prices here. at least singaporeans going to JB to buy groceries won't stay in JB and cause property price jump.
G : Yup it is different, but in my opinion, you argument is misguided by your interest that property prices in Singapore should remain flat or inline with your personal income growth.
SL : if the argument is right, it is right. the need to keep property prices in check is not a misguided interest but an impt economic variable that any govt smart enough would come to realize
G : Could you tell us which smart government in this world is doing what you claim should be done??
SL : could you tell us which smart government pays itself millions?
G : Plenty, the Prince of Oman, Saudi, Kuwait, Brunei, etc. However thats beside the point, could you please give us an example of a smart government that is doing what your claim should be done.
SL : so democratic singapore is comparable to kingdoms like oman, saudi, kuwait and brunei ... so who's our king by the way? that which doesn't exist could be an ideal awaiting realisation
G : Stop acting like a child, read you own question (could you tell us which smart government pays itself millions?). You are not even capable for giving us an example what make you so sure that what you have suggesting is even achievable? (Just another NATO in the making?)
6) Mcdonald market strategy is to get kids addicted to their burger and fries and they will eat till they die.
SL : what are you trying to imply?
G : Ask Atobe (his claim is that McdonaldÂ’s food are addictive and you will eat till you die)
SL : i can't find that in his postings. are you defaming him?
G : Really? Obviously you have been reading the wrong thread. If you are polite enough to say please I will show it do you. I promise.
SL : please stop defaming atobe
G : you are making yourself look like a mad dog trying to defend your master atobe
SL : no, but i could be talking to a cheap bit-ch resorting to animal antics
G : Should I proof you wrong again so that you can shut up and move on with your childish life?
7) MICE activities in Singapore will not benefit Singaporeans.
SL : but won't it benefit the govt a whole lot more than ordinary singaporeans?
G : The question is not about weather the government will benefit more or less, it if it will benefit Singaporeans. Since you are at it, can I know why you say that the government will benefit more than the private companies that organize MICE, the participants the seal business deal during the MICE, and the companies and Singaporeans that are supporting the MICE activities?
SL : the most impt conclusion for singaporeans to take away is that the govt is the biggest winner in any decision, including the casinos. with or without the casino, the income from MICE and deals are just the same for private companies. hence the new addition - casino, mainly benefits one entity - the govt.
G : Like I said again, the question is not about who is the biggest winning, but will MICE activities benefit Singaporeans.
SL : your question is not of interest to me. the question that is of interest to me is why in every decision, the greatest benefactor has to be the govt
G: It is not you are not interested, it is because you are incapable, and stop arguing like a
spoilt child, that is very childish!!
SL: the perfect description of yourself.
G : I will let your writing above do the talking. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
Tourists in Singapore, will only spend money at Marina Bay Sands and RWS
SL : is the whole idea of marina sands to earn money from tourists buying satay?
G : No, their main income will be coming from the MICE, gaming, F&B and hotel. But what is your point of asking about satay? Confused?
SL : of the items you listed, MICE, F&B and hotel are the same whether or not we have a casino. so those components don't change whether or not we have a casino. hence, the only item left - gaming is the only reason for the casino.
G : They canÂ’t be the same because without a casino license, no companies will be willing to invest more than $5b in this IR project.
SL : if a place is attractive in and of itself for MICE activities, then whether or not we build a $5 billion casino won't change that. hence the purpose of the casino cannot be anything other than gambling dollars.
G : The amount of investment one is willing to invest in the MICE, Hotels and F&B outlet is very dependent on the risk level of the project and the reason why LV Sand and Genting is willing to take such a risk is because of the casino license. Hence it is wrong to say that with or without the casino license Sheldon Adelson will still go ahead with the investment.
SL : this is a total mirepresentation of what i said. if the reason why MICE activities fluorish is singapore's efficiency, safety, cleanliness, well connectedness, then MICE will fluorish regardless of $5 billion casino or not. hence $5 billion casino is meant for gambling profits.
G : Are you suggesting that any tom dic.k and harry with money will be able to develop and succeed with such mega MICE project because of Singapore infrastructure? And Sheldon AdelsonÂ’s connection and experience in MICE business is not the main reason why he was selected to run the Marina IR?
9) Countries like Malaysia and Shanghai are losing money hosting F1
SL : taiwan and hong kong businessmen making money in china doesn't mean we would make money too.
G : I donÂ’t see a logic is what you are trying to say. The question should be, are you sure they are losing money? Or is atobe trying to distort information?
SL : i understand, you have proven to be most stupid that's your question. my take is this: if we can screw up in china when our competitors, taiwan and hong kong can fluorish there, there's no reason to say that malaysia and shanghai make money means we're sure to make money
G : Calling people stupid doesnÂ’t make you smart. And the question here is IS Malaysia and Shanghai losing money hosting F1? And based on your argument, are you suggesting that Singapore should not attempt to do anything unless it has never been done before? Like we should not have SIA because Malaysia already has their own airline? We shouldnÂ’t have universal studio in Singapore because they already have that in Japan and America?
SL : it may not, but it at least explains why you cannot see logic. the fact that they are making money doesn't guarantee that we will make money. if i'm not mistaken, official calculations record losses. no. i am saying that if my neighbour becomes rich selling chicken rice doesn't mean i will get rich selling chicken rice. that's all. since i'm not saying what you say i am saying, i cannot be saying this rubbish that you just spewed.
ladies and gentlemen, here is as yet another attempt by him to twist and misrepresent my words. a perpetual liar, i cannot trust what he claims is said by others. so unless he quotes the exact words used by others, he is lying and defaming the rest.
G : You are very mistaken and I am not even surprise. Honestly I donÂ’t see what exactly are you driving at when you are trying to question the viability of Singapore hosting F1. IMO you are very childish.
SL: i am not questioning the viability of F1 in Singapore. I am questioning the naive logic of concluding that someone else's profitable business must certainly be profitable for us.
G: I think you are making up the above statement without any facts and only childish people like you are capable of doing that.
10) there were multiple PM Badawi visits to Singapore before and after the Sentosa IR announcement.
SL : PM Lee made a personal visit to PM Thatsin just before the signing of the Shincorp deal.
G : PM Lee visit to Thailand as got nothing to do with PM BadawiÂ’s visit to Singapore. Obviously you are not aware of what we are talking about, because you should ask yourself this question, (Did PM Badawi visited Singapore in 2006?) before jumping into conclusion that he did. (Example of blind leading the blind??)
SL : PM Lee's meeting with Thaksin immediately before the Shin Corp deal is a good example of the possibility of state involvement in the Shin Corp fiasco.
G : I only need you to comment if the is indeed a PM Badawi visit to Singapore to influence Singapore government to award the Sentosa IR deal to Genting. (nothing to do with our minister visiting the world)
SL : i need you to show me the exact statement that suggests this and not some concoction of yours.
G : You have already asked this once, donÂ’t have to repeat because you will embarrass atobe twice.
SL: if you can't prove atobe said those words, you are slandering him.
G : Are you trying to play that childish word for word game with me? -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
12) Chinese cant afford to attend F1 race in Shanghai
SL : so?
G : Your question should not be so, it should be are you sure they canÂ’t afford?
SL : my question is still - so? so what if they can or cannot afford?
G : If they can afford, the F1 project will make sense, if they cant it wont.
SL : jumping to conclusions. the fact that F1 makes money in Shanghai suggests that it may make money in singapore. but it doesn't guarantee that it would or that F1 will work. Ong Beng Seng said so himself, it's his deep personal interest.
furthermore being able to afford doesn't imply willingness to pay. also, the shanghai population is so much larger than ours.
G : There are statistic to support that the host nation or city will reap in about S$100 to 150m of tourism revenue during the F1 weekend, and that is excluding the ticket sales. I think you should just leave the marketing responsibility to OBS and this team.
SL : can't remember but i think the maintenance cost was estimated to be about $100m more.
G : That has got no relation to Chinese attending F1 races in Shanghai. Plus is your $100m maintenance cost per year or over 5 years or over 10 years? Please be specific if you are capable to doing so, and I wont be surprise if you couldnt.
13) Malaysians earning in Ringgit cannot afford to attend F1 race in Malaysia
SL : and?
G : Same as question (12)
SL : then why you post twice?
G : Because Chinese from China is different from Malaysian in Malaysia.
SL : if they illustrate the same thing and your response is also the same, why not group them together instead of posting separately?
G : childish!!
SL: finally, you realise how childish you are
G : I will let your writing do the talking
14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000 ($3b)
SL : back up your figures
G : Ask Atobe or maybe M13, thatÂ’s their claim.
SL : i quote what you wrote "14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000 ($3b)"
so it is your claim, back it up if you have the balls. you may ask atobe for help
G : I am just quoting what Atobe said. You should stop asking me, send him a PM as ask him.
SL : no, you're the only person here capable of misrepresenting the words of others. show me those are his exact words and not twisted by you.
G : Atobe : Considering that the China Formula ONE organiser has a contract with Formula ONE to host the series from 2004 to 2010, and that they have spent about US$3 Billion to build the Formula ONE facilities, and US$20 Million annually to maintain it, and with the gate receipts for 150,000 tickets bringing a revenue of US$36 Million from the 2004 race - it will be brilliant mathematics to find this event to produce any net gain for the Organiser, and China.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=9
SL : i'd read this when i have the time. probably another misrepresentation by you.
G : If you stop cleaning up someone elseÂ’s sh.it I am sure you will have more time.
15) Only Singapore Straits Times cover PM Badawi's visit to Singapore in 2006
SL : but straits times is the main newspaper in singapore isn't it?
G : Do you have reasons to believe that such high profile news will only be covered by 3 media companies and that you cant find news coverage of his visit from internet and our government website?
SL : doesn't change the fact that the main source of news for the masses would come from govt controlled news media
G : Obviously you are still not aware that there is no such visiting in the first place and that Atobe is just making up story to defame Singapore government,
SL : you have a reputation of misrepresenting the statements of fellow forummers. show me the exact statement made by atobe.
G : This is the 3rd time you are asking me the same question.
SL: and no matter how many times i ask, you can't back up your words.
G : Yeah, you try playing that childish word games with me? Good try!! -
Sad to say, many of us Singaporeans are not able to think independently and objectively. A result of the influences of our media and our education system.Originally posted by fymk:I gave my NRIC - got nothing to hide about what I said. It didn't look good FOR THEM in front of the whole forum but after I did that, alot of people started speaking up against the MP. Might have not been the wisest thing to do but heck I was a teenager back then.
I also asked the MP (sarcastically) if he wanted my address as well. Man he was pissed off to the point he actually raised his voice to say NO.
It was good that it happened because it was my first step to being an independent thinker , not a follower. That was also the start of what made me think maybe Singapore is not the place I should be in. -
Thanks.Originally posted by snow leopard:he has already answered so i don't see why he is incapable of answering. as for talking big, it is not the impression that i get, unless you have the perception that what he says truly has weight and substance?
However, let's forget it and just move on. Otherwise, we might run the risk of making this discussion stale.
We shall engage the "quadruplets" again on another day, another issue. -
Gazelle,
It is quite pointless for you to try and outwite Snow Leopard...
You obviously haven't got what it takes - TRUE FACTS. -
G has a tendency to look for mistakes in the way we word our statements when he's at his wit's end.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Gazelle,
It is quite pointless for you to try and outwite Snow Leopard...
You obviously haven't got what it takes - TRUE FACTS.
Challenging on grammar rather than rationale. Pity pity.... -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
1) Protectionism is good for Singapore's future and it promotes investment like IRs
SL : a good example of protectionism at work is an ex-PM protecting the position of PM for this son.
G : I am not sure if you could call that as protestionism, however are you suggesting that protectionism is good for Singapore?
SL : what then would you call it? nepotism?
G : The question you should be answering is, IS protectionism good for Singapore, and is Singapore IR an example of protectionism when none of the winners are Singapore companies.
SL: like i said before, there's no such thing as absolutely good or absolutely bad. hence, protectionism is not something you can say with a definite yes or no. i say again, what we need is a balance between remaining competitive and ensuring that no one is left behind.
singapore IR cannot be used to illustrate protectionism because there is no local gambling company to protect.
G: Your reply only tells us one thing, ie. you are incapable for defending yourself and the subject, because protectionism is obviously bad for a country with no natural resources and is highly dependent on FDI and trade. With regard to your 2nd sentence, you will have to ask why Soul_rage say that Singapore IR are example of protectionism.
2) Open economy is bad for Singapore and its people
SL : why do you say that?
G : Ask Soul_Rage
SL : nothing is ever absolutely good or bad. workfare, which the govt recently implemented, is a form of protectionism. would you say workfare is bad? you wouldn't. hence there needs to be a balance, a balance between staying competitive and ensuring that those who cannot keep up, stay afloat.
G : Could you offer Singapore an alternative to prosperous like we did in the past 45 years without having an open economy?
SL: could you show me where in this argument did i say that singapore should have a closed economy?
G : Just tell me if you agree that an Open economy is bad for Singapore and its people? ( I am not interested in your cock and bull stories and childish excuses)
3) There is a 80/20 rule in income distribution
SL : could you illustrate?
G : Ask Soul_Rage
SL : why ask him when you are the one making that statement?
G : I didnÂ’t, I am just highlight the BS that he is contributing to this forum.
SL : like the "open economy" bull%%$@ "above which you imply i am against when i am not?
G : You will have to ask Soul_Rage because he thinks that is such theory for income distribution.
4) If SIA doest threat you well, you should consider leaving the country.
SL : if you don't treat SIA well, old man will kick you out
G : You miss the point
SL : no i didn't, i hit the nail on its head. if you don't treat SIA well, old man will kick you out.
G : As a consumer, do we need to always fly with SIA? Could you tell us what do you mean by treating SIA well and what you mean that the old man will kick me out?
SL : how often do we ordinary singaporeans get to fly with SIA? just an extension of your statement "If SIA doest threat you well, you should consider leaving the country"
G : You are diverting from your earlier statement that if we donÂ’t treat SIA well, the old men ( I presume you are referring to LKY) will kick us out. Again it only shows how incapable you are in such discussion.
5) Local and foreign companies offer the same benefits to Singapore's future and economy
SL : foreign companies do not have vested interests and many have voted with their feet already that led to widespread retrenchments.
G : You have to ask Soul_rage why he said that.
SL : not true. when we merely work for MNCs, we do not develop our own brand / technology which in the long run is what differentiates a truly first world nation from one that relies on first world nations
G : thatÂ’s what I thought too, but according to Soul_Rage, there is not difference.
SL: come on, show me the words "Local and foreign companies offer the same benefits to Singapore's future and economy" is said anywhere else by any other person. stop misquoting and misrepresenting other people.
G : Soul_Rage : “As again, I told you, in this case, the govt has set up certain protective rules, so it is not exactly an issue anymore on whether the company getting it, is local or overseas, coz they have to promise, for eg, a certain level of investment into our economy.” http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502&page=2
And please, think and read before you bark.
6) All casino gaming operators can operate world class IR by themselves
SL : world class IR like world class public transportation that receives so many complains all the time?
G : Again you are missing the point, Soul_rage is suggesting that as a gaming operator, by default you will be able to operate and run business such as Universal Studio, Dreamworks, MICE, whale shark aquarium, without the need of having partners.
SL : show me the exact words that soul rage used that suggested what you suggested. if you can't, you are putting words into his mouth.
G : Soul_Rage ”In the IR tender, the govt DID give the tender to foreign companies. Why is that so? Its because none of our companies here have the experience of running a casino or such a huge resort, thus its reasonable for the govt to give this to the foreign company experienced in such a project”
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502&page=2
By saying that, he is claiming that Genting won because they are capable for running the whole IR by themselves and the reason why Keppeland and Capitaland lost is because they have never run an IR because despite the fact that they are partnering companies like MGM, Kerzner,
SL : read the exchanges. agree wholeheartedly with soul rage. you have misrepresented him. this is a casino project so the casino operator is key. keppeland and capitaland are local partners, not the main contenders. as such, it was a choice between Genting + Universal studios, Kerzner and 8th Wonder, all foreign companies. hence, soul rage is right to say that "govt to give this to the foreign company experienced in such a project" as there is no local gambling company to give to. your interpretation is a grave misrepresentation of soul rage's posting. given that all three gambling bidders are foreigner companies, and that there are no local gambling companies involved, this example does not support your statement "the result of the IR tender is a clear indication that the government will not favour local firms just because they are local"
G : Again, you are speaking without any logic and understand behind the whole IR selection process.
a) This is not just a casino project, this is an IR project and majority of the revenue will be coming from non-gaming related business
b) Harrahs and MGM Mirage are world no1 and 2 players in the gaming industry, and you are questioning their ability to execute this project?
c) Keppeland and Capitaland are minority shareholder in the project hence the whole IR project will be lead by the world class casino players not local companies.
d) There are more than 3 foreign companies that bid for the 2 IR projects, please get your facts right.
7) Singapore employer are suckers for more expensive Indian FT
SL : singapore govt is sucker for indians
G : Why? Can you support your claim?
SL : i quote you "i) Singapore employer are suckers for more expensive Indian FT". your statement supports my claim.
G : Like I said again, whatever you see here, are just BS coming from soul_rage, and thank you very much for questioning them.
SL : it is not bull%%$@. i agree with him.
G : You will agree with anybody who give you a bone to chew, and obviously you cant support what you said. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
8.) Government should not outsource project to overseas companies even if it is better value for money.
SL : govt should outsource itself, since its menial jobs (including writing forums during office hours) can be done at a fraction of the millions of dollars it now costs us.
G : You mean Singapore should be run by another country?
SL : no, i mean singapore should be run by singaporeans who genuinely have singaporeans at heart and not hanker over million dollar salaries doing menial jobs like writing forums during office hours.
G : This has no relationship to how the government handle its projects.
SL: all else being equal, i would prefer a govt that doesn't write forums during office hours.
G : Childish assumption
9) S-league foreign footballers are all highly educated individual
SL : nobody watches S-league
G : That not what we are asking and again you miss the point.
SL : so my answer "nobody watches S-league" points squarely to the irrelelvance of your point.
G: We have foreign footballers who are playing for S-League and have been offered citizenship because of their talent in sport. Hence do you think it is right to say that all FT are highly educated? Are you sure that nobody watches S-League? Are those people seating in the stadium ghost or something?
SL : show me where and who said that "S-league foreign footballers are all highly educated individual". you must have misrepresented someone else's words again. what are they compared to the many more glued in front of TVs watching EPL? and all those who watch S-league are more likely than not to watch EPL as well.
G : Go look up yourself and read what you posted, and donÂ’t behave like a spoilt brat where everything must be spoon-fed to you.
10) You need to be highly educated to be consider a talent.
SL : isn't that the govt's elitist policy for the last 40 years?
G : Are you sure?
SL: yes
G : Are you also saying that those badminton player from China who have become Singaporeans are highly educated?
SL: show me where and who wrote "You need to be highly educated to be consider a talent."
G : Childish.
11) Income gap = living standard
SL : income gap = widening living standards
G : You could be right, but thatÂ’s not what soul_rage said
SL : soul rage said the exact same thing i said
G: Really, mind showing me where you get that from?
SL : mind showing me where you got "Income gap = living standard" first?
G : It is your job to proof me wrong not me.
12) Singapore government is pro rich people, not pro business
SL : it is pro rich people's business
G : is rich peopleÂ’s business not business? Or are you commenting for the sake of commenting?
SL : rich people's business is rich people's business. why do you care?
G : Could you give us some example of rich peopleÂ’s business?
SL: i can but i wonder if i should also propose a snow leopard's challenge and get someone to go under a skirt.
G : I would love to, but since you like to play childish game, I would like clarify a few things, and ie.
a) What is your definition of RICH,
b) Are you suggesting that Singapore government is pro rich peopleÂ’s business ONLY?
c) Suppose if I can prove you wrong, would you kiss my hairy deer butt and call me daddy. -
save that comment for later, because I am starting to have so much fun documenting down his childish reply which I strongly encourage you to read.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Gazelle,
It is quite pointless for you to try and outwite Snow Leopard...
You obviously haven't got what it takes - TRUE FACTS.
True facts? There are plenty, you just have to read with your eyes open and dont like your emotion cloud your mind. -
*shrugs*
Don't know what's his fascination with people kissing his butt.
I wonder how many forumers support Gazelle's logic. -
Rock Star, not too long ago, you were so corky to question me about median income growth, and now you have conveniently forgotten about it. Why is that so? Is it because are incapable to discussion the topic that you were asking? Or is it because you are unable to proof me wrong? Or both?Originally posted by Rock^Star:G has a tendency to look for mistakes in the way we word our statements when he's at his wit's end.
Challenging on grammar rather than rationale. Pity pity....
just play your guitar and rock on, instead of coming here to be a fallen star. -
Just ignore this thread.Originally posted by maurizio13:*shrugs*
Don't know what's his fascination with people kissing his butt.
Why accord that moron any attention that he wants? Ignore him.
If he wants to claim victory, by all means, not like we even care about his sorry existence. -
just like why some people prefer to hide under the skirt and meow!!Originally posted by maurizio13:*shrugs*
Don't know what's his fascination with people kissing his butt.
I wonder how many forumers support Gazelle's logic. -
What is there to debate when you twist my words at will and your judgement, impeded?Originally posted by Gazelle:Rock Star, not too long ago, you were so corky to question me about median income growth, and now you have conveniently forgotten about it. Why is that so? Is it because are incapable to discussion the topic that you were asking? Or is it because you are unable to proof me wrong? Or both?
just play your guitar and rock on, instead of coming here to be a fallen star.
I have nothing to prove and given any other day, I will still beat you.......for your desire to prove one wrong is greater than your hunger for the truth. -
nah..that to me are just full of excuses.......here is wage report which consist of median income, please read and give us your comment.Originally posted by Rock^Star:What is there to debate when you twist my words at will and your judgement, impeded?
I have nothing to prove and given any other day, I will still beat you.......for your desire to prove one wrong is greater than your hunger for the truth.
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/etc/medialib/mom_library/mrsd/files.Par.37500.File.tmp/mrsd_2005ROW.pdf -
Best not to side track
This topic is about "all out to defame our govt."Why don't u all stick to the topic and don't side track?If not, the scope becomes too wide.
The debate should go like this: Yes because......,no because ..... -
Originally posted by PRP:
no we are not out to defame our govt.
[b]Best not to side track
This topic is about "all out to defame our govt."Why don't u all stick to the topic and don't side track?If not, the scope becomes too wide.
The debate should go like this: Yes because......,no because .....[/b]
1st of all, the unhappiness is not against the govt, but is against the PAP party
2nd, if any complaints = we want to defame PAP, then I think our PAP and the pro-PAP camp is really petty.
3rd, if the PAP thinks that whatever they say is 100% correct, then I think they are really too arrogant and conceited. If they do not wish to hear any criticisms, then they cannot improve. -
1) You can call yourself anti-PAP camp, but dont simply label others as pro-PAP just because they dont agree with your arguementOriginally posted by soul_rage:no we are not out to defame our govt.
1st of all, the unhappiness is not against the govt, but is against the PAP party
2nd, if any complaints = we want to defame PAP, then I think our PAP and the pro-PAP camp is really petty.
3rd, if the PAP thinks that whatever they say is 100% correct, then I think they are really too arrogant and conceited. If they do not wish to hear any criticisms, then they cannot improve.
2) How do you draw a line between PAP and the government since those who runs the government also run PAP?
3) How can you say that you are not defaming the government when you are accusing the government of practising protestionism and setting policy that only benefits rich people.
The problem with the "anti-PAP camp" is that you people are arguing with too much emotion that along the way you are distorting facts unknowingly just to proof a point Since this is a public forum for discussing politics, it is important that forumers get their facts right because shooting or else you cant blame other of blaming you for defaming our government. -
Dear Gazelle, please do not label all who are pro-opposition and anti-PAP to be emotional and guilty of distorting facts.Originally posted by Gazelle:The problem with the "anti-PAP camp" is that you people are arguing with too much emotion that along the way you are distorting facts unknowingly just to proof a point.
Granted, there are the emotional ones, but then there are those who are calm and there are those who carry valid points across as well.
-
1) You can't talk for other people. So you are in no position to comment this point. In no way did I say we are anti-PAPs also.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) You can call yourself anti-PAP camp, but dont simply label others as pro-PAP just because they dont agree with your arguement
2) How do you draw a line between PAP and the government since those who runs the government also run PAP?
3) How can you say that you are not defaming the government when you are accusing the government of practising protestionism and setting policy that only benefits rich people.
The problem with the "anti-PAP camp" is that you people are arguing with too much emotion that along the way you are distorting facts unknowingly just to proof a point Since this is a public forum for discussing politics, it is important that forumers get their facts right because shooting or else you cant blame other of blaming you for defaming our government.
2) This is where you are so wrong. The Govt will NEVER be the PAP. The only reason why we are caught in this stupid situation is that the PAP is running the entire govt (almost), so people tend to say Govt = PAP. For instance, during elections, the PAP CANNOT use HDB upgrading as a carrot because that is taxpayers' money for upgrading. This belongs to the GOVT, NOT the PAP, so the party cannot use the taxpayer's money as their war chest. Every person who pays taxes are entitled to equal rights for upgrading.
3) Did I accuse? Please watch your words carefully. I am stating an opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and its up to you to see with your heart whether my opinion makes sense or not. People who see with their hearts know where the govt is going towards. You, on the other hand, see only with your eyes.
The problem with you is that you tend to point fingers at others, when you are doing the EXACT same thing.
When you say we are emotional, aren't you emotional yourself?
You go about sprouting vulgarities at others, and you tell me you are not emotional? Answer this question on your vulgarities and abuse of other people. Don't avoid this accusation anymore (yes, I AM accusing you coz this is a FACT, YOU ABUSE others).
you want me to present facts of your abuse? There are many many pages in this forum that proves your guilt (since you like proof so much) -
back again. but will not post too much.
to summarize some of the opposition stance, your perception is that
government power is to centralized among too few leaders and not enough power is given to citizens, middle level leaders, opposition leaders.
There is insufficient independent structures that check on the top leaders themselves.
The goverment uses media to its advantage
The goverment do not admit their mistakes
some of the opposition examples are countries in europe where the government do not have so much power like singapore and their lives are better and less stressful and their people are happier.
However, there are also countries where the government does not have too much power and the country is still in mess also.
Therefore, it does not mean taking some power away from top leaders will mean a more prosperous country.
US has congress that argues with george bush sometimes, but there are still US people complaining a range of issues everyday and think that life is not good in their countries. Problems are not solved just becaues opposition has more power than in case of singapore.