Democracy Index replied by Civilgoh @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:47:07 +0800

Civilgoh — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:47:07 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

No proof..My statement was if he is of his age and goes for regular blood transfusion, c omes back alive, I pay for him.

Even if he does, he won't let anyone has any evidence that he has gone for it. Anyway, whether he goes for it or not is not of much importance. What is important is he and his party must put serving the public as their top priority.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:04:26 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:04:26 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Any proof to substantiate your statement?

Elderly patients do receive blood transfusion.

Results Patients with lower hematocrit values on admission had higher 30-day mortality rates. Blood transfusion was associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality among patients whose hematocrit on admission fell into the categories ranging from 5.0 to 24.0 percent (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.45) to 30.1 to 33.0 percent (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.89). It was not associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality among those whose hematocrit values fell in the higher ranges. In one of seven subgroup analyses (among patients who survived at least two days), transfusion was not associated with a reduction in mortality for patients with hematocrit values of 30.1 percent or higher.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/345/17/1230

No proof..My statement was if he is of his age and goes for regular blood transfusion, c omes back alive, I pay for him.

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:06:32 +0800

maurizio13 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:06:32 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

You go for regular blood transfusions, you come back alive i pay for you...if you are at his age that is

Any proof to substantiate your statement?

Elderly patients do receive blood transfusion.

Results Patients with lower hematocrit values on admission had higher 30-day mortality rates. Blood transfusion was associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality among patients whose hematocrit on admission fell into the categories ranging from 5.0 to 24.0 percent (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.45) to 30.1 to 33.0 percent (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.89). It was not associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality among those whose hematocrit values fell in the higher ranges. In one of seven subgroup analyses (among patients who survived at least two days), transfusion was not associated with a reduction in mortality for patients with hematocrit values of 30.1 percent or higher.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/345/17/1230

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:42:47 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:42:47 +0800

Originally posted by Gutentaginator:

But how do you know ?

You go for regular blood transfusions, you come back alive i pay for you...if you are at his age that is

Democracy Index replied by Gutentaginator @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:48:38 +0800

Gutentaginator — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:48:38 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

Shit, another idiot believes that LKY goes for regular blood transfusion...

But how do you know ?

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:02:47 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:02:47 +0800

Originally posted by rokkie:

but the problem is P4p is so majority, and they "surpress" the opposition party, when the opposition party make some gathering to promot their idea, P4P will depoly force to clear them, so when ppl don't have any chance to get to know the opposition party, how does this FAIR election could happen,

Promote ideas can have many ways. Open houses, website etc. ARE THEY PROMOTING IDEAS ?! IF THEY ARE HOW MANY KNOW ABOUT THEM ?!

Its not the government, it is not the opposition...may or may not actually. MOST IMPORTANT IS THE PEOPLE.

We have one party...a group of activists actually who do not care about votes. That is why they get raped at every election..other than the period when CST was at helm. Then you have people supporting them.

On the other hand, you have people through their support of these activists ignoring a party that holds Hougang, almost won Aljunied and took a big chunk of votes in Ang Mo Kio...Just because a group of activists who do not care about votes started questioning them !!

How do you want to erode the ruling party's power then ?

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:56:54 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:56:54 +0800

Originally posted by googoomuck:

If I'm paid millions by the tax payers, I don't need welfare. I can fly to Switzerland to have regular blood transfusion to keep my body in tip-top condition even into my 80s.

Shit, another idiot believes that LKY goes for regular blood transfusion...

Democracy Index replied by eagle @ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:05:23 +0800

eagle — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:05:23 +0800

I think lionnoisy made a valid point last time in another thread:

"Does these type of indexes matter???"

Democracy Index replied by rokkie @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:19:44 +0800

rokkie — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:19:44 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

We can't have referendums all the time, thus the most logical step is to vote for a government to act on our behalf, whether or not that destabilizes the whole country as a worst case scenario every 4 years or so is another issue as we chose it etc. The only gripe now is that many belief that the voting system in Singapore is unfair and the result may not be a true reflection of what would be the actual outcome should we have a free press and without GRCs etc...

The gist of it all is that many believe is that the system is unfair.

but the problem is P4p is so majority, and they "surpress" the opposition party, when the opposition party make some gathering to promot their idea, P4P will depoly force to clear them, so when ppl don't have any chance to get to know the opposition party, how does this FAIR election could happen,

Democracy Index replied by rokkie @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:15:50 +0800

rokkie — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:15:50 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Could be too. Either they were brainwashed or they chose P4P.

P4P's governance is taking alot and giving little back, therefore the retiring folks find it hard to make ends meet in their old age, they need to work.

i think they vote for p4p is they rather choose sth not so good ,better than sth unknown,

Democracy Index replied by googoomuck @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:12:46 +0800

googoomuck — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:12:46 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

The money has to come from somewhere, question is where. Ideally the old should receive welfare, the young/immigrants should be taxed heavily for that. Companies should be made to pay more in remuneration to offset a lil of that.

If I'm paid millions by the tax payers, I don't need welfare. I can fly to Switzerland to have regular blood transfusion to keep my body in tip-top condition even into my 80s.

Democracy Index replied by rokkie @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:10:13 +0800

rokkie — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:10:13 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Having credible people with good education and independent thinking is good, tis what a Democracy should promote.

But most of the time in a fake democracy we see close relatives of the ruling elite being put in positions to strengthen their position.

so democracy is not about talking, we must do sth, at least to fulfill democracy in the future, we must educate ppl.So that we are retional, critical thinking, then we would probably choose right out of wrong, that's the premise of democracy, i cannot imagine when there majority of ppl, are fool, and democracy represent majority, who wrong will it be.

Democracy Index replied by googoomuck @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:31:44 +0800

googoomuck — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:31:44 +0800

Originally posted by MohamedF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvqiElZI43k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtNmm_oBYgc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Vlk6wnLfs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EEBds78PkU&feature=related

More clips of the 1992 riot... I think the reason why people still think a riot is no big deal is because you have not experienced it before... always thinking that it happened in other countries and it can never happen in Singapore...

Imagine those clips above happening, not in the TV screens, but outside your window... on the streets... On orchard rd, Jurong Point, City Hall etc... Would you risk that happening over a protest...?

If there's equality and justice in place, I don't think riots of such nature will take place. You 'worry' too much. There may not even be a need for a peaceful demonstration in the first place.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:37:33 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:37:33 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Not from the populace, neither is it from the books, it's just common sense.

Logically any form of governance by the people for the people is many times better than one where a family of rulers govern all the people.

The people all have different objectives, it's through common consensus that decisions are reached so that the decision will not ruled in favour of a particular class.

In a situation where a family of rulers dominate the government, the decisions reached might not be for the people, the ruler could have selfish interest. In such a situation, we have no countervailing force to curtail the power of this selfish individual, such is the case in Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea.

We can't have referendums all the time, thus the most logical step is to vote for a government to act on our behalf, whether or not that destabilizes the whole country as a worst case scenario every 4 years or so is another issue as we chose it etc. The only gripe now is that many belief that the voting system in Singapore is unfair and the result may not be a true reflection of what would be the actual outcome should we have a free press and without GRCs etc...

The gist of it all is that many believe is that the system is unfair.

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:20:29 +0800

maurizio13 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:20:29 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

Because the general population think it's better or because you think it's better or because the books say it's better ?

Not from the populace, neither is it from the books, it's just common sense.

Logically any form of governance by the people for the people is many times better than one where a family of rulers govern all the people.

The people all have different objectives, it's through common consensus that decisions are reached so that the decision will not ruled in favour of a particular class.

In a situation where a family of rulers dominate the government, the decisions reached might not be for the people, the ruler could have selfish interest. In such a situation, we have no countervailing force to curtail the power of this selfish individual, such is the case in Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:17:53 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:17:53 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Could be too. Either they were brainwashed or they chose P4P.

P4P's governance is taking alot and giving little back, therefore the retiring folks find it hard to make ends meet in their old age, they need to work.

The money has to come from somewhere, question is where. Ideally the old should receive welfare, the young/immigrants should be taxed heavily for that. Companies should be made to pay more in remuneration to offset a lil of that.

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:13:29 +0800

maurizio13 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:13:29 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

What if it is not that they are easily brainwashed but it is because they seen more things and prefer the PAP kind of governance ? We did not go through what they did and therefore might beg to differ and want change. Give them some credit, rather than dismiss them as being easily brainwashed.

Could be too. Either they were brainwashed or they chose P4P.

P4P's governance is taking alot and giving little back, therefore the retiring folks find it hard to make ends meet in their old age, they need to work.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:13:27 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:13:27 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Any Democracy is much better than Singapore's Hybrid Regime.

Because the general population think it's better or because you think it's better or because the books say it's better ?

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:06:54 +0800

maurizio13 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:06:54 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

Yeah I know that, BIG QUESTION IS EVEN IF WE WANT DEMOCRACY, WHOSE DEMOCRACY ?

Any Democracy is much better than Singapore's Hybrid Regime.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:05:09 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:05:09 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

I can't be interested in reading P4P propaganda.

What makes you think I would be interested in reading copious blogs of Gopalan Propaganda?

I don't know. Just a suggestion, I tend to fall asleep easily when i read books of a technical nature...thus more often than not i like to read rubbish..thats why im here anyway.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:58:27 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:58:27 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Maybe they do or maybe they were brainwashed into that kind of thinking.

I think the older folks are more susceptible to brainwashing, but as their number dwindle in the future, so will the votes of the P4P (as can be seen in the recent election). Only time will tell.

That's why these days the MPs are so enthusiastic to engage the younger generation by learning hip hop and other young people activity.

What if it is not that they are easily brainwashed but it is because they seen more things and prefer the PAP kind of governance ? We did not go through what they did and therefore might beg to differ and want change. Give them some credit, rather than dismiss them as being easily brainwashed.

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:54:08 +0800

maurizio13 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:54:08 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

No. Challenging authority is not rubbish.

Even not admitting that he "was asking to be punished" is not rubbish.

Even not admitting that he "was asking to be punished" and then claim that he was here to witness the case and had merely wrote something critical in his blog is not rubbish.

I was just asking you to check it out.

I can't be interested in reading P4P propaganda.

What makes you think I would be interested in reading copious blogs of Gopalan Propaganda?

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:53:58 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:53:58 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

There are lots of forms of democracy, but in the international context, Singapore's version is definitely not a democracy. Singapore is considered a Hybrid Regime, if it makes you feel any better, in Hybrid Regime we are ranked 2nd after Albania.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf

Yeah I know that, BIG QUESTION IS EVEN IF WE WANT DEMOCRACY, WHOSE DEMOCRACY ?

Democracy Index replied by maurizio13 @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:52:38 +0800

maurizio13 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:52:38 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

Maybe people do want a police state ?

Maybe they do or maybe they were brainwashed into that kind of thinking.

I think the older folks are more susceptible to brainwashing, but as their number dwindle in the future, so will the votes of the P4P (as can be seen in the recent election). Only time will tell.

That's why these days the MPs are so enthusiastic to engage the younger generation by learning hip hop and other young people activity.

Democracy Index replied by kramnave @ Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:51:56 +0800

kramnave — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:51:56 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

So challenging authority is rubbish?

No. Challenging authority is not rubbish.

Even not admitting that he "was asking to be punished" is not rubbish.

Even not admitting that he "was asking to be punished" and then claim that he was here to witness the case and had merely wrote something critical in his blog is not rubbish.

I was just asking you to check it out.

Recent Posts in 'Democracy Index' | sgForums.com