How can a former President write such non-truths?

Why would an advisor to the PNC government publish a thread on GNI with such a misleading and despicable Title????????

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Why would an advisor to the PNC government publish a thread on GNI with such a misleading and despicable Title????????

where did you see that?

Read the title of this thread!

So basically, Audreyanna Thomas agrees that the statements made by Ramotar are true.

The PPP are lost without the racial divide. They will do and say anything to sustain it.

antabanta posted:

The PPP are lost without the racial divide. They will do and say anything to sustain it.

anta, here is Ramotar's statement:

Mr. Ramotar further stated that, ‘at the same time, old retirees, some almost in their nineties are being employed with super salaries. It is reported that these persons are guaranteed a take-home pay of $1.2 million per month!’These are two consultants in factory operations, one in Agriculture and one in Human Resources Department. The gross pay for these consultants plus vacation allowance and gratuity will cost the corporation $140 million per year. This does not include expenses for vehicle, fuel, security and domestic staff. This is a clear case of jobs for the boys’.

Here is Audreyanna's remark regarding it:

Once again, the Corporation is surprise that Mr. Ramotar would make the above statement. One would have thought that Mr. Ramotar because of his special experiences in national development, strategic business planning and the requirements for re-engineering an industry, such as the sugar industry, would have a greater appreciation for the critical need to engage the appropriate expertise and the best available resources if one is serious about re-organizing an developing a resilient business or industry.

Where is Audreyanna showing that Ramotar is lying?

Kaz.... did you by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

antabanta posted:

Kaz.... did by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

anta bai, here is the second paragraph:

In the letter Mr. Ramotar stated that,‘also, there are reports of the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason’. The Corporation finds this statement by Mr. Ramotar to be bordering on recklessness since it is baseless and basically an untruth. In addition, based on the nature of the statement we are taken aback that a person of Mr. Ramotar’s calibre and whose duty is above that of the ordinary person would write so loosely and carelessly and have these expressions published.

Where did she show that Ramotar's statement is not true?  

Now I used the other statement because she actually showed conclusively that she agrees with his statement.

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Kaz.... did by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

anta bai, here is the second paragraph:

In the letter Mr. Ramotar stated that,‘also, there are reports of the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason’. The Corporation finds this statement by Mr. Ramotar to be bordering on recklessness since it is baseless and basically an untruth. In addition, based on the nature of the statement we are taken aback that a person of Mr. Ramotar’s calibre and whose duty is above that of the ordinary person would write so loosely and carelessly and have these expressions published.

Where did she show that Ramotar's statement is not true?  

Now I used the other statement because she actually showed conclusively that she agrees with his statement.

I don't see the need to discuss the statements upon which they both agree or seem to agree. As for the second paragraph, the onus is upon the accuser to provide proof, not Guysuco, that indians are being fire without cause. The issue is that such a statement is socially divisive and should never come from a prominent political figure, black or indian.

antabanta posted:

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Kaz.... did by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

anta bai, here is the second paragraph:

In the letter Mr. Ramotar stated that,‘also, there are reports of the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason’. The Corporation finds this statement by Mr. Ramotar to be bordering on recklessness since it is baseless and basically an untruth. In addition, based on the nature of the statement we are taken aback that a person of Mr. Ramotar’s calibre and whose duty is above that of the ordinary person would write so loosely and carelessly and have these expressions published.

Where did she show that Ramotar's statement is not true?  

Now I used the other statement because she actually showed conclusively that she agrees with his statement.

I don't see the need to discuss the statements upon which they both agree or seem to agree. As for the second paragraph, the onus is upon the accuser to provide proof, not Guysuco, that indians are being fire without cause. The issue is that such a statement is socially divisive and should never come from a prominent political figure, black or indian.

Ramotar made a statement but did not provide support for it. Shame on him. Audreyanna thereafter refutes that statement but did not provide any evidence to support her argument. The moment she replaced his statement with hers, she shifted the burden to herself. She should have asked that he provide evidence for his statement instead. In a way her actions were reckless to herself.

Now regarding social cohesion/divisiveness, when did this become important. Before May 11th or last year, the insults and accusations levelled on the PPP by the Opposition did not show any longing for social cohesion/divisiveness. One year later and the then Opposition, now government is struggling to back up their then accusations.

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Kaz.... did by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

anta bai, here is the second paragraph:

In the letter Mr. Ramotar stated that,‘also, there are reports of the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason’. The Corporation finds this statement by Mr. Ramotar to be bordering on recklessness since it is baseless and basically an untruth. In addition, based on the nature of the statement we are taken aback that a person of Mr. Ramotar’s calibre and whose duty is above that of the ordinary person would write so loosely and carelessly and have these expressions published.

Where did she show that Ramotar's statement is not true?  

Now I used the other statement because she actually showed conclusively that she agrees with his statement.

I don't see the need to discuss the statements upon which they both agree or seem to agree. As for the second paragraph, the onus is upon the accuser to provide proof, not Guysuco, that indians are being fire without cause. The issue is that such a statement is socially divisive and should never come from a prominent political figure, black or indian.

Ramotar made a statement but did not provide support for it. Shame on him. Audreyanna thereafter refutes that statement but did not provide any evidence to support her argument. The moment she replaced his statement with hers, she shifted the burden to herself. She should have asked that he provide evidence for his statement instead. In a way her actions were reckless to herself.

Now regarding social cohesion/divisiveness, when did this become important. Before May 11th or last year, the insults and accusations levelled on the PPP by the Opposition did not show any longing for social cohesion/divisiveness. One year later and the then Opposition, now government is struggling to back up their then accusations.

Are you saying that because of the response to Ramotar, he is no longer accountable for his words? Is that a legal argument that leads you to believe that by responding, she transferred the burden?

Leaders of the PPP stood up at public forums and blatantly appealed to racism, as they have always done, and as they will always do. This is not a govt accusation. Being blatant, it doesn't have to be anybody's accusation. Are you saying we should not be concerned about political leaders making divisive statements?

antabanta posted:

Are you saying that because of the response to Ramotar, he is no longer accountable for his words? Is that a legal argument that leads you to believe that by responding, she transferred the burden?

Leaders of the PPP stood up at public forums and blatantly appealed to racism, as they have always done, and as they will always do. This is not a govt accusation. Being blatant, it doesn't have to be anybody's accusation. Are you saying we should not be concerned about political leaders making divisive statements?

She indeed transferred the burden to herself by her response. The burden would have remained on him had she posed a question instead of making a statement. 

Secondly, I do believe that there should be civility. However, that does not happen in Guyana and the current government or their supporters should not suddenly demand or even expect civility when they were not prepared or willing to be civil while in opposition.

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Are you saying that because of the response to Ramotar, he is no longer accountable for his words? Is that a legal argument that leads you to believe that by responding, she transferred the burden?

Leaders of the PPP stood up at public forums and blatantly appealed to racism, as they have always done, and as they will always do. This is not a govt accusation. Being blatant, it doesn't have to be anybody's accusation. Are you saying we should not be concerned about political leaders making divisive statements?

She indeed transferred the burden to herself by her response. The burden would have remained on him had she posed a question instead of making a statement. 

Secondly, I do believe that there should be civility. However, that does not happen in Guyana and the current government or their supporters should not suddenly demand or even expect civility when they were not prepared or willing to be civil while in opposition.

Neither of your statements are plausible. In the first case, that is personal opinion, and substantially biased.

In the second case, your logic would apply equally to the previous govt not making demands on the current govt that were not met when they were in power. For example, the crime situation should be left alone. What purpose would that server? Regardless, are insisting we say nothing about the divisiveness being preached by prominent politicians?

antabanta posted:

Neither of your statements are plausible. In the first case, that is personal opinion, and substantially biased.

In the second case, your logic would apply equally to the previous govt not making demands on the current govt that were not met when they were in power. For example, the crime situation should be left alone. What purpose would that server? Regardless, are insisting we say nothing about the divisiveness being preached by prominent politicians?

You may want to do some additional research on the first case. It has nothing to do with opinion. A statement in response to an earlier statement replaces the earlier one. She definitely shifted the burden which she would not have done had she questioned him instead.

In the second case, don't minimize the crime situation by paralleling it with this social cohesion/divisiveness argument. They are spectrums apart. In fact, the PPP do complain about the current crime situation and the response they get from the government is that they should not complain because they are responsible for it. They claim that it didn't start happening last May. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with expecting civility. The problem is that the same people who were not civil suddenly want others to be civil with them. It is too convenient for then to suddenly pretend to be born again.

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Neither of your statements are plausible. In the first case, that is personal opinion, and substantially biased.

In the second case, your logic would apply equally to the previous govt not making demands on the current govt that were not met when they were in power. For example, the crime situation should be left alone. What purpose would that server? Regardless, are insisting we say nothing about the divisiveness being preached by prominent politicians?

You may want to do some additional research on the first case. It has nothing to do with opinion. A statement in response to an earlier statement replaces the earlier one. She definitely shifted the burden which she would not have done had she questioned him instead.

In the second case, don't minimize the crime situation by paralleling it with this social cohesion/divisiveness argument. They are spectrums apart. In fact, the PPP do complain about the current crime situation and the response they get from the government is that they should not complain because they are responsible for it. They claim that it didn't start happening last May. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with expecting civility. The problem is that the same people who were not civil suddenly want others to be civil with them. It is too convenient for then to suddenly pretend to be born again.

You are confusing the issues. Where and what did you research to arrive at the conclusion? I repeat, are you saying that the leading politicians are not responsible for their divisive statements?

There is no comparison of the crime situation with social cohesion. There is a comparison of claims/accusations made by one party against the other. It is exactly the PPP's complaints about the current crime situation that your logic prohibits.

antabanta posted:

 

You are confusing the issues. Where and what did you research to arrive at the conclusion? I repeat, are you saying that the leading politicians are not responsible for their divisive statements?

There is no comparison of the crime situation with social cohesion. There is a comparison of claims/accusations made by one party against the other. It is exactly the PPP's complaints about the current crime situation that your logic prohibits.

I think you are the one confused. The article is about Audreyanna accusing Ramotar of lying. That is what I responded to where I pointed out that she basically agreed with him. You injected the notion of divisiveness and to my point you expect my response to move there. Now because I responded to your query, the discussion moved from her statement that Ramotar was lying to divisiveness by politicians and their supporters. Similar to how I moved the discussion, so did she.

The PPP complains about the current crime situation does not nullify my logic because I didn't support the PPP complains.

To recap, I did not say that the leading politician is not responsible for his statement nor am I saying that Ramotar's is divisive. Audreyanna statements do not disagree with Ramotar's

Secondly, if a year ago, the government was cussing out the PPP government, they can't out of convenience pretend that they are born again and should dictate how everyone else behaves. Moses cussed out Jagdeo in the highest house of the land when he called him a bully just because Jagdeo in exercising his right did not stay to listen to him. Lastly, this same government used their one vote majority to trample on everything initiative that Ramotar had. If also there is no comparison between the crime situation and social cohesion, why did you inject the crime situation into the discussion?

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

Kaz.... did by chance skip the 2nd paragraph in the letter?

anta bai, here is the second paragraph:

In the letter Mr. Ramotar stated that,‘also, there are reports of the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason’. The Corporation finds this statement by Mr. Ramotar to be bordering on recklessness since it is baseless and basically an untruth. In addition, based on the nature of the statement we are taken aback that a person of Mr. Ramotar’s calibre and whose duty is above that of the ordinary person would write so loosely and carelessly and have these expressions published.

Where did she show that Ramotar's statement is not true?  

Now I used the other statement because she actually showed conclusively that she agrees with his statement.

I don't see the need to discuss the statements upon which they both agree or seem to agree. As for the second paragraph, the onus is upon the accuser to provide proof, not Guysuco, that indians are being fire without cause. The issue is that such a statement is socially divisive and should never come from a prominent political figure, black or indian.

Ramotar made a statement but did not provide support for it. Shame on him. Audreyanna thereafter refutes that statement but did not provide any evidence to support her argument. The moment she replaced his statement with hers, she shifted the burden to herself. She should have asked that he provide evidence for his statement instead. In a way her actions were reckless to herself . . .

ramotar belches wan outrageous, low breed, race baiting statement without even the pretense of evidence

the Guysuco lady properly calls the dunce, orders-taking, ex-president a LIAR!

on cue, ksazma prances onto the GNI stage, the oldest ignar logical fallacy in train . . . having absolutely no clue

but he rale confident . . . the easy confidence of the stupid and committed

look banna, contemplate the nonsense of yours that i hilited, think haaard and stop embarrassing yourself

so much ignorance to police . . . so little time

smfh

ksazma posted:

antabanta posted:

 

You are confusing the issues. Where and what did you research to arrive at the conclusion? I repeat, are you saying that the leading politicians are not responsible for their divisive statements?

There is no comparison of the crime situation with social cohesion. There is a comparison of claims/accusations made by one party against the other. It is exactly the PPP's complaints about the current crime situation that your logic prohibits.

I think you are the one confused. The article is about Audreyanna accusing Ramotar of lying. That is what I responded to where I pointed out that she basically agreed with him. You injected the notion of divisiveness and to my point you expect my response to move there. Now because I responded to your query, the discussion moved from her statement that Ramotar was lying to divisiveness by politicians and their supporters. Similar to how I moved the discussion, so did she.

The PPP complains about the current crime situation does not nullify my logic because I didn't support the PPP complains.

To recap, I did not say that the leading politician is not responsible for his statement nor am I saying that Ramotar's is divisive. Audreyanna statements do not disagree with Ramotar's

Secondly, if a year ago, the government was cussing out the PPP government, they can't out of convenience pretend that they are born again and should dictate how everyone else behaves. Moses cussed out Jagdeo in the highest house of the land when he called him a bully just because Jagdeo in exercising his right did not stay to listen to him. Lastly, this same government used their one vote majority to trample on everything initiative that Ramotar had. If also there is no comparison between the crime situation and social cohesion, why did you inject the crime situation into the discussion?

Has Ramotar provided evidence that "the many highly trained technical people/Indo-Guyanese who are being fired at GuySuco without reason?" If not, the statement is both a lie and divisive. The article is about the BS spewing out of the mouth of a leading politician. As for the injection of the crime situation "There is a comparison of claims/accusations made by one party against the other."

Whether you are saying that Ramotar's statement is divisive or not is not the issue. My question is, are you saying he should not be held accountable for such a lying, divisive statement, simply because someone else made another statement?