Lui Tuck Yew: HDB property tax raised next year to “avoid bi
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
I thought that your sentences were the result of hallucinations caused by substance abuse. Your statements certainly didn't look like it's logical to me.
Well you thought wrongly then.
The alternative is much worse than substance abuse, I leave that to your imagination.
You must be an idiot!!! LOL
So is "Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.", the topic here or a statement?
You are asking me whether Singaporeans have a right to discuss about the screwed up political system so it can only mean that there is a discussion abt the screwed up political system right? If not, why the need to ask me that question?
You still have problems distinguishing a statement from a topic.
Also if you look at my original statement enclosed below, it wasn't even a question, it was a rhetorical question, one that does not require an answer. I didn't even put a question mark to it.
One also has to question why you are asking folks to stop discussions about anything negative about PAP. Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.
So I guess those ST forums where folks post, "Singapore has the best government in the world" is not subject to debates by the other parties? It's also like what you claim, a forgone conclusion.
If they put down a discussion and the topic is "SINGAPORE has the best government in the world." Then that is not a discussion. That is also looking for agreement with a preconceived conclusion. I would prefer that it is stated that the topic would be "Do Singapore has the best government in the world."
A statement if it's not substantiated by facts can always be refuted, like the example I cited about 10 + 10 = 100. So if I make that statement does it mean that it's a conclusion that cannot be challenged? If you don't have the facts to deny my statement, then obviously you chose the easy way out and said that it's a foregone conclusion and you are still clueless what is a foregone conclusion.
A conclusion is forgone if at the onset of the argument you anticipate an inevitable end.
Its either that or in a discussion, the parties involved insist that their conclusion is right. And that is what I am seeing here. Everyone comes in and says "the government sucks" and insist he or she is right and that everyone must see the same way as them or else risks being branded "lackeys", "dogs" etc. Vice versa for people who insists PAP are the best government in the world. I did not insist on either conclusion. I am only insisting on a discussion that highlights the bads and goods of the government fairly. A good discussion involves the agreement to disagree and if everyone agrees to disagrees, there would be name calling which unfortunately I see alot in this forum. Not necessarily you, but there are many.
I said the government sucks and substantiated it with proof of their doings. They are always squeezing out more tax dollars from the poor and middle class. You agree that their policy sucks too.
Apart from that, they also deprive Singaporeans of their rightful wages by importing cheap foreign talents, so that they could compete with China and India for cost.
How can this even happen as Singapore's cost structure is much higher than those countries?
The effects of the substances must be wearing off, I see you agreeing with me that it's a scewed up political system.
Me agreeing that the tax rebates doesnt make sense doesnt constitute me agreeing that the political system is screwed. Again that is a conclusion you choose to see. I am perfectly fine with that. Because I am not in the business to make people agree with me. I just love a discussion. If I am right, fine. If I am wrong, fine also. And again as said, resorting to implying people using and abusing substances just because their views do not tally with yours is what you will do in a discussion? And if you are going to say, you thought that I am using substances, then as i said earlier, you thought wrongly.
Then the political system must be superb. One that has no accountability, one that is based on nepotism (appointing friend and family members to GICs and GLCs), one that deprives citizens from their fundamental rights, one that over taxes her citizens so that they can show a good reserve. Can you refute all these points I made?
Take it that I cant because I am not interested to refute anyone's opinion. I am only interested to discuss. And to discuss does not mean to refute anyone and prove anyone wrong. A discussion doesnt necessary have to come to a point where one party must be right and one party must be wrong. If that is what you seek, then sorry, take it that I cant. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Take it that I cant because I am not interested to refute anyone's opinion. I am only interested to discuss. And to discuss does not mean to refute anyone and prove anyone wrong. A discussion doesnt necessary have to come to a point where one party must be right and one party must be wrong. If that is what you seek, then sorry, take it that I cant. Cheers.
So for ALL your post, you were trying to discuss with me and not refuting my opinion?
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
So for ALL your post, you were trying to discuss with me and not refuting my opinion?
I never wanted to do that. My only point is that a discussion should start with a neutral statement. And I do not think I have mentioned anywhere that I think we have a brilliant government nor do i think they are a sucky government. If you think they are sucky, fine. i respect that opinion. But to me in a discussion, there must be a balance. If every discussion starts, with lets discuss how sucky the government is, what kind of discussion is that? It is just inviting more people to contribute flaming statements without any substance. I can see there are people in this forum who are able to sustantiate their claims whether they think the government is sucky or not but we have even more people who come in and say, "ya they suck and you dogs stop sucking their balls" or something along those lines, what kind of discussion is that?And lastly as I always maintained, a discussion is a discussion. I do not resort to imply that the person is using substance/is a moron/is a lackey etc unless you are telling me that personal attacks are acceptable rules of a discussion.
Hope you get what I am trying to say. Not everyone who doesnt agree with you is a lackey of PAP or incoherent. But again if you choose to maintain that sort of stance, then its your choice.
-
Eat more today in case prices of food increase tomorrow.
Yeah, I got this quote from another forum.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Eat more today in case prices of food increase tomorrow.
Yeah, I got this quote from another forum.
Spend like no tomorrow you mean that?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Eat more today in case prices of food increase tomorrow.
Yeah, I got this quote from another forum.
wow. then we better wipe our ass more cos toilet paper costs will increase.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
wow. then we better wipe our ass more cos toilet paper costs will increase.
Might as well increase every tax there is to increase.
2012 coming soon.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Might as well increase every tax there is to increase.
2012 coming soon.
Maybe this time there will be a bigger ang pow just before the election.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Maybe this time there will be a bigger ang pow just before the election.
The more they give, the more they take.
No difference.
You still get screwed ultimately.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
I never wanted to do that. My only point is that a discussion should start with a neutral statement. And I do not think I have mentioned anywhere that I think we have a brilliant government nor do i think they are a sucky government. If you think they are sucky, fine. i respect that opinion. But to me in a discussion, there must be a balance. If every discussion starts, with lets discuss how sucky the government is, what kind of discussion is that? It is just inviting more people to contribute flaming statements without any substance. I can see there are people in this forum who are able to sustantiate their claims whether they think the government is sucky or not but we have even more people who come in and say, "ya they suck and you dogs stop sucking their balls" or something along those lines, what kind of discussion is that?And lastly as I always maintained, a discussion is a discussion. I do not resort to imply that the person is using substance/is a moron/is a lackey etc unless you are telling me that personal attacks are acceptable rules of a discussion.
Hope you get what I am trying to say. Not everyone who doesnt agree with you is a lackey of PAP or incoherent. But again if you choose to maintain that sort of stance, then its your choice.
Like I said before, when someone makes a statement, if you don't think the statement is correct, you can always "discuss" about it by providing facts to substantiate your "discussion".
A statement does not give you the conclusion unless you agree with the statement.
Since when I call you a lackey or incoherent?
You �打自招？？？
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Like I said before, when someone makes a statement, if you don't think the statement is correct, you can always "discuss" about it by providing facts to substantiate your "discussion".
A statement does not give you the conclusion unless you agree with the statement.
Since when I call you a lackey or incoherent?
You �打自招？？？
If you choose to take this stance, then its fine lah. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
The more they give, the more they take.
No difference.
You still get screwed ultimately.
Yah. I almost forgot.
After election increase to recover capital plus interest.
-
Stupid Lew, pay him so much to kp about old folk not IT literate!
-
Election coming - everybody is trying to outdo everybody.
In terms of coming up with mee siam mai hum logic.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
wow. then we better wipe our ass more cos toilet paper costs will increase.
Though your statement seems to contrive a certain futility in charlize's action, but the situation is different.
Don't you know that eating more and storing up fats could be used later when food is in short supply. Glycogen and glucagon.
You see how I rebut your statement with facts though your statement proposes a certain misleading belief.
Statements not substantiated by facts are easily debunked, a statement do not make "foregone conclusion" so claimed by you.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Though your statement seems to contrive a certain futility in charlize's action, but the situation is different.
Don't you know that eating more and storing up fats could be used later when food is in short supply. Glycogen and glucagon.
You see how I rebut your statement with facts though your statement proposes a certain misleading belief.
Statements not substantiated by facts are easily debunked, a statement do not make "foregone conclusion" so claimed by you.
oh sure
-
Want to increase just go ahead, no need to give shitty excuse.
What else can PAP contribute during this worse financial crisis recession except for keep increasing costs????
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Want to increase just go ahead, no need to give shitty excuse.
What else can PAP contribute during this worse financial crisis recession except for keep increasing costs????
if PAP dun gives shitty excuses, where got shitty comments and postings?? -
Originally posted by charlize:
Election coming - everybody is trying to outdo everybody.
In terms of coming up with mee siam mai hum logic.
mee siam mai hum is already an old logic, it is out of date, today we should use " Dun think you can take over the govt" -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Want to increase just go ahead, no need to give shitty excuse.
What else can PAP contribute during this worse financial crisis recession except for keep increasing costs????
inflation or increasing of prices are decided by markets isnt it. how can any political party or the main party in power that decides price increase or decrease, unless you are living in a communist society.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
I never wanted to do that. My only point is that a discussion should start with a neutral statement. And I do not think I have mentioned anywhere that I think we have a brilliant government nor do i think they are a sucky government. If you think they are sucky, fine. i respect that opinion. But to me in a discussion, there must be a balance. If every discussion starts, with lets discuss how sucky the government is, what kind of discussion is that? It is just inviting more people to contribute flaming statements without any substance. I can see there are people in this forum who are able to sustantiate their claims whether they think the government is sucky or not but we have even more people who come in and say, "ya they suck and you dogs stop sucking their balls" or something along those lines, what kind of discussion is that?And lastly as I always maintained, a discussion is a discussion. I do not resort to imply that the person is using substance/is a moron/is a lackey etc unless you are telling me that personal attacks are acceptable rules of a discussion.
Hope you get what I am trying to say. Not everyone who doesnt agree with you is a lackey of PAP or incoherent. But again if you choose to maintain that sort of stance, then its your choice.
Hello, i think you need training from me in order to post here, otherwise you may die of argueing for the sake of argueing for nothing with most posters here. Just imagine, some even can think that sgforums speaker's corner is solely own by them. Only they can talk, the rest must shut up and kowtow to them, same way they criticise PAP, they never reflect on themselves. Old, poor and yet mindset never change, and still want to show off, my left foot. -
Originally posted by Rooney9:
inflation or increasing of prices are decided by markets isnt it. how can any political party or the main party in power that decides price increase or decrease, unless you are living in a communist society.
Hello, for most peoples here,
inflation or deflation, poor or rich, cost increase or decrease, promoted or demoted, old or young, good or bad, cannot give birth or cannot find job, no spoonfeeding or too much spoon feeding, sick or healthy, sex or dyfunction, etc etc including constipation and foods..etc etc you name it.....all is because of Govt, never themselves. -
Laska not nice also blame govt
LoL
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Want to increase just go ahead, no need to give shitty excuse.
What else can PAP contribute during this worse financial crisis recession except for keep increasing costs????
erp, school bus, property tax all go upsalary - wow lah ! ?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Hello, for most peoples here,
inflation or deflation, poor or rich, cost increase or decrease, promoted or demoted, old or young, good or bad, cannot give birth or cannot find job, no spoonfeeding or too much spoon feeding, sick or healthy, sex or dyfunction, etc etc including constipation and foods..etc etc you name it.....all is because of Govt, never themselves.blame it for micro managing the people in the first place under the earlier regime. now the people are getting sick and tired of being managed and they are now fighting back, even if the policies are good and effective. they are just fedup with all the ERP, CBD charges and more.