All these columnists in the various papers keep

[Lazie]

saying that the secret MOUs are a distraction. Come on now. There is an agreement that the US gov't was using to support their position, an agreement the JA gov't wasn't aware of. How can it be a distraction when it was the main cause for the disagreement?

[Mosiah]

okay, i agree, is it cause di disagreement.

but is what cause di lies!?

[Lazie]

okay, i agree, is it cause di disagreement.

but is what cause di lies!?

What lies Mosiah? People were claiming the gov't was trying to get Dudus off ... I think by now that myth has gone up in smoke.

[OJ]

you know mi loose haff a di I dem.. the man dem wha support a certain P like mo and Doni cant see pass certain thing.

[Mosiah]

and you are totally unbiased and objective. Good!

tell mi, do you think Bruce was trying to protect Dudus?

[Gamma]

do you think Bruce was trying to protect Dudus ... actually, i don't think so BUT i can see how it could appear that way with the right amount of "emphasis".

question ..... if the request was flawed should he ignore that? if he raised the constitutional issue (if it is a valid one) then he would be taking a big risk because it would look exactly like he was protecting dudus. the EASY thing to do would be ignore the constitutional issue and begin the process to avoid that conclusion.

if he was REALLY hell bent on protecting dudus ... then all now...!!! personally, i think he is glad to get rid of him while seeming as if he was protecting his constituional rights.

[Karl]

do you think Bruce was trying to protect Dudus ... actually, i don't think so BUT i can see how it could appear that way with the right amount of "emphasis".

question ..... if the request was flawed should he ignore that? if he raised the constitutional issue (if it is a valid one) then he would be taking a big risk because it would look exactly like he was protecting dudus. the EASY thing to do would be ignore the constitutional issue and begin the process to avoid that conclusion.

if he was REALLY hell bent on protecting dudus ... then all now...!!! personally, i think he is glad to get rid of him while seeming as if he was protecting his constituional rights.

It was claimed similar requests were honoured without 9 months delay?
If true, why was that?
...if true, those persons never had constitutional rights?

[Don1]

you know mi loose haff a di I dem.. the man dem wha support a certain P like mo and Doni cant see pass certain thing.

Yuh bet pon mi? Di P mi defen ah Punany

When you can display a balanced view of the situation...with an understanding of the overwhelming good that has come out of the so called "illegal" MOUs and the covert but indispensable actions of Phillips when faced with a virtual state takeover by criminal elements exemplified by the influence of Zekes in the PNP & "Chris" in the JLP.... then and only then will your now specious protestations have any credibility

Until then yuh ah deal wid bayh yappin an distraction...ala Maudib, Lazie and the rest of that cohort desperate to protect the image of corrupt leaders

[Don1]

do you think Bruce was trying to protect Dudus ... actually, i don't think so BUT i can see how it could appear that way with the right amount of "emphasis".

question ..... if the request was flawed should he ignore that? if he raised the constitutional issue (if it is a valid one) then he would be taking a big risk because it would look exactly like he was protecting dudus. the EASY thing to do would be ignore the constitutional issue and begin the process to avoid that conclusion.

if he was REALLY hell bent on protecting dudus ... then all now...!!! personally, i think he is glad to get rid of him while seeming as if he was protecting his constituional rights.

When Gelding get bright in Parliament and seh he will put his political life on the line to defend Dudus' constitutional rights ... he was not defending him?

When it tek 9 months to force dat likkle liad fi gi up di man... he was not protecting him?

when dat goon tell di nation seh if Dottie sign dat ******** she fi sign har resignation said speed... who dat mean to yuh?

why not mek di Courts rule on the matter of the evidence which is the accepted practice??

Clearly Gelding and the JLP were in mortal fear of this Crime Lord...an tek di nation on a ridiculous merry go round... the situation salvaged by Peter's MOU which bite di govament where di sun dont shine.


Is like unnu inna a state a hallucinatory denial ar wha?

[Willi]

Don, read what Gamma posted again.

That is not what he actually said.

[Don1]

do you think Bruce was trying to protect Dudus ... actually, i don't think so BUT i can see how it could appear that way with the right amount of "emphasis

".

I agree that the ULTIMATE aim was not to protect Dudus...but to protect the JLP and himself as MP/PM.... but unfortunately the 2 interests were intertwined because of the massive influence "Chris" had in the party...

So to protect the party Golding felt he had to protect "Chris"

[Time]

What lies Mosiah? People were claiming the gov't was trying to get Dudus off ... I think by now that myth has gone up in smoke.

Lets do some basic logic and reasoning. If A is true and B is false then A & B is not true (everybody could not be telling the truth) .....ie a lie was told

Bruce and Brady cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Bruce and Robinson cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Dorothy and Leys cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Dorothy and Lt Cole cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
The PS Min of F A and Leys cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Lewin and Nelson cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.

Cannot we agree that a least 6 lies were told? Why?

[Lazie]

Lets do some basic logic and reasoning. If A is true and B is false then A & B is not true (everybody could not be telling the truth) .....ie a lie was told

Bruce and Brady cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Bruce and Robinson cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Dorothy and Leys cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Dorothy and Lt Cole cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
The PS Min of F A and Leys cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.
Lewin and Nelson cannot be both truthful somebody a tell falsehood.

Cannot we agree that a least 6 lies were told? Why?

What did Brady say? As I can recall he didn't testify at the CoE. All his public comments indicated that the contract wasn't with the gov't. So, where is the 'falsehood'?

The JDF big man at the time said he didn't hear Nelson said that. So why ignore that?

As for the others, please be more specific as to what the lie is. At least there are commissioners to pick sense out a nonsense.

As for the others, you gonna have to be more spec

[Don1]

Lazie is not on friendly terms with basic logic.

What you ask is a Bridge Too Far.

[Muadib]

all is moot.. you can speculate all day.. the fact of the matter is the request was flawed and based on the evidence actually should NOT have been signed..

Petah lucky seh it did fall into the plans of Drivah.. but of course timing is everything..

Drivah si an opportunity and work it.. quite brilliantly in fact.. very risky doh but it work..

Bruce show Babylon seh wi ah nuh push ovah..

Bruce show IMF seh him serious bout stability..

Bruce leggo JCF dem fi duh dem ting and show seh him serious bout crime control..

Tivoli Residents approaching normalization..

Private Sector tekking a serious look at downtown.. Don Free..

All now Dudus feel seh Bruce was trying him bestest...

is dat yuh call State Craft !!

Cyann believe seh him did guh JC.. even if is juss fi duh him 'A' levels.. cause clearly is a bright fellow...