Skip to main content

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Kari:

We do not know the percentage of recidivism (the incarcerated persons released into the general populace committing fresh crimes); but the larger point is the tone set from the get-go.

 

Hoyte was the anti-Burnham regarding the kick-down-the-door banditry. He ordered the TSU (the famed Black Clothes police/para-military) to shoot on site (okay not de jure but de facto).

 

The Interior Minister (Ramjattan) is responsible for the larger law and order situation and is an important cog in the anti-crime efforts. Even if measures are being taken to strengthen security, the message has to be loud and clear. (Oh gaddo-laaad here comes Nehru with his house slaves nonsense).

were i David Granger, i would not have done what he did at the time

 

much of what this man does, when he does it, and what he does not do, still puzzles me

 

however, let me be clear . . . there is no evidence - NONE - that any of those released had been or currently are a danger to society

 

David Granger is well known as a disciplined Law and Order military man

 

please be clear what exactly is this (implied) bad "tone" you are talking about

But the message was wrong to the criminal enterprise as a whole.  Those individuals may not represent a mortal risk but unconditional release sends a wrong message in general.

 

Baseman was one who was in favor of some leniency for youthful petty criminals however, I was clear, any amnesty must be conditional with specific obligations and strict monitoring for compliance over a set period.

nonsense!

 

you can make your sensible latter points without resort to this petty foolishness

Prove me wrong!

why is that my freakin responsibility?

 

i already told u that u and Ksazma are shitting self-evident nonsense

 

y'all 2 are not that important that i need to risk spelunking up your stinking ass to point out disease

FM

Other than the tone highlighted by the pardons Guyana has to address the rising killings for whatever motivations.

 

Society needs to feel as if its government is on top of things and has a plan of action to reverse the gains of criminals at the expense of individuals. The targets are not the high-profile wealthy but those under that tier who have money but not the protections of the wealth class above it. I think of the Queens businessman's death on the Black Bush road with his body on the parapet of the road but the vehicle clumsily overturned in a ditch with physical damages that bear no logic.

 

So to return the dialog to some semblance of balance, leave the pardons aside for the moment and ask where is the government's plan. Even a love of the APNU-AFC coalition does not remove the responsibility, nay the duty, to ask critical questions of the day. Security in Guyana is one of those.

Kari
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
 

Actually my comments are perfectly relevant to the topic at hand. Green is generally regarded as a criminal under the old PNC regime and the 60 released inmates are regarded as being inmates because they committed some kind of crime. Granger's actions favoring both sets of them is indeed concerning especially as very first acts as President. Nothing irrelevant to this topic and no need to start a new one. Add to that the increased criminal activities of late. You don't have to care about these but you cannot demand that others shouldn't.

so . . . this is the obtuse level of argumentation you expect me to waste time on

 

uh huh

Actually I never solicited your participation. I have an idea about the value of first impression. Granger's first acts as President tells who he is.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
 

Actually my comments are perfectly relevant to the topic at hand. Green is generally regarded as a criminal under the old PNC regime and the 60 released inmates are regarded as being inmates because they committed some kind of crime. Granger's actions favoring both sets of them is indeed concerning especially as very first acts as President. Nothing irrelevant to this topic and no need to start a new one. Add to that the increased criminal activities of late. You don't have to care about these but you cannot demand that others shouldn't.

so . . . this is the obtuse level of argumentation you expect me to waste time on

 

uh huh

Actually I never solicited your participation. I have an idea about the value of first impression. Granger's first acts as President tells who he is.

so, which phantom named redux were u responding to on this thread?

 

when on this forum did it become practice to "solicit" responses only from chosen posters on a thread u start?

 

some of y'all losing alyuh freakin mind the deeper u drill down to garbage post

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Other than the tone highlighted by the pardons Guyana has to address the rising killings for whatever motivations . . .

as u double down on your bullshit, i am constrained to call u out on it

Which planet are you from? Why are you such an idiot? Is logic an alien exercise for you? Are you singularly handicapped from staying on topic? What is this doubling down on bullshit regarding the tone highlighted by pardons? Stop being obtuse. Your rants are bordering on pathological. Just shut up and read what ideas and comments smart people are exchanging. You'll come across as smarter than an idiot. It's tiring to hear your cliches and colloquialisms that make you feel as if you're contributing something important. You are not; so learn from the smart ones here. You and Nehru are opposite sides of the same darn coin. Wise up!!

Kari
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
 

Actually my comments are perfectly relevant to the topic at hand. Green is generally regarded as a criminal under the old PNC regime and the 60 released inmates are regarded as being inmates because they committed some kind of crime. Granger's actions favoring both sets of them is indeed concerning especially as very first acts as President. Nothing irrelevant to this topic and no need to start a new one. Add to that the increased criminal activities of late. You don't have to care about these but you cannot demand that others shouldn't.

so . . . this is the obtuse level of argumentation you expect me to waste time on

 

uh huh

Actually I never solicited your participation. I have an idea about the value of first impression. Granger's first acts as President tells who he is.

so, which phantom named redux were u responding to on this thread?

 

when on this forum did it become practice to "solicit" responses only from chosen posters on a thread u start?

 

some of y'all losing alyuh freakin mind the deeper u drill down to garbage post

I responded to your responses to my posts but am not responsible for you first responding to my post. You chose to participate in my comment. You can't now complain about doing so. You could have chosen to just bypass it. I do that many times when I don't care to be bothered.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Other than the tone highlighted by the pardons Guyana has to address the rising killings for whatever motivations . . .

as u double down on your bullshit, i am constrained to call u out on it

Which planet are you from? Why are you such an idiot? Is logic an alien exercise for you? Are you singularly handicapped from staying on topic? What is this doubling down on bullshit regarding the tone highlighted by pardons? Stop being obtuse. Your rants are bordering on pathological. Just shut up and read what ideas and comments smart people are exchanging. You'll come across as smarter than an idiot. It's tiring to hear your cliches and colloquialisms that make you feel as if you're contributing something important. You are not; so learn from the smart ones here. You and Nehru are opposite sides of the same darn coin. Wise up!!

well . . . i doan feel like shutting up rite now

 

actually i am (quite) enjoying sticking pins deep into your pretentious, bloviating fakeass

 

uh huh

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
 

Actually my comments are perfectly relevant to the topic at hand. Green is generally regarded as a criminal under the old PNC regime and the 60 released inmates are regarded as being inmates because they committed some kind of crime. Granger's actions favoring both sets of them is indeed concerning especially as very first acts as President. Nothing irrelevant to this topic and no need to start a new one. Add to that the increased criminal activities of late. You don't have to care about these but you cannot demand that others shouldn't.

so . . . this is the obtuse level of argumentation you expect me to waste time on

 

uh huh

Actually I never solicited your participation. I have an idea about the value of first impression. Granger's first acts as President tells who he is.

so, which phantom named redux were u responding to on this thread?

 

when on this forum did it become practice to "solicit" responses only from chosen posters on a thread u start?

 

some of y'all losing alyuh freakin mind the deeper u drill down to garbage post

I responded to your responses to my posts but am not responsible for you first responding to my post. You chose to participate in my comment. You can't now complain about doing so. You could have chosen to just bypass it. I do that many times when I don't care to be bothered.

huh . . . are u high?

 

who's "complain[ing]"? . . . certainly not me

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by redux:
 

well . . . i doan feel like shutting up rite now

 

actually i am (quite) enjoying sticking pins deep into your pretentious, bloviating fakeass

 

uh huh

Redux like it or not but many who supported the APNU/AFC have rising concerns over their seeming lack of focus, lack of coherency, and inability to communicate clearly what their goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.

 

The election is over, and the PPP lost, so cease seeing everything as partisan.  Guyana has a huge crime problem, and the economy is slowing, for reasons beyond the control of APNU/AFC.  While they cannot be blamed for these problems, people expect a coherent strategy for them as to how they plan to mitigate them.

 

Guyanese are doing what Ulele Burnham told them to do, and that is beginning to hold the coalition government accountable.  Granger might mean well, but his performance to date raises concerns. 

 

It is incumbent on those who wish them well to voice their concerns.  The PPP hasn't accepted defeat, and have all sorts of trickery up sleeves.  Guyanese have high expectations of the coalition gov't, and their honey moon period is fast coming to an end.  LGE is tentatively scheduled by year end. 

 

Should APNU/AFC not convince the populace of their ability to improve their lives, expect a sharp down turn in the APNU/AFC voting base,  We already saw a few months ago that the PPP can turn out their supporters.

 

So quit your stuck in the mud mentality. In private moments rumors are that even some in the coalition know that their performance to date hasn't been quite convincing.

FM
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by redux:
 

well . . . i doan feel like shutting up rite now

 

actually i am (quite) enjoying sticking pins deep into your pretentious, bloviating fakeass

 

uh huh

Redux like it or not but many who supported the APNU/AFC have rising concerns over their seeming lack of focus, lack of coherency, and inability to communicate clearly what their goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.

 

The election is over, and the PPP lost, so cease seeing everything as partisan.  Guyana has a huge crime problem, and the economy is slowing, for reasons beyond the control of APNU/AFC.  While they cannot be blamed for these problems, people expect a coherent strategy for them as to how they plan to mitigate them.

 

Guyanese are doing what Ulele Burnham told them to do, and that is beginning to hold the coalition government accountable.  Granger might mean well, but his performance to date raises concerns. 

 

It is incumbent on those who wish them well to voice their concerns.  The PPP hasn't accepted defeat, and have all sorts of trickery up sleeves.  Guyanese have high expectations of the coalition gov't, and their honey moon period is fast coming to an end.  LGE is tentatively scheduled by year end. 

 

Should APNU/AFC not convince the populace of their ability to improve their lives, expect a sharp down turn in the APNU/AFC voting base,  We already saw a few months ago that the PPP can turn out their supporters.

 

So quit your stuck in the mud mentality. In private moments rumors are that even some in the coalition know that their performance to date hasn't been quite convincing.

i must confess that i haven't the foggiest what your 6 rambling paragraphs of navel gazing shit have to do with me or anything i have posted on this thread

 

??

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Kari:

We do not know the percentage of recidivism (the incarcerated persons released into the general populace committing fresh crimes); but the larger point is the tone set from the get-go.

 

Hoyte was the anti-Burnham regarding the kick-down-the-door banditry. He ordered the TSU (the famed Black Clothes police/para-military) to shoot on site (okay not de jure but de facto).

 

The Interior Minister (Ramjattan) is responsible for the larger law and order situation and is an important cog in the anti-crime efforts. Even if measures are being taken to strengthen security, the message has to be loud and clear. (Oh gaddo-laaad here comes Nehru with his house slaves nonsense).

were i David Granger, i would not have done what he did at the time

 

much of what this man does, when he does it, and what he does not do, still puzzles me

 

however, let me be clear . . . there is no evidence - NONE - that any of those released had been or currently are a danger to society

 

David Granger is well known as a disciplined Law and Order military man

 

please be clear what exactly is this (implied) bad "tone" you are talking about

But the message was wrong to the criminal enterprise as a whole.  Those individuals may not represent a mortal risk but unconditional release sends a wrong message in general.

 

Baseman was one who was in favor of some leniency for youthful petty criminals however, I was clear, any amnesty must be conditional with specific obligations and strict monitoring for compliance over a set period.

nonsense!

 

you can make your sensible latter points without resort to this petty foolishness

Prove me wrong!

why is that my freakin responsibility?

 

i already told u that u and Ksazma are shitting self-evident nonsense

 

y'all 2 are not that important that i need to risk spelunking up your stinking ass to point out disease

Then [clown], my statement stands!!

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Kari:

We do not know the percentage of recidivism (the incarcerated persons released into the general populace committing fresh crimes); but the larger point is the tone set from the get-go.

 

Hoyte was the anti-Burnham regarding the kick-down-the-door banditry. He ordered the TSU (the famed Black Clothes police/para-military) to shoot on site (okay not de jure but de facto).

 

The Interior Minister (Ramjattan) is responsible for the larger law and order situation and is an important cog in the anti-crime efforts. Even if measures are being taken to strengthen security, the message has to be loud and clear. (Oh gaddo-laaad here comes Nehru with his house slaves nonsense).

were i David Granger, i would not have done what he did at the time

 

much of what this man does, when he does it, and what he does not do, still puzzles me

 

however, let me be clear . . . there is no evidence - NONE - that any of those released had been or currently are a danger to society

 

David Granger is well known as a disciplined Law and Order military man

 

please be clear what exactly is this (implied) bad "tone" you are talking about

But the message was wrong to the criminal enterprise as a whole.  Those individuals may not represent a mortal risk but unconditional release sends a wrong message in general.

 

Baseman was one who was in favor of some leniency for youthful petty criminals however, I was clear, any amnesty must be conditional with specific obligations and strict monitoring for compliance over a set period.

nonsense!

 

you can make your sensible latter points without resort to this petty foolishness

Prove me wrong!

why is that my freakin responsibility?

 

i already told u that u and Ksazma are shitting self-evident nonsense

 

y'all 2 are not that important that i need to risk spelunking up your stinking ass to point out disease

Then [clown], my statement stands!!

perhaps a nite skool course on logical fallacies would help u understand what is clearly much too far over your head

 

just a suggestion

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×