Originally posted by Gazelle:
snow Leapord, personally I think you are very dumb to be trying to
clean up someone else shi.t because
what shit is there to clean, dumb?
a) You have no clue of what we are talking about unless you have
read what we have discussed earlier
you have no clue abt that
b) You are not aware which part of the statement is true and which
one is false, which one is from atobe, which one is from
Gazelle,
i agree with atobe and gazelle
c) You have limited information of the subject that we are
discussing hence it is likely that you can only contribute by
speculating.
more than sufficient to handle small balls like you
d) It is also not in their interest to talk about it because that
will just put salt onto their wound.
i don't get the impression they're licking wounds. i get the
impression they're savouring the flesh of gazelle meat.
Since you are so eager, I will have no choice but to entertain
you.
don't try to hard, clown
C : The question is not about who will benefit more, it is will IR
benefit Singaporeans.
this is the more impt conclusion "the benefit from the IR will
largely accrue to the govt"
C : 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?
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 : You ask Atobe
why ask atobe when it is your claim?
G : Ask Atobe (thats his claim)
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 : 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.
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 realise
G : Ask Atobe (his claim is that Mcdonalds food are addictive and
you will eat till you die)
i can't find that in his postings. are you defaming him?
G : The question is not about weather the government will benefit
more or less, it if it will benefit
Singaporeans.
the most impt conclusion for singaporeans to take away is that the
govt is the biggest winner in any decision, including the
casinos.
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?
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 : 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?
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 : I dont see a logic is what you are trying to
say.
i understand, you have proven to be most stupid.
The question should be, are you sure they are losing money? Or is
atobe trying to distort information?
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 : PM Lee visit to Thailand as got nothing to do with PM Badawis
visit to Singapore.
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.
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??)
no one jumped to conclusion, i merely pointed out a real visit
since you're asking for one. this is a good example of your blind
leading to incomprehension.
G : Your question should not be so, it should be are you sure they
cant afford?
my question is still - so? so what if they can or cannot
afford?
G : Same as question (12)
then why you post twice?
G : Ask Atobe or maybe M13, thats their
claim.
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 : 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?
doesn't change the fact that the main source of news for the masses
would come from govt controlled news media
