RiffRaff posted:

One day ayuh old rass gon dead out

One day all abie(including you) old rass gon dead out. I hope you live until you die man. Happy New Year.

yuji22 posted:

there is a difference in remembering and living in the past...yuh live in the past...I choose to move on

skeldon_man posted:

RiffRaff posted:

One day ayuh old rass gon dead out

One day all abie(including you) old rass gon dead out. I hope you live until you die man. Happy New Year.

Same to you

"I can think of a few people I know who are angry because of the past. They blame others for what happened to them, and constantly complain of the wrongs done to them. They may or may not be right about what happened, but holding on to bitterness leaves you anchored in the past and makes you none too pleasant to be around."

"Living in the past is, frankly, an utter waste of your life. You cannot possibly make the most of your life if you're hanging on to old grudges and moaning about how badly you were treated. Nor is it learning from your mistakes. We all have rotten things happen to us; deal with it and move on."

Yugi only has his memories of getting buggered back in Guyana. Those memories are far too painful for him to forget.

RiffRaff posted:

"I can think of a few people I know who are angry because of the past. They blame others for what happened to them, and constantly complain of the wrongs done to them. They may or may not be right about what happened, but holding on to bitterness leaves you anchored in the past and makes you none too pleasant to be around."

My son just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo (I never read it) and he was explaining that one of the themes of the story was that vengeance was not a good thing and in that book was very destructive.

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

The past I talking about is the 50s and 60s fighting/riots/black vs coolie thing....I notice people still debating that stuff which is a big waste ah time 

RiffRaff posted:

The past I talking about is the 50s and 60s fighting/riots/black vs coolie thing....I notice people still debating that stuff which is a big waste ah time 

I agree. Too bad the new government had to remind us of that past.

ksazma posted:

RiffRaff posted:

The past I talking about is the 50s and 60s fighting/riots/black vs coolie thing....I notice people still debating that stuff which is a big waste ah time 

I agree. Too bad the new government had to remind us of that past.

Sattaur is the target of a criminal probe; his house was raided and Government property was confiscated to aid in an internationally-supported investigation

what "past" are you talking about?

redux posted:

ksazma posted:

RiffRaff posted:

The past I talking about is the 50s and 60s fighting/riots/black vs coolie thing....I notice people still debating that stuff which is a big waste ah time 

I agree. Too bad the new government had to remind us of that past.

Sattaur is the target of a criminal probe; his house was raided and Government property was confiscated to aid in an internationally-supported investigation

what "past" are you talking about?

I was not referring to Sattaur. I still find the reinstitution of multiple Vice-Presidents a trademark of the old PNC. That is where they begun on Valentines Day 2015 and where they move from there depends on what they do since then. My conclusion of then will depend solely on their words and actions.

ksazma posted:

 

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

Nothing of course about the PPP, which screams that no one should comment about them because "that is living in the past".

Your "objectivity" has been noted.

ksazma posted:

RiffRaff posted:

The past I talking about is the 50s and 60s fighting/riots/black vs coolie thing....I notice people still debating that stuff which is a big waste ah time 

I agree. Too bad the new government had to remind us of that past.

I thought the PPP was also part of that Past

Both the PPP and PNC are still the present. Whah de rass yuh talking about

caribny posted:

ksazma posted:

 

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

Nothing of course about the PPP, which screams that no one should comment about them because "that is living in the past".

 

Your "objectivity" has been noted.

Try to stay focused bai

ksazma posted:

caribny posted:

ksazma posted:

 

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

Nothing of course about the PPP, which screams that no one should comment about them because "that is living in the past".

 

Your "objectivity" has been noted.

Try to stay focused bai

I am staying focused on your little racist claim that only the PNC/APNU (black people) must be held to blame.

caribny posted:

I am staying focused on your little racist claim that only the PNC/APNU (black people) must be held to blame.

So where did I state this bai? 

ksazma posted:

My son just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo (I never read it) and he was explaining that one of the themes of the story was that vengeance was not a good thing and in that book was very destructive.

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

What exactly is wrong with naming multiple vice presidents? It is merely a ceremonial title and they have no real added power.

Mars posted:

ksazma posted:

My son just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo (I never read it) and he was explaining that one of the themes of the story was that vengeance was not a good thing and in that book was very destructive.

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

What exactly is wrong with naming multiple vice presidents? It is merely a ceremonial title and they have no real added power.

suh seying dem 2 kulies are really pathetic. Imagine, only ceremonial importance.

seignet posted:

Mars posted:

ksazma posted:

My son just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo (I never read it) and he was explaining that one of the themes of the story was that vengeance was not a good thing and in that book was very destructive.

Nonetheless, to comment on the actions of the new government is not living in the past. To associate some of the old PNC actions are also not living in the past because they are actually showing those tendencies right now in the present starting with a country having multiple Vice-Presidents which were in abundance up to 1992 and now resurrected.  

What exactly is wrong with naming multiple vice presidents? It is merely a ceremonial title and they have no real added power.

suh seying dem 2 kulies are really pathetic. Imagine, only ceremonial importance.

Where did I say that? I'm guessing that you're referring to Nagamootoo and Ramjattan. They have official portfolios being PM and Minister of Security. Those offices come with whatever power are assigned to them. The Vice President title does not grant them or anyone else any additional power. 

Was it intended to appease their voting base, giving them titles that has no importance?

seignet posted:

Was it intended to appease their voting base, giving them titles that has no importance?

It's a fancy title that does not mean much. It doesn't do squat for any of them beyond the minister portfolios that they already have.

Mars posted:   

What exactly is wrong with naming multiple vice presidents? It is merely a ceremonial title and they have no real added power.

They remind us of the old PNC practice of having tons of Vice Presidents who all towed the Burnham line. The Burnham era is mostly remembered for his high-handedness. Hope Estate nonsense taking away civil servants from the one full day they had for themselves/families. And that is only one of his nonsense.

Mars posted:

It's a fancy title that does not mean much. It doesn't do squat for any of them beyond the minister portfolios that they already have.

What do you think was the objective for resurrecting it in Guyana Mars?

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:   

What exactly is wrong with naming multiple vice presidents? It is merely a ceremonial title and they have no real added power.

They remind us of the old PNC practice of having tons of Vice Presidents who all towed the Burnham line. The Burnham era is mostly remembered for his high-handedness. Hope Estate nonsense taking away civil servants from the one full day they had for themselves/families. And that is only one of his nonsense.

You remember because you choose to tie this government to the Burnham era when there is no real comparison. You still haven't told me what is wrong with the current government naming several vice presidents. 

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

It's a fancy title that does not mean much. It doesn't do squat for any of them beyond the minister portfolios that they already have.

What do you think was the objective for resurrecting it in Guyana Mars?

I don't know the real reason but I'd guess that it differentiates senior ministers from the juniors and provides a reporting structure. Many organizations do it but I don't see the evil in it. Maybe you know more since you believe that it's such a horrible thing to do. Tell us what's so horrible about the current government naming vice presidents. 

Mars posted:

You remember because you choose to tie this government to the Burnham era when there is no real comparison. You still haven't told me what is wrong with the current government naming several vice presidents. 

Actually I did say that the multiple Vice Presidents remind me of the old style PNC. Granger using one of his very first executive actions to reward Burnham's staunchest soldier (Hammie) with the country's second highest award. That in-spite of Hammie turning Georgetown into a garbage city. That shows his obligation to the old PNC regime.

Mars posted:

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

It's a fancy title that does not mean much. It doesn't do squat for any of them beyond the minister portfolios that they already have.

What do you think was the objective for resurrecting it in Guyana Mars?

I don't know the real reason but I'd guess that it differentiates senior ministers from the juniors and provides a reporting structure. Many organizations do it but I don't see the evil in it. Maybe you know more since you believe that it's such a horrible thing to do. Tell us what's so horrible about the current government naming vice presidents. 

It was one of the conditions of the Accord so it must mean something. People only put conditions that are meaningful into agreements.

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

You remember because you choose to tie this government to the Burnham era when there is no real comparison. You still haven't told me what is wrong with the current government naming several vice presidents. 

Actually I did say that the multiple Vice Presidents remind me of the old style PNC. Granger using one of his very first executive actions to reward Burnham's staunchest soldier (Hammie) with the country's second highest award. That in-spite of Hammie turning Georgetown into a garbage city. That shows his obligation to the old PNC regime.

Reminding you of the old style PNC does not make it wrong. Presenting Hammie with an award has nothing to do with naming vice presidents. I want you to tell me what's wrong with naming vice presidents. So far you have failed miserably.

Mars posted:

Reminding you of the old style PNC does not make it wrong. Presenting Hammie with an award has nothing to do with naming vice presidents. I want you to tell me what's wrong with naming vice presidents. So far you have failed miserably.

I did not begin my argument that multiple vice presidents was wrong (although even back in the 70's it was laughed at that a small country like Guyana had so many vice presidents) I began my argument that having multiple vice presidents was a resurrection of the old PNC style. That old PNC style was terrible for Guyanese. The highhandedness and bullying back then is nothing I cared for. I once went to Timehri and was looking over the wall slightly taller than me and a police walked up to me and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was looking for my sister. He told me that I was not allowed to look. That and many other old style PNC attitudes were wrong for Guyanese. This new government is showing traits of that old style PNC attitude.

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

Reminding you of the old style PNC does not make it wrong. Presenting Hammie with an award has nothing to do with naming vice presidents. I want you to tell me what's wrong with naming vice presidents. So far you have failed miserably.

I did not begin my argument that multiple vice presidents was wrong (although even back in the 70's it was laughed at that a small country like Guyana had so many vice presidents) I began my argument that having multiple vice presidents was a resurrection of the old PNC style. That old PNC style was terrible for Guyanese. The highhandedness and bullying back then is nothing I cared for. I once went to Timehri and was looking over the wall slightly taller than me and a police walked up to me and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was looking for my sister. He told me that I was not allowed to look. That and many other old style PNC attitudes were wrong for Guyanese. This new government is showing traits of that old style PNC attitude.

Naming several vice presidents in itself is not wrong. Banks and many other organizations name several vice presidents. Does that make it wrong or lead to bullying in their organizations? Spare me the story about your encounter with the cop at Timehri. For every one of those you have, there are many such incidents that happen during the reign of every government. Naming several vice presidents has nothing to do with highhandedness or bullying. They are separate and have nothing to do with each other. One does not lead to the other. If you have a beef with the style of the current government, then by all means voice your disapproval but to tie in naming vice presidents with a bullying style is simply ludicrous.

Mars posted:

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

Reminding you of the old style PNC does not make it wrong. Presenting Hammie with an award has nothing to do with naming vice presidents. I want you to tell me what's wrong with naming vice presidents. So far you have failed miserably.

I did not begin my argument that multiple vice presidents was wrong (although even back in the 70's it was laughed at that a small country like Guyana had so many vice presidents) I began my argument that having multiple vice presidents was a resurrection of the old PNC style. That old PNC style was terrible for Guyanese. The highhandedness and bullying back then is nothing I cared for. I once went to Timehri and was looking over the wall slightly taller than me and a police walked up to me and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was looking for my sister. He told me that I was not allowed to look. That and many other old style PNC attitudes were wrong for Guyanese. This new government is showing traits of that old style PNC attitude.

Naming several vice presidents in itself is not wrong. Banks and many other organizations name several vice presidents. Does that make it wrong or lead to bullying in their organizations? Spare me the story about your encounter with the cop at Timehri. For every one of those you have, there are many such incidents that happen during the reign of every government. Naming several vice presidents has nothing to do with highhandedness or bullying. They are separate and have nothing to do with each other. One does not lead to the other. If you have a beef with the style of the current government, then by all means voice your disapproval but to tie in naming vice presidents with a bullying style is simply ludicrous.

When they reinstitute multiple vice presidents similar to the old PNC style, they return to a ludicrous style that only existed under the PNC. That is a return to the traits of the PNC. A government whose record in office was terrible. I limit the scope of my argument to Guyana's government and the experiences in Guyana because that is what matters to Guyanese. What other governments or people do is of little importance if any to Guyanese. This government is a return of the old PNC and that is terrible for Guyanese.

ksazma posted:

When they reinstitute multiple vice presidents similar to the old PNC style, they return to a ludicrous style that only existed under the PNC. That is a return to the traits of the PNC. A government whose record in office was terrible. I limit the scope of my argument to Guyana's government and the experiences in Guyana because that is what matters to Guyanese. What other governments or people do is of little importance if any to Guyanese. This government is a return of the old PNC and that is terrible for Guyanese.

Naming several vice presidents has nothing to do with bad governance. They are distinct and separate from each other. A government can have multiple vice presidents and be very good and one that practices bad principles can have zero vice presidents. Practicing bad governance is what makes a government evil, not naming several vice presidents. They are not inter related in any way but in your head. You just don't get it.

Mars posted:

Naming several vice presidents has nothing to do with bad governance. They are distinct and separate from each other. A government can have multiple vice presidents and be very good and one that practices bad principles can have zero vice presidents. Practicing bad governance is what makes a government evil, not naming several vice presidents. They are not inter related in any way but in your head. You just don't get it.

The old PNC had bad governance. This current government so far has bad governance. Similar blueprints.

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

Naming several vice presidents has nothing to do with bad governance. They are distinct and separate from each other. A government can have multiple vice presidents and be very good and one that practices bad principles can have zero vice presidents. Practicing bad governance is what makes a government evil, not naming several vice presidents. They are not inter related in any way but in your head. You just don't get it.

The old PNC had bad governance. This current government so far has bad governance. Similar blueprints.

That may or may not be true but it has nothing to do with naming multiple Vice Presidents. Bad governance is a result of governing bad, not naming Vice Presidents. Got it now?

The PPP government outdid the PNC with corruption and state sponsored murder and they didn't have multiple Vice Presidents so that in itself should tell you that there is no relationship between bad governance and the amount of Vice Presidents that a government names.

Mars posted:

That may or may not be true but it has nothing to do with naming multiple Vice Presidents. Bad governance is a result of governing bad, not naming Vice Presidents. Got it now?

 

Only problem was that I did not state that having multiple vice presidents was bad. I stated that the current government reinstituting the old style multiple vice presidents system was a PNC trait, and as such, is bad. Their PNC trait is what is bad. Hopefully you get it now.

ksazma posted:

Mars posted:

That may or may not be true but it has nothing to do with naming multiple Vice Presidents. Bad governance is a result of governing bad, not naming Vice Presidents. Got it now?

 

Only problem was that I did not state that having multiple vice presidents was bad. I stated that the current government reinstituting the old style multiple vice presidents system was a PNC trait and as such is bad. Their PNC trait is what is bad. Hopefully you get it now.

But it has no relationship to naming Vice Presidents which you have been trying to prove for eons. One has nothing to do with the other. Bad governance is not dependent on Vice Presidents.