This One's Funny: NMP Opposing NCMP

[kingrant]

Agree the harebrained guy is a real entertainer. Great for weekend reads. Thanks a zillion again for the tip!

I also picked up some alchemy. He still thinks by sheer repetition, lies will become truths, sooner than lead turn to gold.

Don't be shy, reveal everything. Also , don't forget to drop by as soon as you get a new nick.

I am sure you will be back when and if Low, WP and Sylvia hit the headlines. Nothing like an obsession to keep someone excited.

 

[Sideswipe]

I suspected that you did not realise the concept of proportional representation and the views expressed by the opposition. I will make it simple.

1) Not a single soul in the opposition camp has endorsed NCMP. They are against it. I hope you can tell the difference.

In first past the post system, they have lost but many have had substantial support. Just take it that they are representing the views of those that voted for them. The PAP MP that won more than 50 % but it does not mean that rest are behind him.

do tell me what concept of proportional representation u think I am wrong. I don't know our oppo views on PR, only know that GMS say on SB - he prefer some sort of multi-members constituencies elections.

I have no opinions on pros/cons of NCMP, understand that our oppo had no choice but to accept NCMP. My view was on wheater NCMP have more legitimately over NMP to be in parliament. The common POV here are that NCMP took part in elections, won strong support from the electorate, not enough to win but take it that they are representing 40%, 45% who voted for them.

My views are from the other side, the 51% or 55% who voted against them. NCMP presences in Parliament are against the wishes of majority of voters whom expressed their choices clear. This is a plurality election and we must respect the majority. That's why I said NCMP have zero legitimately like NMP in the house.

It's almost pointless saying NCMP represent a strong 40% or 45% voted against PAP. Plurality election - who finish 1st among all win everything, it doesn't matter the percentage, he can win just 30% votes in 5 corners fight, 70% have voted against him but he is elected as first past the rest, this is the system.

 

[kingrant]

What about walkovers? According to yr logic, who wld the winner represent? With or without moral authority?

Nobody voted but the only contender came in as winner. Does the winner represent 100% or zero percent or some unknowable unknown in between?

So did the winner come in at the behest of the Opposition? Or the behest of the PAP for the very fact that we can still have elections and not martial law?

It's almost pointless saying NCMP represent a strong 40% or 45% voted against PAP. Plurality election - who finish 1st among all win everything, it doesn't matter the percentage, he can win just 30% votes in 5 corners fight, 70% have voted against him but he is elected as first past the rest, this is the system.

 

[kingrant]

Indeed we shld be thankful to the PAP that we still can ride on their coattails for all the PAP sponsored freedoms, security and stability, extraordinary leaders in govt, HDB flats, NTUC markets, and last but not least, including the air we breathe.

One such fact is, again, this very simple statement I made:

"I hope SL realises that it is equally ironic that for someone who complains about PAP MPs riding on the coattails of PAP Ministers in order to be in Parliament, she is likewise, riding on the coattails of the PAP sponsored NCMP scheme to be in Parliament."
​

​

 

[scroobal]

Below tells clearly how simplistic your point is and I said below you are weak on concepts and logic.

Here is an analogy.
Your issue is that you can't afford a merc and you don't consider the daihatsu a decent car and you told your wife that you refused to buy it. We agree with your assessment of the Merc and the daihatsu but not the logic for not purchasing it knowing very well you can't afford the Merc.

Your argument is the same in every post - the merc (majority vote) is better which all us agree. We are talking about your logic of not buying the daihatsu.

Go to the daihatsu car dealer and tell him that merc is better than daihatsu and he will agree but he will certainly think that you are simple minded for raising the obvious it in the first place.

If you said that you are not buying the daihatsu because MRT is cheaper and convenient, everyone will agree with your logic.

Since the opposition don't have MRT to parliament, they are going to use the daihatsu.

My views are from the other side, the 51% or 55% who voted against them. NCMP presences in Parliament are against the wishes of majority of voters whom expressed their choices clear. This is a plurality election and we must respect the majority. That's why I said NCMP have zero legitimately like NMP in the house.

It's almost pointless saying NCMP represent a strong 40% or 45% voted against PAP. Plurality election - who finish 1st among all win everything, it doesn't matter the percentage, he can win just 30% votes in 5 corners fight, 70% have voted against him but he is elected as first past the rest, this is the system.

 

[kingrant]

I hope MBT, Raymond Lim are reading this too, so we can have lower COEs and ERPs. Hahahahaha..


PS. I guess that other smart fellow was right - that the Opp will again have to ride on the coat tails of these Ministers to be able to use the daihatsu, at least to get into Parliament.

Since the opposition don't have MRT to parliament, they are going to use the daihatsu.

 

[scroobal]

That's him to a T. He will repeat the same half truths and lies and hope that it will stick as he tried to character assassinate GMS about AMK incident which did not even occur. He will then claim that he did not start it. Just as he claimed that he was not involved in the Delphi banning incident where he helped stoke the fire which was why Sam closed it down. He is now building a hallucination that I am a ex-journalist who moved to Seattle - what an insult, a journalist, ex or otherwise in Singapore.

Yes, always on weekends to give the impression that he is so occupied with saving the world the during the weekdays. He will then claim that he does not read every post. That is his favourite excuse for avoiding issues which he senses that he cannot answer to.Not sure why he assumes that everyone who enters the forum diligently reads everything.

Watch this guy, the last time, he tried to suck up to a chap called profiro until porfiro realised it and he had drop the half sucked dick from his mouth and scamper home double quick time.

ps. I am so free that I have not been asked to save the world and thats why I got time to read and write diatribe like above.

He still thinks by sheer repetition, lies will become truths, sooner than lead turn to gold.

 

[Sideswipe]

Below tells clearly how simplistic your point is and I said below you are weak on concepts and logic.
Here is an analogy.

Your argument is the same in every post - the merc (majority vote) is better which all us agree. We are talking about your logic of not buying the daihatsu.

Go to the daihatsu car dealer and tell him that merc is better than daihatsu and he will agree but he will certainly think that you are simple minded for raising the obvious it in the first place.

have said already in previous posts that I have no comments on pros/cons of NCMP, why our NCMP should or should not enter parliament so your analogy of my POV is wrong for starters.

my views are regarding the legitimately of NCMP in a plurality election and NCMP/NMP moral authority in parliament which are different to bros here. I wasn't even really talking about reasons for accepting/rejecting NCMP.

never mind.

 

[jw5]

Below tells clearly how simplistic your point is and I said below you are weak on concepts and logic.

Here is an analogy.
Your issue is that you can't afford a merc and you don't consider the daihatsu a decent car and you told your wife that you refused to buy it. We agree with your assessment of the Merc and the daihatsu but not the logic for not purchasing it knowing very well you can't afford the Merc.

Your argument is the same in every post - the merc (majority vote) is better which all us agree. We are talking about your logic of not buying the daihatsu.

Go to the daihatsu car dealer and tell him that merc is better than daihatsu and he will agree but he will certainly think that you are simple minded for raising the obvious it in the first place.

If you said that you are not buying the daihatsu because MRT is cheaper and convenient, everyone will agree with your logic.

Since the opposition don't have MRT to parliament, they are going to use the daihatsu.

I really wish you would stop hammering Sideswipe.
He is simply stating his opinion and point of view and he has never been rude or obnoxious, unlike some others. He has also provided some useful information when asked and almost always replies to other forummers, unlike some others.
"How simplistic" and "weak on concepts and logic" are very strong but familiar ways of criticising people which we have heard many times in the past.
You claim to dislike the pap and their ways, but at times, you really sound like some of them.

 

[scroobal]

I decided it best to engage him because this reptition has been going on for too long and he has begun throwing models from other countries that he does not understand. Its also best to be straightforward, honest and sadly blunt.

You realise that the issue is logic and rationale and not viewpoints. Note he still thinks that we are talking about legitimacy.

Maybe you can help him out by explaining the models that he has thrown out and their links to NCMP issue.

I really wish you would stop hammering Sideswipe.
He is simply stating his opinion and point of view and he has never been rude or obnoxious, unlike some others. He has also provided some useful information when asked and almost always replies to other forummers, unlike some others.
"How simplistic" and "weak on concepts and logic" are very strong but familiar ways of criticising people which we have heard many times in the past.
You claim to dislike the pap and their ways, but at times, you really sound like some of them.

 

[Sideswipe]

You realise that the issue is logic and rationale and not viewpoints. Note he still thinks that we are talking about legitimacy.

Maybe you can help him out by explaining the models that he has thrown out and their links to NCMP issue.

In earlier posts, someone talked about how NCMP have more legitimately than NMP thus I reply from legitimately POV. That's it. Anyway NCMP issues should be discussed from different viewpoints.

I decided it best to engage him because this reptition has been going on for too long and he has begun throwing models from other countries that he does not understand. Its also best to be straightforward, honest and sadly blunt.

Maybe you can help him out by explaining the models that he has thrown out and their links to NCMP issue.

Yes, NCMP have no links to other countries models. Maybe I was using it as an example or went out of point, can't remember.
I don't claim to know everything about other countries elections system so do tell me if you bother what I got wrong instead of saying you don't understand and period.

 

[Sideswipe]

I really wish you would stop hammering Sideswipe.
He is simply stating his opinion and point of view.
"How simplistic" and "weak on concepts and logic" are very strong but familiar ways of criticising people which we have heard many times in the past.
You claim to dislike the pap and their ways, but at times, you really sound like some of them.

It's ok. jw5.
some criticism doesn't hurt.

I do admit, I have repetition my last 7/8 posts here with same logic, even I am getting bored.

 

[jw5]

I decided it best to engage him because this reptition has been going on for too long and he has begun throwing models from other countries that he does not understand. Its also best to be straightforward, honest and sadly blunt.

You realise that the issue is logic and rationale and not viewpoints. Note he still thinks that we are talking about legitimacy.

Maybe you can help him out by explaining the models that he has thrown out and their links to NCMP issue.

I don't understand this issue as well as either of you and don't see myself trying to explain or justify anything to do with this.
But from the little I understand, I can see that there are 2 points of view. Your argument may be a little stronger, but he also has his pov and opinion. He may have repeated it a few times, but this is a public forum and he can say whatever he wants however much he wants.
At least he isn't spamming, spewing vulgarities, calling others retard, cursing certain nationalities or races or insulting others. As the moderator, perhaps these are the ones you should be going after.

Actually I don't mind you criticising him or anyone else. But for someone who dislikes the pap and the way they talk and act, you really sound like one of them sometimes. I find that extremely ironical.

 

[jw5]

It's ok. jw5.
some criticism doesn't hurt.

I do admit, I have repetition my last 7/8 posts here with same logic, even I am getting bored.

I don't have a problem with him criticising you, me or anyone else.
And you are rather repetitive.
But as the moderator, I would rather he go after those who spam, spew vulgarities, call others retard, curse certain races or nationalities, or insults others. To criticise someone who is fairly polite but merely is a little stubborn and repetitive in his views reminds me of certain people.

I remember a debate between 2 people recently. They were debating some similar things which you and Scroobal were debating.
Person A said he would not accept a certain post and if his organization forced him to accept it, he would resign from his organization.
Person B then said that oh, person A was looking for a back door and that was supposedly the last sentence in the discussion.

Huh? Didn't person A just clarify that he was NOT looking for a back door? I really didn't understand this and was actually asking people in this forum to help explain, but nobody really did.
It seems to me that some people
-- must always have the final word
-- the final word must always be a conclusive point which ends the discussion in a certain way, with no further room for debate or discussion.
-- the final word need not be rational or logical, as long as it implies that the other guy's previous word was irrational or illogical.

 

[scroobal]

The way you wrote, I thought you understood what he meant - especially the part about proportional representation and the models that he highlighted.

What then is your issue if you have no clue.

Now you think I am behind the PAP. How did you come about that piece of logic?

I don't understand this issue as well as either of you and don't see myself trying to explain or justify anything to do with this.

 

[scroobal]

I am no longer the moderator. You should not butt in if you have no clue what the debate is about. I am sure people assumed you knew what the issues was.

I don't have a problem with him criticising you, me or anyone else.
And you are rather repetitive.
But as the moderator, I would rather he go after those who spam, spew vulgarities, call others retard, curse certain races or nationalities, or insults others. To criticise someone who is fairly polite but merely is a little stubborn and repetitive in his views reminds me of certain people.

I remember a debate between 2 people recently. They were debating some similar things which you and Scroobal were debating.
Person A said he would not accept a certain post and if his organization forced him to accept it, he would resign from his organization.
Person B then said that oh, person A was looking for a back door and that was supposedly the last sentence in the discussion.

Huh? Didn't person A just clarify that he was NOT looking for a back door? I really didn't understand this and was actually asking people in this forum to help explain, but nobody really did.
It seems to me that some people
-- must always have the final word
-- the final word must always be a conclusive point which ends the discussion in a certain way, with no further room for debate or discussion.
-- the final word need not be rational or logical, as long as it implies that the other guy's previous word was irrational or illogical.

 

[Sideswipe]

The way you wrote, I thought you understood what he meant - especially the part about proportional representation and the models that he highlighted.

so which part about PR which you think I don't understand or got it wrong.
pls tell me.

 

[Ramseth]

I am no longer the moderator.

This is quite a funny statement in this forum. Who needs a moderator when anybody can ban anybody else? I hope Leongsam or whoever incharge takes notice. I'd advise remove infraction and banning rights free for all, and appoint a proper moderator if Scroobal doesn't have the the time to do it, perhaps two to rotate shifts.

 

[scroobal]

Others have explained to you many times. Maybe you should read the thread slowly. If you look again I even took the trouble to explain in point form. When that failed, I provided the analogy

I don't think you are stubborn but you have difficulty with reasoning.

Politics is never a zero sum game. It always about compromises with
clear boundaries that one does not cross over, to avoid loss of integrity and destroying core principles.

so which part about PR which you think I don't understand or got it wrong.
pls tell me.

 

[jw5]

The way you wrote, I thought you understood what he meant - especially the part about proportional representation and the models that he highlighted.

What then is your issue if you have no clue.

Now you think I am behind the PAP. How did you come about that piece of logic?

Hahaha.
At no time did I say you were "behind the pap".
All I said was that you sound like some of them, despite your claims that you dislike them and the things they say and the things they do.
I said that I don't understand this issue as well as either of you, I'm not saying that I have no clue.

You have even replied to a post that was meant for Sideswipe.
You say that you are no longer the moderator. But did you realise that below your nickname, it says "moderator", whereas for the rest of us, it says "Alfrescian"?
And when you say "people assume you know", who are these people you are referring to? Isn't this between you and me?

In any case, I'm going to leave it as it is. I concede that I don't understand the issue as well as both of you. Hope you learnt something from our exchanges as well.