Write by: Christian Volney
I guess by ‘admission’ the silence of Ron Green and Edison James with regards to ‘qualifying’ all the ‘assertions’ of corruption(remember that allegations are no more than assertions unless proven otherwise in a ‘court of law’ “not” ‘a court of public opinion’), should be construed by any Dominican who possess ‘the independence of thought’ as being unsubstantiated, correct? Well with this being said, and a concurred understanding of accepted fact, (not to mention the ‘deafening silence’ of Ron Green and Edison James since the election campaign) I will also construe the ‘assertions’ of corruption levied against the prime Minister and his Government as no more than a ‘political manipulation’ orchestrated by the opposition forces in discrediting the labour party of Dominica!
Until it can be substantiated ‘legally’, I will certainly not accept, or subscribe to, the ‘hot’ wind being spurred as the ‘et al’, because is is said so by those driven with an alternative political agenda ‘masquaraded’ by some, as a ‘self richteous’ patriotic crusade!
This is the difference between being ‘objective’ with a passion driven by a non-political agenda, and one being manipulated by a ‘political bias’; the ability to disseminate and question the ‘twisted’ versions of the truth we have been lead to believe, comes at a ‘personal’ self sacrifice to ones governing conscience! Believe me when i make this statement.
I guess I am one of the “tangled web of intellectual masturbation” spin doctors referred to, (as you so ‘ellquently’ put it) for exercising my ‘independent thought’ process though my ‘thorough’ examination of the arguments of both sides?
I will accept your comment as a personal endorsement of that ‘indiependent’ ability (that we lack due to our political bias) and construe it as a compliment. Thank you.
As F.E.T reiterated, ‘answer’ the question posed? you may be branded as being ‘interlectually dishonest’ is you do not! It was indeed a rather simple question; one that needs no personal manipulation.
For the record,
I am not a ‘registered’ member of the labour party, I do not ‘support’ the labour party; so your conjecture is invalid. You are a smart one, figure it out!
Remember, not every conjecture ends up being proven true or false. The ‘continuum hypothesis’, which tries to ascertain the relative ‘cardinality’ of certain infinite sets’, was eventually shown to be ‘undecidable’ (or independent) from the generally accepted set of ‘axioms of set theory’. It is therefore possible to adopt any statement, or its negation, as a new ‘axiom’ in a consistent manner (much as we can take Euclid’s ‘parallel postulate’ as either true or false), as I have done, and continue to illustrate.
Cheers and be blessed.