LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Party-sighted and Partisan-minded

letter to the editorAngelo Allen and People Hurting Dominica. PARTY-SIGHTED AND PARTISAN MINDED

I am not a talk show host but I know , and correct me if I am wrong, if a caller call and does not identify themselves the host shall¸ not identify the person as a courtesy and  other callers should refer to the caller.

Commonsense tells me, and now experience confirms this serves a number of functions from the perspective of adding value to the show. 1. If you don’t know the messenger less distortion to the listener 2. It is the callers fundamental right to privacy, 3. People have less fear of victimization and personal confrontations.

People who might argue if you don’t want to be identified don’t call are missing the point. The idea is, (the idea should be)  to encourage ideas and for listeners to listen with as much objectivity as possible.

Angelo Allen is so partisan, frothing mouth type, that he throws abandon to the wind and becomes an example of how not to have a fair balance discussion and to be PARTY-SIGHTED and PARTISAN-MINDED. He once said to me on air that “Phd’s  are people hurting Dominica ”

After that experience I decided he was not worth listening to. On Sun Oct 6 2013, I happened to have the radio on and when I came into the house his show was on and I was shocked to hear my name called. I was being bashed for having and expressing the opinion that, there is no constitutional authority breached on the election of the current president and that I do not support disrespect for the office of the president.

I tried to have an opportunity to present my point of view as I felt obliged to defend myself. I was being painted as the most vile and corrupt person  because after  listening to the legal position of two learned legal minds I was minded to support one opinion.

I called Behanzine’s show Monday, September 30 2013  after listening to Sir  Brian Allen. To  my mind there was no constitutional authority or directives for the actions Sir Brian was suggesting the government  should have taken after the attempt was made for a joint nominee. I asked a specific question to which I received no answer.

The constitution does not say how many consultations is required so if there was one consultation to come up with a joint nominee there was consultation as far as the constitution states. The prime minister and leader of the opposition did not provide a letter to the speaker on a joint nominee as the constitution required. The speaker in order to ensure the constitution was in order, no letter with a joint nominee and acceptance letter from that nominee,  had to issue  the 14 day notice for nominations. The constitution provides for no other authority or directives as stated by Sir Brian such as requiring a new consultation when in the circumstances the final government nominee was Hon Charles Savarin.

Savarin’s name came up within the nomination period. There was no clarity to my  question of the impact of a number of undetermined consultations would have on the strict ninety day  countdown to the expiration of the sitting presidents term. Tyani made some reference to the speaker standing in for the president and then I was shocked that in concluding his program he implied that as a caller I may be pretending to be confused so as to affect something or the other.

On the Hot Seat Matt discussed whether there should be a boycott of President  Savarin. Because I think that there is  no clear constitutional breach presented,  the leadership of the UWP needs to be more responsible. Dominica will be the one to be embarrassed and suffer. In the interest of my country and as a sense of civic duty I made a comment suggesting we should respect the office of the president. And discarding the constitution and the rule of law is what the government is accused of.

Angelo is so partisan he allowed a caller who identified himself as Pat to say that the government and the opposition must agree on a joint nominee, and he did not correct the caller, party sight, and then the enlightened caller’s conclusion was that it seems the more educated someone becomes the more commonsense they lose so they don’t want to be educated. One caller created a new word to describe the evil of my intention.

Angelo set the stage for this as he did not give me a chance, would not stick to the issue or hard facts and questions put. He flew into a rage about educated and personalities that were irrelevant and juvenile.  I hope the new promise of change includes learning to see other points of view and that one should change their point of view when wrong.  There are no options here.

It is wrong to abandon the rule of law, just because the constitution is the written word and is to the letter. It is wrong to encourage society to abandon the already fragile democratic practices that keep us from the precipice of chaos.   Angelo if two people have different opinions what gives one the right to attempt to ridicule and insult the other simply because the questions put are direct? PARTY-SIGHTed AND PARTY-MINDED NESS.

Angelo Allen hurting Dominica. By the way I bet the UWP can’t challenge the presidency of Hon Charles Savarin, and I am Dominica not any PART – TEE – ITE. I also call on the bar association and Sir Brian Allen to speak directly to the rule of law and the  constitutional path to responsibly and respectfully resolve questions about the office of the president and the constitutional process for installing a president in Dominica.

Dexter Francis

We are Dominica.

Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DNO or its advertisers.

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

195 Comments

  1. Read and Understand
    October 12, 2013

    Book education without commonsense is bad business. Commonsense without book education is sometime better business. If you say you are educated, Mr Dexter, it seems as though you are lacking commonsense. You have prolonged an issue instead of putting a full stop you keep putting a comma. This chapter one that you have begun seems to has no end. All Mr. Allen is trying to let the people understand is that, even without a PhD, an individual is still able to achieve the same level of intellectual understanding as an individual who does posses a degree. If you research throughout history many past leaders have ruled a country and they did not have a proper education, whereas, there have been leaders who had went to I.V. league universities and yet still a mere 5th grader is smarter than they were. An example of commonsense without PhD in our land of Dominica lies within the history of Rodney’s Rock…There has been many tactics within our Natures Isle in which, our forefathers did not have Phd nor were they avid scholars. Nevertheless, I do not mean to go on, but i just mean to advise this: please get on to chapter two, this childish bickering about Angelo Allen is very boring and tiresome. You claim that “we must focus on this issue at hand” and it is within your best interest so why not focus on that instead of re addressing and issue that has been clearly resolved. P.S. For those who are sure that they are educated, then they should have some basis in the English language and thus their vocabulary should be on a scholarly level. However I have read in many comments this misuse of the word “discard” in regards to Ms. LaFond. If I were to address the situation I would use the term “withdraw” instead. The term “discard” means useless or unwanted, in short. “Withdraw” means to take back or away; remove. We use the term discard for something that has no value and is useless, is Ms. LaFond useless and has no value? I doubt that and I’m sure she is not happy about the use of this word. Withdraw would be more appropriate.

  2. MeCamem
    October 8, 2013

    Maybe I was a little harsh with Angelo Allen. In reflection, I since carefully analyzed his remarks and within the context of my last posting. Mr. Allen apparently echoed his (fools) statements across the intellectual spectrum and not localized it to Dexter (who he did also call a fool). Was Mr. Allen absolutely incorrect in calling Dexter a fool, in reflection, I am not all that certain. How can one proceed with a discussion on the constitution and did not even read the darn thing, or even have a copy as reference.

    I can understand why Angelo Allen called the Dominican so-called intellectuals fools. Here is a man who did not got to college as he claimed, does not have a college degree as he claimed (not even an online degree), and yet he used the constitution as his source (any research paper should have taught that to Mr. Francis) while Dexter Francis really acted as if he did not complete primary school- with no source to support his advocacy.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      The issues here are that after hearing two sides of a legal argument I formed an opinion as to which I think was correct.(It is not uncommon for there to be different legal opinions for example the US supreme court often debates constitutional interpretations.)
      The UWP is proposing that we disregard the constitutional process provided for resolving constitutional issues. I am suggesting that differences in opinion is not a good enough reason to abandon the rule of law as this to my mind would have a negative impact on Dominica. And I am also minded to hold that opinion because I think there is no breach.
      Because I expressed that opinion on a talk show Angelo called my name on his talk show implying that I had evil wicked intentions etc.
      I was clear in my mind what I understood and as you note Angelo read, and that only reinforced my point.
      In 19-1 there is nothing that would suggest that consultation is needed after the call for nominations within 14 days. The UWP, or anyone else may have a different opinion and that is their right. The UWP can challenge and because I think it is in the best interest of Dominica to use the law instead of actions that may harm Dominica to stage the challenge I am wicked?
      And I am still unable to make the connection with educated fools. This is about the right to have an opinion. Is the obsession with education because of Linton’s lack of a formal one? Suddenly educated people have to be referred to as educated fools? I wonder if it is better to be an educated fool or just a fool? Anyway this is all to subjective and judgmental for me I would rather deal with the written word.
      Entering this debate I need no reference. I heard the relevant sections read as written. I trust my ability to listen and understand.
      What do you think about the issues at in Angelo hurting Dominica?

      • MeCamem
        October 9, 2013

        My Brother, as an educator, I always try to be fair and well balanced in every decision I make– understanding the potential impact on my audience (students).

        I am first a Dominican, even long before I formulate my personal views – which are always aligned with my love for country- even if I cannot utilize my formidable skills in my own home–Dominica, because I am a US Citizen who is NOT going to give up my pension, as we all understand the alternative. Change that darn law – both Zbigniew Kazimierz, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were allowed to provide service to the US in such relative capacities.

        Having said that, I must also inform you that I am formulating an opinion based entirely on my reading, listening to different talk shows (that is when I am not working), and also discussions with friends. I am not on the ground in the country, and as a result, I cannot directly address your question.

        However, it is not only Angelo Allen’s views I believe are impacting the country. It is the views of both political parties, and also practically every talk show host on the country: They are all separating the people because they understand there is strength in unity. The underlying objective of the strategies of these politicians is (in my opinion) to ascertain and maximize material possessions as history has taught us, and not putting the country first.

        With the number of young people unemployed, the question one must ask is how has Angelo Allen, or Crazy-T, or any other radio personality used their forum to advocate for our children? Is he hurting the country, I do not know, but based on what I have heard on the airwaves, I do not see how anyone of them has helped in that area.

      • MeCamem
        October 9, 2013

        Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski

  3. Objectivity
    October 8, 2013

    Dexter you would know Susan B Anthony – unlike most folks commenting here – you read. She said:

    “Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates and bear the consequences.”

    As classmates – I remember you always a seeker of truth to power. Keep on. Logic, civility, intelligence and respect for others – that you treat others the way you want to be treated – always win out over the crude, disrespectful, cowardly behavior displayed by these UWP partisans.

    Freedom of thought, independence to reason, ability to choose and the right to express your opinion in opposition to others – is what these haters want to stop. But Dominica is a democracy – and all these power hungry jacks – who want power for their own personal gain – these folks – led by the high school drop out called Linton – can’t defeat logical reasoning, nor intelligent mojo.

    Be Strong. The rest of the army of graduates – achievers – who want the best for Dominica – the vanguard of our democracy – is ever present.

    Victory is ours!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Thank you.

      The beauty of the written word to me is that it exposes the mind. Once there is no connection between words of communication, between different people, then integrity is wanting.

    • Anonymous
      October 8, 2013

      at least you showing your party colours …Dexter pretending.

  4. villager
    October 8, 2013

    Good for you. Why u want to hide? ?? Now u busy writing letter like Dominica cares how u feel n how u were treated. Some of u too one sided n likes everything all u way or no way. Now u will shut up n stay away fr de heat. People like u deserve no respect cause respect is discarded in Dominica n u bloddy well know it so take wat u get

  5. jon doe
    October 8, 2013

    Anyone who carefully followed that show and had any sense of what was going on will know that Dexter’s question was extremely clear and was never answered.
    I had no idea who the caller was but now that the discussion has emerged I do recall. It was very odd that the question was evaded and treated as unclear.
    Speak for your rights Dexter. UWPites are not worshiping their party leader any less than Skerritites are worshiping Skeritt, it’s like the coal pot telling the pot it’s bottom is black.
    You are right, We are Dominica.

    • T
      October 8, 2013

      I followed the entire programme. Dexter is simply an educated fool. And yes his question was totally and completely answered. He sounded like a frustrated man.

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        Ok so how many consultations does the constitution call for and how is the final 14 day countdown factored into the equation.

    • ex-laba
      October 8, 2013

      Man, it’s only a fool who recognizes a program as foolish, yet makes precious time to listen to it.

      • mystery
        October 9, 2013

        He who has ears let him hear. God bless you.

  6. Capito
    October 8, 2013

    Dexter don’t be bothered by the haters , Lord Skerrit will soon hear your prayer and give u something, u working hard for it.

    • Anonymous
      October 8, 2013

      He grovels also? Can’t believe it.

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        Please provide a point of reference to the issues at hand.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      No what it is … I hurt bad for Dominica…and like I say we are Dominica. Are you referring to the Hon PM of Dominica? Or the hon defacto PM?

  7. Umpire?
    October 8, 2013

    As umpire, let me give my verdict here because we all know that the umpire’s decision is final. Mr. Francis, I have known you for many years and I have always known you to be a bright and intelligent person. In the case of Mr. Angelo Allyne, although I know who he is I have never been engaged in a converstion with him. I must say here that he use to turn me off when he was reading news on DBS during the reign of UWP, my party, and and also when he used profanity during his night program on Kairi FM.
    However, to me if a regular person’s voice is identified during a live talk show call, then the host should not call the person by name. However, in your case as a nationally known person making a political and legal statement, to lead or mislead the public, I believe the listening public should know who you are so they could see if what you are saying is based on knowledge or just partisan politics. Here I don’t blame Angelo for exposing you. Umpire? You out Mr. Francis!

    • .
      October 8, 2013

      L B W…..HOW ZAT UMPIRE! Angelo apologized, but Dexter seem not to accept the apology.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Umpire what’s the call on my right to an opinion and on the rule of law and the constitution.
      And by the way I think you need the third umpire on the call. You see if a caller does not identify himself you may think it is someone that it is not. And the umpire and Angelo have to stick to the rules, everyone cannot be allowed to change the rules as they see fit. How would we ever play the game? Umpire I appeal.

  8. October 8, 2013

    You dont have to be a rocketscientice to know that if there are 3 different nominations, then there got to be 3 different consultations.
    Should everthing be spelled out :-D

    • Anonymous
      October 8, 2013

      duh! obviously! nothing hard to understand! he has no commonsense and if you can’t stand the heat stay away and stop embarrassing yourself more!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Apparently yes according to law. Just to get you thinking 1. nominations are possible from different sources so who consults with who? And 2 one nomination was after the 14 day period started. 3. The constitution reads shall consult on a possible joint nominee not shall consult on nominations.
      You probably have to be a rocket scientist to imagine what is not written in a contract.

  9. meritocracy
    October 8, 2013

    Poor Dexter! he took his hopeless case here convinced that he was going to embarrassed Angelo. In the end it only served to embarrass him and expose his puerile sentiments.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Honestly you would probably be too much for me right now. I would not know where to start. Sorry.

  10. Mojo 1
    October 8, 2013

    Mr. Dexter,

    you are acting like a big cry baby. You know very well the style of the talk shows here, and you still chose to call in. It is a practice by all the different talk shows that many regular/popular callers are sometimes directly referred to by their names or nicknames.

    You are no random caller, but can be defined as a regular call-in personality and a quasi-public figure as well.

    You like to talk about he rule of law when it is convenient to you. In this case there is no rule or regulation you can quote to determine than Angelo violated your rights. Furthermore he apologised to you immediately, which you gave a mocked acceptance, yet you still have the gall to turn around drag this petty issue to this global media outlet.

    The most shameful thing about this episode was your boast that you have never read the constitution or own a copy. For a man of your supposed stature and public profile, that was a disgrace. Instead of debating the constitution from an informed and factual basis, you were content on brazenly arguing aspects of it from an emotional and hearsay standpoint.

    DNO is a respectable media forum and it is really disappointing to see people use as a platform for promoting their verbal brawls and ‘maypwi’ sessions started elsewhere.

    • Mojo 1
      October 8, 2013

      * the rule of law

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      To me the most shameful thing is that you cannot see the trees for the forest. The issues is the disgraceful conduct of the host for example making accusations, judging, condemning, attempting to bring to ridicule, attempts to insult etc. And this because a caller has an honest reasonable interpretation as is their Dominican right. Do you really support this? Have you recognized this as the real issue? And that if I think you owe me more than you have paid me then I can ignore the law and forcefully take from you what I think is my due? This to my mind is dangerous, is hurting Dominica and is encouraged by the position of Angelo and the UWP as far as the constitution of Dominica is concerned. If I support Lennox should I just keep quiet because I don’t agree?

      • Anonymous
        October 9, 2013

        Why don’t you complain about the animal show too? How come you never write to letter to the editor about them? Because to you they have right to do all the foolishness you accuse Angelo of doing. DO it doh like so.

      • Mojo 1
        October 10, 2013

        @ Mystery

        On the contrary we all see the trees plus the forest, and there is more, we all see that you made a very foolhardy move and is suffering the backlash. For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.

        Angelo is basically the same character for years. When you were initial mounting your campaign against PJ for the Football House, it was that same Angelo who supported your cause , without even hearing from the other side. Those were the days of the Late-nite Show. At that time you found nothing wrong with him.

        Your apolitical pretext is so shallow that it won’t fool even a baby.

  11. Free
    October 8, 2013

    where can I listen to a recording of that program?

    • HIM
      October 8, 2013

      You like ro ro too much. You miss it not true, well you miss it. OK!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Read the article the issues are there.

  12. Bogoroy
    October 8, 2013

    Right on Q!!

    “Angelo Allen is so partisan, frothing mouth type, that he throws abandon to the wind and becomes an example of how not to have a fair balance discussion and to be PARTY-SIGHTED and PARTISAN-MINDED.” Lol! A very accurate assessment of the man, who usually posts on DNO stories using various pseudonyms.

    “Because I think that there is no clear constitutional breach presented, the leadership of the UWP needs to be more responsible….In the interest of my country and as a sense of civic duty I made a comment suggesting we should respect the office of the president. And discarding the constitution and the rule of law is what the government is accused of.” Again, a clever analysis. UWP wants us to elect them as the next government yet, they have spent the past decade slamming and disrespecting every important institution of the land. No sense!! As I said before, the UWP’s decision to disrespect the Presidency is divisive and irresponsible.

    • Anonymous
      October 8, 2013

      he not suppose to be respected! put lipstick on a PIG it’s still a PIG!

      Charles did and said so many things to hurt others and I suppose to respect him.. NOT ME, NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Nomination committe
    October 8, 2013

    Dexter I do not understand why there is apparently so much deliberate misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    Everyone agrees that the process of informing the speaker on the first nominee was correct.

    Simply put the next step was to open nomination. This is what was done.

    The Parliament was convened according to the requirement of constitution. The procedure outlined in the constitution is to open nomination.

    Even after nomination is opened the constitution still encourage consultation during the process. The President must be elected by the majority of members of the house.

    Unfortunately the opposition is only seeking to get reasons to disrespect the Authority of the State because they do not control the government.

    • Anonymous
      October 8, 2013

      Even if it was done the right way he still SHOULD NOT be respected!

      • mystery
        October 9, 2013

        It is not him being disrespected but the constitution of Dominica, the office of the president of Dominica, the rule of law in Dominica, the rights of others in Dominica, the democratic process in Dominica, We Dominicans etc…

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      I think it is a matter of political mileage without due regard for the real consequences to the country. Politicians will be politicians but we the people must find a way to sift through the illusions they try to cloud us with or a way to find sincere patriotic morally upright leaders. That is why I feel so strongly about this. We are Dominica and everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. Is it good and right that because I am supposedly educated and don’t think that we should practice abandoning the constitution on the say of politicians I become the inspiration for coining new words to describe someone evil.

  14. octo
    October 8, 2013

    Why is it that when someone expresses their view which is contrary to the opposition’s they have to be told “get out of here,” “you singing for your supper,” etc.?
    Dexter expressed his view in a civil way and a lot of the comments are uncivilized, to say the least.
    Angelo Allen, even if he apologised for identifying the caller, new that it would not change the fact that the caller was identified.
    Do I sense that Angelo is being glorified? Well, if so, it will only continue to breed dominicans love for ‘maypuis’and Angelo does that well!

    • """"""""""""""""
      October 8, 2013

      WILL YOU PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP! Dexter is nothing but a little cry cry baby, whose toy has been taken away. This had absolutely nothing to reach DNO.This man is simply too immature and childish to engage in a discussion.Angelo should have dealt with you in a rougher manner, for your stupidity and ignorance. Was the constitution in your head?.You could not quote anything from it,not even the relevant section re ‘The appointment of a president’, yet still you wanted a discussion? GIVE ME A BREAK! And to add insult to injury ”octo” is trying to bat for you! Octo whoever you are, you are equally as stupid,uninformed and shameless to associate yourseldf with the ‘MAR GEE’ Dexter made of himself on radio there.

      • Anonymous
        October 8, 2013

        He was, well actually he is a margee!margee! sot!

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        Thanks Otto like I say I love the depths of the mind the written word exposes.
        Don’t take it personal this is just an example of Angelo hurting Dominica, they follow his example, which is to engage in mindless irrelevance.

      • mystery
        October 9, 2013

        I don’t think you are reachable but I will try, this is about Dominica and the rights of non partisan Dominicans to think of what is best for the country and to discuss this without ignorant partisan hosts who refuse to let others talk defend themselves.
        If is about the quiet voice of reason. As a loved one would I will pray for you.

  15. an observer
    October 8, 2013

    Thanks Mr. Francis. I am Dominican too. Love that commentary. You are so right. The youth really need educated. Thanks, thanks.

  16. Pedro
    October 8, 2013

    Some people are prepared to make themselves FOOLS, just to protect a Dictator. After we destroy the constitution and state institutions, it is almost impossible to put the country back again. We must take a look at the middle east.

    • mystery
      October 9, 2013

      My point exactly the type of reaction from the UWP to the constitutional process would destroy the constitution and state institutions so lets be cautious in the interest of Dominica.

  17. Cyrique
    October 8, 2013

    Sisters & brothers we’ve had a very hearty debate about the issue. I think that it’s brilliant that we’re able to have such in depth free speech in our very beautiful Island. CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON????? The President is now in office!!!! It’s time to think proactively about how we ALL can help improve Dominica !! The land of OUR birth. God bless Dominica

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      I so agree with you. My position is that there are two sides with different opinions and according to law we have a president. If we object to the president the constitution provides a way to address that. To disrespect the constitutional offices and provisions because we disagree with the government is not good for Dominica and this is true for all parties.

  18. Anonymous
    October 8, 2013

    The UWP leadership are trying to bully
    Dominicans into submission. They figure that if they cannot get their way, then they will force it down Dominican throats. Their brand of politics is only setting us up to fail. How do you present yourself as a leader and continually ask the people to disobey and disrespect the laws of the country. Its clear that they do not know what it takes to lead. I shake my head.

    • Tell it like it is
      November 21, 2013

      Man, you hit the nail on the head! UWP wants power at any cost! This is frightening! I will say again, the UWP is no example of what we want in government. They are too arragant and I honestly believe they are the true dictators. I would not trust these guys at all! Dominicans be ware!

  19. Crime Stoppers
    October 8, 2013

    It would be a crime to call you to the bar after reading this here bro. Taking on Brian Alleyne is not a good move either. even if you say you are non-partisan; if it smells like a fish it most likely is. Then again the world is still debating maybe it is a merman. :-P :lol: all joke aside pardner the only person comments I support on here is that of sparky. Politicians do some real work in parliament and RIGHT the constitution to avoid such ambiguity.

    • mystery
      October 9, 2013

      I hope you at least understand now, thanks to the many educated and informed contributions, that there is nothing fishy about interpretation of law to arrive at an opinion and that in a nut shell what the UWP accuses the government of doing they want to do. There is nothing about my reasoning that you could argue is not an objective view. And there is no ambiguity but a lot of contradiction, and diabolism. As they say what goes around comes around.

  20. Land owner
    October 7, 2013

    A friend of mine once asked me to allow him to enter on my land in order to cut some wood to make some charcoal. I agreed. A year later I met a truckload of wood neatly parked on the side of the road. I confiscated the entire truckload of wood. Having found out that I was the one who took the wood, the guy came to me with the excuse,”but last year I asked you for permission.” He demanded the wood back. Dexter Francis if you were a Judge and that case came to you how would you rule?

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      If I were a judge I would be forced to follow precedent and the relevant law. I would rule according to the law. Dominica’s law is based on the common law. As citizens we can form our own opinions that may seem reasonable but the law does not operate like we do. By the way the constitution is law. Do you want an uneducated legal opinion ,that is a layman’s opinion?
      I am glad you referred to the court as I think we should when we have differences of opinions as far as our rights and what is right in a constitution.

  21. ()
    October 7, 2013

    Take your blows Dexter. You were like an educated fool on the show. You are even SHAMELESS enough to come on DNO with this crap, trying to curry favour from people. You were whipped, bruised, dragged to the mud and gutter, and you woke up BAR ZOO DEE, asking where your are. GO BUY AN EXERCISE BOOK AND A PENCIL AND GO TO SCHOOL. YOU ARE TOO DUNCE! SHAME ON YOU, AND YOUR BULL CRAP!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Thank you. Like I say the written word reveals the depths. You are a perfect example of the Angelo type mentality and intellect. Unfortunately some of the damage is already done and may not be reversible.

    • mystery
      October 9, 2013

      You have my prayers. Thank you.

    • mystery
      October 10, 2013

      Careful you might burst a vein. Empty barrels make irrelevant real rude sounding noises. We need the prayer warriors for this one … funny it sounds exactly like Angelo?

  22. then & now
    October 7, 2013

    Can we please give the presidency some respect! there are young ones among us

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      I agree. We should demonstrate that we are a people guided by law and civility. If we don’t confront negative influences we will be destroyed. Children live what they learn.

  23. Anonymous
    October 7, 2013

    Angelo Allen, di boy want to have his strength on oui…everybody knows Angelo and his bias ways…if you are brave enough to call his program to disagree then get ready to rumble…

    It is also amazing that they believe everything Angelo says and does…they take it all so seriously except the part where he tells them that he is not part of UWP…all he is an ordinary supporter …sometimes he disagrees with their strategies and he says so publicly….he does not get involved in their business….He says over and over what you hear from him is what he believes and nothing else….that he is not driving any agenda for UWP even if he obviously supports them…

    How come allyuh doh believe that? Eh? But allyuh believe the part about People Hurting Dominica for PhD? How can you all be so educated and so forth and take Angelo so seriously that you would want to win an argument with him so badly? How?

    • mystery
      October 9, 2013

      Exactly my point Angelo is bad for DA. Lennox should in fact issue a letter of disassociation. He is not the type of character that is likely to move independent Dominica loving minds. I don’t think so anyway. And that’s not an educated opinion.

  24. John paul
    October 7, 2013

    Party Sighted and partisan minded.
    It takes one to know one!

    Keep pretending that You are not a Skeritite and You just trying to be an intelligent being.

    I say “Rascaldom” it is out there I do not take the credit for creating i t

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Is there Any commonsense response for attacking someone who has an opinion. Read the logic in the argument and try to respond sensible and try to be evidence based and give a fellow citizen the benefit of the doubt for acting out of love of country. Is that not what Lennox wants and needs?

    • mystery
      October 9, 2013

      If you have any evidence to even suggest to support your position I would like to hear it. You see like I keep saying the Angelo type thinking is bad, it has no thread of logic in discussion points. He is a coward with a control button, ” caller no one is hearing you” ….

  25. Erasmus B. Black
    October 7, 2013

    Political pandering reflects the politics of mass confusion illustrated here by a disjointed mess of an article that reads like it was translated from another language by a not too adept translator. Sometimes we just can’t see the forest because of of the trees!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      You are obviously in the forest. How many consultations for a joint nominee does the constitution call for?
      What is the process for resolving constitutional issues?
      Do you think it is a good practice to encourage disregard for law?
      Should someone be attacked personally because they have an opinion that you don’t agree with?

  26. October 7, 2013

    People get real and let common sense prevail , how can consultation for one person continue for a new nominee then another etc. etc. . Nonsense, it is a new nominee the consultation process must begin all over . The constitution cannot and will never spell out everything . It is we that must stop that petty politics and do the right thing . Why is the Prime Minister so opposed to consultation , is he to big to talk to Hector John . Stupesssssssssss

    • John paul
      October 7, 2013

      We never had that problem until Skeritt showed up and it will go away with his disappearance from the seat of the PM

      • John paul
        October 7, 2013

        Big Sunday the man in Portsmouth passing out LPO’s
        That is ok with You? Using Government money to prey on the minds of the extremely poor and down trodden instead of having a genuine program that all can benefit from regardless of political affiliation

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        That’s another conversation. Stick to the issue. You have no right to attack someone personally in response to their expression of a point of view. Can you deny that the constitution calls for a consultation on a possible joint nominee and does not call for consultations on nominations?
        I like you am anxious to get down to the issues affecting Dominica. Politics have divided us such that we cannot converse. This is bad for Dominica. Angelo demonstrated the highest level of disrespect for discussion and exchange I have ever seen and the fact is he cannot support his position with constitutional authority so when he is challenged resorts to juvenile irresponsible actions. I noticed you are some of the damaged goods. Angelo has to be called out and it is people like you he will listen to. Honestly I think his demonstration hurts the attractiveness of the UWP as an alternative. The UWP has the higher ground and they are giving it away.
        They call for the government to follow the constitution and then because they don’t agree with something they want to disregard to processes outlined in the constitution.

      • mystery
        October 9, 2013

        Or it could be that leaders found a joint nominee in the past?

    • mouse
      October 7, 2013

      What is this Francis man saying nuh. The constitution should tell you how many consultation you must have, isn’t there something called commonsense then. What is wrong with you sir. Politics have blinded you? or what tell me. Do not do that to yourself man

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        Sir the commonsense is in the constitution and it provides for one consultation for a joint nominee. That does not mean there cannot be more than one. This would be up to the leaders but they don’t have to if they already had one. If the speaker does not receive a letter with a joint nominee by a certain time nominations open and there can of course be consultation but this would be if the leaders want to consult. That is my opinion and it has nothing to do with any party.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      The only problem is you have to follow the constitution. Only one consultation is required to see if the parties agree on a joint nominee. Ask a lawyer who is not partisan or better yet I hope the bar will help us here.

    • Tell it like it is
      November 21, 2013

      Are you people really so dumb? The consultation is for a JOINT nominee.. can´t you get that into your thick skull? A JOINT nominee… once that fails, each party can nominate its choice! No consultation required! Don´t tell me you are so dumb that you can´t even understand that much?

  27. Dexter'sClassmate/NY
    October 7, 2013

    As a matter of fact, let me rewrite the paragraph for you. Anonymos
    “I am not a talk show host but I know, and correct me if I am wrong, if a “LISTENER” call”S” and does not identify themselves”,”HIS OR HER SELF OR One”s SELF the host shall not identify “THAT” person as a courtesy and other callers should refer to “THEM AS” the caller.”

    • Dexter'sClassmate/NY
      October 7, 2013

      Let him remain anoni lie the gritty face he is we don’t want to know it. It ‘s shy with extremly low self esteem. I wonder and often so if it is a him/she or SHIM.
      Dexter made a point .Noni drink or fruit we are not into English Grammer and Prose here.JA.
      Dexter may be wish to take Angelo the jello brain’s advise educated peeps are dumb as noni.
      Noni you are one of DA’s listless ones who loves to hide behind a pen name and blast brave ones. saqway sort coleve.Get a life Noni or continue to back ur fist.JA!

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Thanks for the English lesson, really. And they think I am educated. An offer for future editing services would be nice, you see the benefit of education. Are you an English major? Do you think society benefits when those aspiring to high office are anxious to just abandon the law of the land? Do you see any breach in the constitution?(reference relevant article and issues raised). Thank you again and sincere apologies for the inadvertent unedited article. It seems you English sensibilities saw red sorry really.

      • Anonymous
        October 8, 2013

        What allyuh saying dere nuh?

  28. JIM
    October 7, 2013

    DEXTER go dump your filth somewhere else.Little boy with toys.If you can’t take the heat get the Hell our out the kitchen.

    • mystery
      October 8, 2013

      Very worthwhile contribution to an important national issue.

  29. Anonymous
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter Francis get a life , you are pathetic.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Someone who has nothing to contribute so lets get personal?

      • just saying
        October 8, 2013

        he acted stupid! he needs to go and read the constitution and ask God to give him the understanding! It does not seem he has!

  30. Sparky
    October 7, 2013

    I actually caught the programme with Mr Tiani and Sir Alleyne.
    The question asked by Mr Francis was not answered by Mr Alleyne to my satisfaction either.
    “The host and Mr Alleyne quoted the constitution:
    From my recollection, they said:
    The PM should consult with the Opposition leader to try and have a joint nominee.
    If they cannot agree, then the PM, the Opposition Leader or any 3 MPs can provide a nominee to the Speaker for election by the MPs.”
    I never heard any quote from the constitution referring to numerous consultations being required.
    The host and Sir Alleyne interpreted the clauses as they saw fit. If room for different interpretation is allowed, then in my opinion, the document should be amended to avoid ambiguity

  31. Anonymous
    October 7, 2013

    Ki sa?

    “I am not a talk show host but I know , and correct me if I am wrong, if a caller call and does not identify themselves the host shall¸ not identify the person as a courtesy and other callers should refer to the caller.”

    If a caller call? Should it not be if a caller “calls”? Or better yet ” If a listener calls”? One should not repeat basically the same word in such close proximity to each other.It is unnecessarily redundant and cumbersome.

    As a matter of fact, let me rewrite the paragraph for you.

    “I am not a talk show host but I know, and correct me if I am wrong, if a “LISTENER” call”S” and does not identify themselves”,” the host shall not identify “THAT” person as a courtesy and other callers should refer to “THEM AS” the caller.”

    Bon! This is just a few of the many errors in the piece…no wonder you are having such a tough time understanding the constitution…the English language does not appear to be your friend,Mr. I-do-not-support-any-party!

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      But can you address the issue that the UWP is prepared hurt and embarrass Dominica because the constitution does not read how they want it too. And is it right to attack a countryman because of a difference of opinion? In the US there are

      • Anonymous
        October 8, 2013

        What allyuh saying nuh?

    • Popam
      October 8, 2013

      That’s just about the level of ‘Anonymous’ and the majority of DNO comment contributors (who are UWP supporters). Small minds are never prepared to deal with the real issues at hand, but will use deceitful tactics to fool those like themselves.

      If lennox Linton and the rest of UWP members and followers are unhappy, because they think ‘my’ PM has behaved unconstitutionally, they have the court of law to call on for redress. on an issue as important as this, I would have thought he (the UWP leader) would be running to the court (along with Brian Allene) for redress.

      Not much has changed since ‘Slavery Days’ when we were used to whip ourselves on behalf of ‘Massa’. Some years ago, I bumped into a young friend in the street. She was accompanied by a young man. after we exchange greetings, she turned to the young man and started to make a formal introduction. As she was about to identify him, (I pon douvan), he piped up and said ‘I am an Allene”. Not wanting to offend my friend, I just excused myself from his presence.

      sorry to see in this day and age this state of affairs still prevail and worse, still being perpetuated. :( :( :(

  32. MeCamem
    October 7, 2013

    If I were in Dominica, and today was election day, I would not vote for UWP, despite the fact that I hold the perspective that twenty two seats in government is not an appropriate representation of the democratic process. And I hold…( with Mr. Allen’s conduct significantly truncated ) the affinity for the capacity I had heard espoused by Mr. Linton. Angelo Allen practically killed that affinity last night. As far as I am concerned, Dominica’s politician’s are all the same.. Rude, nasty and greedy.

    How can he represent UWP and did what he did, and said what he said last night. Encouraging Dominicans to dislike people like me who did not go to high school but managed to obtain a very good education in the US; yet Angelo Allen could sit on his DONKEY in a radio station in Dominica and call people like me a fool! Is that a sample of what UWP will do if it takes office? I cannot believe that Mr. Allen could stoop to the CRAZY-T brand of journalism. Is Mr. Allen telling me that he would choose CRAZY-T over me all because I hold graduate degrees and CRAZY-T does not … and therefore I do not have common sense… and encouraging Dominican to accept that logic? I am really disappointed in Mr. Allen and this advocacy. I thought that it was once said and motivated by the fact that UWP was considered a party of scholars and Lawyers…

    I sat in my home ( and with very my scholarly American friend ) in the US and was in total shock, totally disgusted and embarrassed – just imagine I invited a journalist to listen to this crap with me- with the ignorant, incongruent, irrelevant, and disgusting CRAZY-T type of journalism from Mr. Allen that I have refused to listen to on Kairi. Mr. Allen and his SIDEKICK in the background are acting as if the election has already been lost by Mr. Skerrit; his advocacy as a journalist was totally disgusting, and totally political. I am now convinced that we seem to have our own Rush Limbaugh in Dominica. I have always perceived CRAZY-T as an idiot, and it seemed as if Mr. Allen joined him last night. My degrees did not make less an intelligent person, neither do I have less common sense. As a matter of fact, they helped me to execute my common sense with a certain degree of precision and excellence.

    I really thought we had only one idiotic Crazy-T on the airwaves in Dominica, how wrong was I!!!

    • ....................
      October 7, 2013

      Angelo did nothing wrong. He identified the caller, and then he apologised. The caller was not ready yet, he was all over the place; he was quite obviously a party political failure, and he was ashamed that his argument was soundly defeated. HE IS ACTUALLY A VERY WEAK TALKER/DEBATER.

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        There is no excuse for Angelo and it is people like him who oppress the country by corrupting the minds of the people. We are supposed to be able to have a discussion and at least see a reasonable point of view from someone else.

      • MeCamem
        October 7, 2013

        Cutting off people who do not agree with your advocacy while allowing those you agree with to talk on and on and on is not offensive to you? Basically calling educated people stupid who lack common sense is not offensive to you? Claiming that people with degrees are fools is not offensive to you: Well, maybe it did not HIT HOME with you is the reason why you were not offended.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Actually part of Lintons appeal was that he is a novice. Like you I am weary of politicians and Angelo’s action on radio really calls us to wake up. The guy can’t seem to understand that in these times a country needs to appear stable and law abiding to be able to attract investment. And more importantly what are we teaching the younger generation. Politicians should not be allowed to damage Dominica in their quest for power. We are the ones who will suffer in the end.

      • %
        October 7, 2013

        @mystery Is Angelo the one selling our passports to the worlds crooks and criminals? Is he the one keeping Dominicans unemployed and in abject poverty? Is he the one insulting Dominicans ‘Go To Hell’, ‘Go To Hell’, ‘Go To Hell’? Is he the one who has agriculture in its coffin? Is he the one with the biggest cabinet delivering only POVERTY upon the people? Is he the one who cannot attract any candidate of substance to his political party? If the answers are “”NO”” , well SHUT THE HELL UP. YOU ARE BOTH MORALLY AND POLITICALLY BANKRUPT.

      • Papa Dom
        October 8, 2013

        What did Labour do when they accused UWP of widespread corruption? Was that giving investors confidence that as a country we are ready to do business? I’m not saying that it is right to do it just because the other party did, however we all know that there is massive corruption in this government. Anyone who tries to say that it is all just accusations by Lennox are being very dishonest and that is a very bad example for the younger generation.

      • The Baptiste
        October 8, 2013

        Mystery, you surprise me indeed, with your utopian view of what responsible journalism is about, but again your head appears to be stuck so far up Skerritt’s posterior that you cannot see night from day.
        When the Prime Minister and Minister of National Security, states that “no law, not even the constitution can prevent him from doing as he pleases” what can be more damaging to the image of the country?
        Since this criminal enterprise that calls itself the government has come to power there has been nothing but lawlessness in the land.
        Money laundering, human trafficking, drug trafficking, murders, abuse of children, fraud/stealing, to mention a few of the lawless activities that have emerged into the new economic activity, yet you do not think that anything should be said against those socially unacceptable behaviours. My friend the media in what ever form has a responsibility, and is duty bound to inform and educate the public about these things. If you and the authorities, including the perverted justice system does not want them to be written or spoken about, then develop and implement the requisite social and economic policies to effectively address them.
        Mayy be if you would come and reside here for a while you may just develop an appreciation for the expose of these lawless behavior that has become a part of our daily lives in what was once a beautiful, peaceful, and loving land of people.

    • Views Expressed
      October 8, 2013

      Me Camem…..you can rise to the occasion and remain objective. Angelo never says that he is a or the representative for the UWP..Once your objective and purpose is clear you are able to maintain your focus and discipline for what you stand for. Angelo`s views should not upset you but enforce you to revisit what you stand for, and stay focus to your beliefs and principles…Angelo is just one man who contributes his views to the debate like many others. I will not be distracted and I know that the process was contaminated by Skerrit ably supported and encouraged by the AG Levi….it was deliberate, these guys are good schemers…they are dangerous.
      The spirit of the consultation is written in the constitution, they know that, you know that, we all know that, it is simple….how on earth the circumstance for discarding Knight is automatically the same discussion/consultation for discarding Lafond and Savarin. As we observed Lafond`s circumstances for declining nominee was different, and obviously that of Savarin as we the public do not see him or recognise him as credible. His history and record is tainted…..and that must be discussed individually through a consultation….

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        Wrong when nominations are called for there is no constitutional requirement for consultation. Saverins suitability should have been questioned during the vote at which the people were not adequately represented.
        Again the constitution calls for one consultation in an effort to arrive at a joint nominee. The opposition instructed the speaker that they did not agree on the nominee suggested by the PM.

    • contact
      October 8, 2013

      a little learning is dangerous.identify yourself.which university did you attend? the quarter credit ones?

      • mystery
        October 8, 2013

        But I think a little learning is better than non, for example it may be better to be able to write you name rather than to have to make a mark.
        Anyway can your full credit intellect identify any relevant national issues at hand?
        Sorry I am just an ordinary Dominica with a questioning mind and I don’t see the relevance to you question. But I understand it is more of the effect of the Angelo hurting Dominica, he takes your mind away from the facts and important issues, and throws up smoke to divide and keep us from seeing we are Dominica.

  33. Objectivity
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter Francis – my classmate and friend. Thompson Fourtain was also our classmate. Your logical mind seems wedded to facts – our friend Thompson seems to think that his opinions are facts.

    Dexter – keep on speaking truth to power. Oh, expect your call to the bar association and Sir Brian Allen to speak directly to the rule of law and the constitutionality to go unheeded … our Lerner-ed friend Brian seems to have lost the truth to power vibe – not the first time and always in the interest of his personal gain.

    Oh, but that is not new – he abandon us in 1995 – as our Leader with five seats vs Rosie’s five seats – as the opposition to a 11 seat UWP – he quit (for his self interest) – left us high and dry to lose the Mahaut seat to UWP – sinking us into the minority position in the opposition.

    Edison James then stopped him from becoming Chief Justice – it is why he kept acting – like he doing now as a fair minded justice.

    Hope the rest of – what would be my colleagues – in the bar association – can step up to your challenge.

    Dexter – stay strong. Truth to power. Dominica first, partisanship second.

    Peace.

    • Anonymous
      October 7, 2013

      Where were you crooks when DLP was walking all over the constitution? Putting their left foot, size 13s, in and out and right foot, size 13s, in and out, doing the hookie pookie on the supreme law of OUR land?

      Where were you when they invoked the doctrine of necessity instead of following simple constitutional procedure, of having the exiting President write to Speaker indicating his vacating office? Where were your voices when Skerrit obviously contravened the constitution by having dual citizenship and still running for elected office in the parliament.

      Objectivity ain’t so objective after all.

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        You may have heard the voices but did not know who it was calling.

      • Objectivity
        October 8, 2013

        Crooks? That is what you will call others – because you are a coward, Mr. Anonymous.

        Why don’t you identify yourself when you – in a libelous manner – use the word crooks, i.e criminal, lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, culprit, wrongdoer?

        But you are like Lennox Linton – a cowardly bully behind a microphone or in your case as Anonymous – maybe if Lennox (and you) had the brains to finish 3rd form and graduate high school – he would not just be an illogical coward like you – jack.

      • Anonymous
        October 8, 2013

        Bwaaa…..So objectivity, dat is di name your muddah give you? That is the name on your birth paper boss? I feel for you brother ..no wonder you have such false sense of your importance. Alas poor you.

        Go support your PM and his ca-ca revolution, if you know what good for you.

    • ....................
      October 7, 2013

      You are so HYPOCRITICAL. Were you MOO MOO when the constitution was being trampled upon by the cabal.FLEE AWAY HYPOCRITE! You seem to be one of those singing for a penny bread. GO FIND WORK TO DO!

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        Ok so you are another one with no ability to deal with debate and the merit of point of view and opinion. It is people like you we are trying to bring light to.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      I hope more people put Dominica first. The thing is I am minded to support whoever demonstrates insight into the issues facing the country. Dr. Fountain has started some interesting discussions and I look forward to talking with him sometime. If Dominica is to survive we have to be able to talk seriously about our problems in a frank objective manner. Dominica first.

  34. Anonymous
    October 7, 2013

    You need to edit and rewrite this. Typos and errors abound!

    • One Love
      October 7, 2013

      Haste makes Waste

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Sorry the wrong attachment was sent. DNO has the correct version so they may post it if possible.

  35. Family feud
    October 7, 2013

    Is all of all u so that have Dominica in that mess there’s nothing else to talk about all u think all u so intelligent but yet foolish stuppssssssss

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Try to understand the debate and the very important issues facing our Dominica.

  36. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    October 7, 2013

    Stuppessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. RUBBISH!

  37. ________________
    October 7, 2013

    I listened to this man on Angelo’s show, and he sounded so downright idiotic and political, that i have lost every shred of respect I had for him. DIDNT ANGELO APOLOGISE WHEN HE CALLED YOUR NAME? You were attempting to quote the constitution, and you sounded foolish, since you did not even have a copy to read from. It cannot get more clownish than that. Had it been another person and not Angelo, you would have the same to say, since you wanted your perspective to be seen as the right one. You must stay away from debates, since you lack the capacity and ability to debate.You seem to get irated very quickly, and seem to be one who takes defeat in ‘bad blood’.
    The TIME YOU TOOK TO WRITE THIS HARAGNGUE, it would have served your purpose better, if you had gone to carry a bucket of water for one of Dominica’s poor. WE HAVE MANY POOR PEOPLE ON ISLAND,COMPLEMENTS THE SKERRIT’S EVIL AND WICKED CABAL!

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      I think the UWP is putting the country at risk for proposing disrespect for the constitution and the office of the president because they don’t understand the document. They propose embarrassing the president but it is Dominica that will be embarrassed and the citizens encouraged to disrespect the law. Remember two wrongs don’t make a right. If they don’t agree with something there is a legal process to follow according to the constitution.

      • %
        October 7, 2013

        You are an embarrassment to your own self, because you are mentally enslaved because of laziness. Angelo is not. Like Lennox, he exposes the evils that you support, the thievery that you support, the lies that you support. NOTHING LASTS FOR EVER. HOW LONG? NOT LONG!

      • Popam
        October 8, 2013

        When our PM was embarrassed by a cost guard on his recent trip to Belize, the authorities there were quick to punish the offender by publicly isolating him with demotion (whether or not UWP think he will be soon re-enstated).

        Lennox Linton and UWP party should get the same treatment from ‘Patriotic Dominicans’ for trying to publicly trying to do the same to the PM, the Government and President of Dominica.

      • St. Joe Massive
        October 8, 2013

        what are you really saying, don’t you live in Dominica?

      • simple DA.
        October 8, 2013

        wa happen all u so afraid becus 3rd NOVEMBER COMING MAN??? HAHAHA. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    • FAST AND FURIOUS
      October 8, 2013

      Clean your damn backyard first your disrespectful “UWPeas”.You act like you know it all.What have you done for Dominica?Have you given a helping hand to the poor and needy?Keep your critics to yourself and learn to respect ones opinion or point of view.

    • mystery
      October 10, 2013

      Bring on the warriors! Angelo?

  38. Views Expressed
    October 7, 2013

    When someone applies for a job, the company shortlists a number of candidates to be interviewed. Are you telling me that after the first person is interviewed the other shortlisted candidates should not, must not be interviewed…and that you just point a finger and because this is the person you want – you go for it? This is malpractice, discriminatory, unprofessional and wrong. Alex Boyd Knight was nominated, opposition says NO, she was therefore discarded, the process starts all over again to see if the other nominee(s) meets the criteria and prerequisites. The government cannot determine if this nominee is suitable for the opposition and the people of Dominica.
    How are we going to know if there are any cobwebs (e.g… dual citizenships, declared bankrupt, criminal record, US citizen green cards etc etc…??)
    “Dexter Francis” and “I`m Wondering”, you missed the point and logic of the constitution and the spirit of the process.
    The nominee(s), just like the candidates applying for a job MUST be referred to the Parties concerned (The Opposition) or interview panel to be scrutinised and interviewed. This is respect due.
    If you all do not understand the morale of this process, then I am very concerned to hear other interpretation of good governance from you all. Angelo is correct and the UWP did well to represent us Dominicans

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      What you need to understand is that the consultation to see if the parties have a joint nominee upfront and if not move on. The constitution provides the course of action needed after there was no joint nominee. You think that there must be consultation on each nominee to see if that nominee can be a joint which is not what I think the constitution says. What do you think the constitution says. And just because we have a difference of opinions does not mean that you are evil or wicked. I am sure you love DA as much as I do. In the case of the current president his name came in during the period for nomination and the constitution does not provide for consultation at this stage.

    • Toomatoe Tomato
      October 7, 2013

      I did not listen to the show but by the letter, the writer is correct. That is how I understand the constitution to be. There is nowhere that the Prime Minister is suppose to hold consultation and consultation and consultation and consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

      The Constitution states if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition cannot agree with a joint nominee the process for election in 14 days begins when the Prime Minister inform the Speaker of a lack of a joint nominee. Thereby nominations are brought forward during the fourteen days and an election is held at the end of the 14 days in by the parliamentarians present in the House.

      Can you imagine the crisis our country would be in if the Leader of the Opposition keeps opposing every nominee brought by the Prime Minister?

      That is why the Constitution puts the burden on the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition to conclude the process. After all there must be an end.

      We must realize also the constitution gives the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition the power. Thank God for that, because the Opposition we currently have would want to see the country in a crisis.

      The ideal situation is if both parties were to agree on a joint nominee. But if there is none, the constitution rightfully provides for that. That is The Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition have to inform the Speaker to start the next process. That is my interpretation of the election of a President.

    • St. Joe Massive
      October 8, 2013

      Very well said

    • simple DA.
      October 8, 2013

      100%

  39. ???????????
    October 7, 2013

    Man go and hide with your filth. If something is hurting you, GO TO THE DOCTOR!

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      I see your logo is ????????????? Where is the filth and as for what is hurting Dominica we are the doctors. Do you think we should abide by law or just make up rules as we go? Do you think it is possible for friends to have different opinions? Off course you do. You might think a red car is the best and your friend a grey. It does not mean your friend or anyone else is evil or wicked if they present a reasonable point of view.

    • mystery
      October 10, 2013

      @???????????? Angelo is that you? Sounds like words you use.

  40. raster man
    October 7, 2013

    Mr. Francis you just don’t get it are you a man or a little boy.

  41. %
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter you are too thin skin and politically blind. You seem to be a party political slave, a blocked headed fool who seem to be seeking solace for something that is hurting you. Angelo tried to engage you in a conversation, that you are too biased to understand. I have been listening to Angelo for a very long time,(maybe longer than you), he did not treat you differently from any other caller. He called your name, you showed your dissatisfaction, AND HE GRACEFULLY APOLOGISED.
    I think that you are too thin skinned to call to any TALK SHOW,ANGELO OR MATT,OR EVEN THE ANIMAL SHOW.
    Furthermore you behaved like a kindergarten child. You lack commonsense,understanding, wisdom and you are filled with political bias. Good thing you called anyway, I just learnt something about you and your party political and nonsensical stance.
    SHAME ON YOU,SINCE PEOPLE LOOKED AT YOU AS AN EDUCATED MAN.
    YOU ARE SIMPLY AND EDUCATED FOOL!

    • At 0 %
      October 7, 2013

      That ‘s an oximoron.
      Isn’t it?

      • At 0 %
        October 7, 2013

        It leaves u without the OXI.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      What I don’t get is what you think I don’t get. I also see no relevance to you questions and the issue at hand. I do get that this is an important because it might just get you to start to see how reasonable people exchange ideas and so bring development to their country. We are Dominica,

  42. peter karam
    October 7, 2013

    Dear Admin, do you think we will ever rid the earth from jackasses???!!!

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      God put jackasses on the earth so why do you want to get rid of them. Remember Jesus rode one and Sampson killed with the jawbone of one. Anyway what’s your point re the issues raised? Are we blinded by party politics? Should we be ruled by law or mobs? Should we all think the same? Just a few of the many important national issues underlying the issue.

  43. thinker
    October 7, 2013

    if you want to act the fool do not call the show , just show your dunceness, please call the ohter show hey love to tell GOOD people where to go and what to put where , get a life Dexter, you could not make your point you were too politically blinded .

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Thinker? Really!!!!!!

  44. #Behonest
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter, how can you challenge a retired judge, Sir Brian, on constitutional interpretation, yet you do not have a law degree.

    THats the problem with Dominica too many UNqualified people want to give legal opinion and ‘host post’.

    You will write about angelo because he is an easier target

    • '
      October 7, 2013

      Never thought that this man was so idle, and thin skinned.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Don’t forget I came to my conclusion after listening to the opinion from two legal minds and one of the benefits of education is that it trains the mind to process things in a logical reasonable manner.

  45. linky
    October 7, 2013

    mi coshone

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Above your salary scale?

  46. Mwe Chien
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter Angelo is as bias as they come – no doubt however you were less than judicious in your approach. If you intend to argue a point particularly something on the constitution you could have prepared or even have a copy of the relevant section of the constitution.
    Even when you wre given a chance you simply stated or argued that the consultation for Alix Boyd is and was applicable to Charles Saverin. You never stated that your argument was based on the opinion of Brian Alleyne or any other learned jurist. Your opinion was based on a feeling , an emotion.
    Well Dexter in as much as we both believe that Angelo is so partisan whipped you are no different cause you have demonstrated that you are not prepared to accept that consultation means dialogue, negotiation. You agreed that there there was dialogue about Alix Boyd and the Lafond lady but then claim there was no need for consultation with on Charles Saverin

    I can safely assume that you Dexter also sided Levi Peter on the issue of ” what is consultation” – you will recall that Levi and crew also tried to redefine the meaning of consultation when two years ago they did not consult with the opposition leader on matter of the Top COP. You also supported the doctrine of necessity Dexter – you cannot deny that- can you. If you do then I would be glad to remind you.
    Dexter everyone has the right to his own political party alignment and Angelo is doing a good job at being blue bias but people like you with your sanctimonious approach are pretending to be fair and balance when everybody know that you are not. Just simply declare your alliance with Roosvelt Skerrit , Colyne Mc Intire and then display your biasness openly like Angelo Alleyne.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      The constitution says to me and I don’t have one and have not read the relevant sections as they have been read to me and I listen closely. This is what I hear, 1. there is to be a new president, only one allowed, 2 the prime minister shall consult the leader of the opposition to see if they have a joint nominee 3. If there is a joint nominee the speaker is informed in writing, also provided is a letter of acceptance of nomination by the nominee. 4 If there is no joint nominee which is the case since there is no letter to that effect then the speaker calls for nominations 5. The PM the opposition leader and any 3 members can nominate within a specific time, 14 days. 6. The leader of the opposition wrote to say he was in disagreement with the nominee at consultation. The constitution does not say any other consultation is required. That is the thread of the logic I support and being a patriotic Dominican I don’t think anyone should hold the country to ransom because they feel the constitution says otherwise. If they want they can challenge in court. This is the rule of law. Not Dexter’s rule.
      By the way sitting in lectures trains the mind to listen and comprehend so that you can from reasonable ideas and conclusions from discussions. I defend that I formed an opinion from listening and Angelo did not hear me out but cut me off. I hope you will agree now that it does not mean I don’t support the UWP, but I would discourage anyone from supporting actions demonstrated by Angelo.

    • Lilly
      October 8, 2013

      @ Mwe Chien. Best post so far!!!! lol.

    • mystery
      October 10, 2013

      In debate and law it is the logical relevant facts that matter. It is not about arbitrary feeling, and circumstantial evidence does not convict. I declare that my allegiance is to Dominica and you have concluded that my actions speech and intentions convey this to you. It is diabolical that you still want me to be other than I am and since only God and I know the truth in my heart your conclusion is not a fact and I am non partisan.
      I am afraid you are not free to assume, this could have fatal consequences in matters of the law and in a factual situation assumptions don’t count. And you should consider it is the consultation as outlined in the constitution that defines the consultation.
      Considering the doctrine of necessity… I could not have commented and I accept your challenge. But this is a major issue to my mind currently as I am gathering that the doctrine of necessity was not what was documented on the required forms submitted by the speaker. Uninformed and looking forward to information, good journalism…
      My friend to my mind and yours the type of consultation we would want is whatever would give the best result for Dominica. This to my mind would be flavored by sincere effort by both parties to embody all noble and wise counsel as possible, but alas we are but humans, caught up in an adversarial system – the best intention for consultation has to come from those involved. Which brings us to Angelo and the fact that I was maligned, or attempt made, based on partisan assumption. And you want me to join those ranks.
      You see then you lose me you because you make unqualified judgments, and what I hear is that my approach is too good to be true, your conclusion again based on hearing me , no way we Dominicans cannot be fair and balanced, so stop pretending. But then who can be trusted to be fair and balanced, Angelo? Lennox? And who decides? What are the yardsticks? Is there a way for fair assessment?
      Between Dominica and Angelo where does your bias lie? Between whatever party and Dominica where lies your heart? I declare Dominica and as they say action speaks louder than words.

  47. tell me
    October 7, 2013

    @ Im wondering . what is choosed?

    • T
      October 7, 2013

      The past tense of shoes.

    • I'mWondering
      October 8, 2013

      CHOOSEN!!!!

      If that is all you could take out of this, then i rest my case!

  48. warma
    October 7, 2013

    “The constitution does not say how many consultations is required so if there was one consultation to come up with a joint nominee there was consultation as far as the constitution states”

    That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. The Constitution CANNOT say that there should be one or many consultations on the election of president because you cannot know beforehand how many there would be. There was simply no way for the framers of the constitution to know we that would end up in a situation where there would be 1, 2, 3 nominees. The constitution demands consultation on a nominee – if you have 3 nominees, then there must be consultation on EACH. Consulting on nominee #1, who summarily withdraws, does NOT give the PM carte blanche to circumvent the process and declare that the letter of the law was observed and thereby proceeds to apply that one consultation to all prospective nominees; that is not the spirit of law. You know who behaves like that? Itty-bitty dictators.

    Dexter Francis, if I was in charge of hiring people for your company, and we agreed to consult on all applications for jobs, and for one applicant we agreed to hire them but that person decides to take a job at another place, that leaves the position unfilled, right? Now suppose I hire someone else and that person turns out to be a thief, embezzeling your company, you’re going to come to me and ask me how is it I hired that person without consulting you. If I say to you that we already had consultations, would you accept that expalanation? I doubt you would, but if you do, then you’re a fool.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      They constitution provides that the parties shall consult to see if they a minded to one nominee and not that each possible nominee should be consulted on. Think about. If there is no agreement on a joint nominee then the constitution provides that the opposition and 3 members of parliament can nominate. As far as the prime minister he is the one who gets to nominate someone and if the opposition does not support the nominee the PM keeps his nominee or changes it if the nominee withdraws. The leader of the opposition does not have to consult the PM on his nomination so why should the PM after they tried for a joint one have to consult the opposition on his possible nomination, and what about the others who have a right to nominate. That is my reasoning as an independent patriotic Dominican.

    • I'mWondering
      October 8, 2013

      Even if your logic is accepted, you guys forget the part when the Speaker was provided with the name of a nominee by the PM becuase no agreement was met!

      In that case…the PM, Opposition or 3 members of the House could ahve submitted a name for election.

      Furthermore, “the Opposition … may, during the period expiring fourteen days after the day on which the House has been so informed, submit to the Speaker by writing under their hands nominations of candidates for election as President and the Speaker shall at the first meeting of the House after the expiration of that period and before the House proceeds to any other business inform the House of the nominations he has received and to which the candidates concerned have consented.”

      See what it says (MAY/DURING) so they could have submitted a nominee. In my learned mind – i took that to mean – that they have up to…no later than, before 14 days – to present a name.

      that’s is how i interpret that section. In my mind – during the period expiring 14 days after – gives the time line for submitting a nomineee – it doesnt say after 14 days submit a name..it says during the period expiring 14 days after the day the house has been informed.

      So…tell me, if there was no agreement on consultation, what was the excuse for following the Constitution and nominating someone?

      After all – we are sticklers for abidign to the law and respecting the Constitution.

      who dropped the ball on this statutory interpretation?

  49. black sheep
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter singing for his supper, these words and sentiments are carefully processed and are of his better judgement. How on earth can consultation starts with Alix Boyd Knight but did not have to continue to Charles Savarin after Jeniffer La Fond had declined? I would also ask Dexter to define the word “consultation” and while he is there he should explain to the people that why he thinks the qualification criteria fits all the three candidates in the same way since according to him one consultation fits all.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Because the consultation is to see if there is an agreement on a joint nominee not to consult on every nominee to see if could be joined. Once the speaker has no letter with the name of a joint nominee accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the nominee then there is a call for nominations within 14 days.

  50. October 7, 2013

    so what really are you saying? if I consult with you to pick one person then I can go ahead and pick any other person without speaking to you again? Deep Deep Deep down you honestly find you making sense?

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      What we consult about is to see if we have someone in common up front and if not then there is no joint nomination and no one has to consult anyone on their nominations. The pm would already have his nomination, the one suggested at consultation, the opposition may or may not have a nominee, as well as 3 members of parliament. Not that the opposition and the members of parliament have no consultation on a nominee. The pm and the opposition leader have to write to the speaker saying whether they agree on a nominee. The opposition wrote saying that they did not agree on a joint nominee.

  51. hopeful
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter you need to get a copy of Angelo’s programmeof last night and listen attentively to yourself. At one time I thought you were a French man.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      Any way read my French now and comment on the issues at hand. I don’t do well in discussions when people bring juvenile, personal and irrelevant nonsensical points to a discussion. What I clearly remember is Agelo avoiding the relevant questions. For example constitutional debates are common in the US and a panel of judges would have different opinions, Does that mean any of them are evil wicked, and so bad words cant describe because they have different opinions? That’s my point I have a difference in opinion and that does not make me evil as Angelo would have you believe or a government supporter for that matter. Because I could not make a point on the talk show I used the written word. Is there any French I wrote that you would like to question with the authority of the constitution?

  52. tante merle
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter I could not have said it better than that.. Only their opinions on the talk shows count..that’s why I don’t listen to their constant ignorance.

    • just saying
      October 8, 2013

      their ignorance? you just don’t want to listen to the truth! the truth shall set you free because you are enslaved right now!

  53. St joe
    October 7, 2013

    man dexter you not easy. Any way time will tell on all you big man in Da country

  54. One Love
    October 7, 2013

    As you said YOU ARE NO TALK SHOW HOST –

  55. Asterix
    October 7, 2013

    Mr. Francis, as a lay associate in the Catholic Church I would want to think that you would be one who would subscribe to honesty. Moreover you are an educated individual. You use the word commonsense which I would expect you to have but from your slant of the whole situation I seem to be wrong because apparently you lack common sense or are just plain dishonest or wicked. Common sense should tell the average mind that a consultation on alix boyd knight cannot be the same consultation on Jennifer Lafond nor Charles savarin. I listened to you yesterday on Angelo’s programe conveniently trying to avoid mentioning the names of the presidential nominees (which by the way is public knowledge. Why Mr. Francis did you not want to call names. It was simply part of your ploy to mislead the public with your view that one consultation was all that was needed re the presidential nominees. The opposition after consultation did not agree with the government on alix boyd knight. Another nominee was suggested and so another consultation was necessary by due process, but since the opposition was minded to support that nominee very early on, that one could have been done without. Since Ms. Lafond the second nominee withdrew this gave rise to a third nominee Charles savarin and therefore another consultation became necessary according to the process. If HR Managers are to sit down to decide/recommend who among prospective candidates should be placed in a particular job and were to choose one individual who were to somehow withdraw their interest; are you telling me that they should not sit again to discuss the alternative candidate? Are you also trying to suggest that alix boyd knight and Jennifer Lafond and charles savarin are one and the same person? I say Shame on you Mr. Dexter Francis. I was a member of the St. Alphonsus Catholic Church (while in Dominica) and we sat around the same general area in church on Sundays and we always greeted each other as well. . I had some level of respect for you but if that is how as a lay man you want to twist the truth and be so deceptive to the public honestly you have lost my respect. Oh and this is not the first and only time I have heard you, so it’s not because of this one instant you have lost my respect. It is one thing to support your party and all of us do and please don’t tell me that you are not partisan (as you label Angelo) because you are but to try to deliberately mislead people, I say shame on you.

    • Confused
      October 7, 2013

      Asterisk I am minded to share your views. Sense tells me that consultation for one nominee cannot be the same as consultation for all three nominees. That is not so difficult to understand. It’s like saying I give someone permission to access my property for water on one occasion and they continue to take water because I gave them permission once.

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        It seems simple to me the consultation is to see if there can be a joint nominee not to consult on each nominee to see if the nominee can be a joined one.

      • Vytamean
        October 8, 2013

        @ confused

        … or better yet, you gave one person access to take water on your property, that person declines and a second person believes that they can just come on your land and take water(without permission) because you gave the 1st person access. :-D

      • simple DA.
        October 8, 2013

        @ MYSTERY….u r completely wrong it must be for all candidate ok.

    • ON POINT
      October 7, 2013

      As it is said, “The law is a fool.” Each and everyone has their understanding of the law. Understanding that may be oposite. That is the reason why we have a court of law. To say that someone is dishonest because he has his views or opinion about what the law says as in this case is wrong, misleading and far from the truth. Who ever believes that the law or the constitution was not followed in apointing Severin as president, they have a legal right as a Dominican to challenge it before the court and that they should do. To encourage violence when there is a legal way to deal with an issue is wrong.

    • Seriously
      October 7, 2013

      Really?

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        Not to difficult to understand is it?

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      I wont judge you or comment on the irrelevant stuff but what you are missing is that the constitution requires only on consultation to see if the parties are minded to a joint nominee. There is no requirement to consult on the possible that each possible nomine should be consulted on. I don’t see the jump between this debate and my spiritual life, I trust God knows my heart and this type of experience deepens my personal spiritual convictions. Does it say in scripture he without sin cast the first stone, or judge not. I lay out a simple thread of reason for an opinion and you still cant see. Scripture says he who has ears will hear.

  56. Keep your stance
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter, I heard the exchange with you and Matt that particular morning and it was clear even Matt himself was confused.I am afraid the number of LAw yAS that is advising UWP they will certainly self destruct.
    Alas the new leader is in deep s and the more he runs his mouth is the deeper he sinks.
    Where did Lennox get his law degree? Could somebody please enlighten me.
    This morning Lennox was on air reporting on something that he had gotten second hand only to find out on two other radio stations he was being accused of being a big liar. lennox the more you talk the more you get trapped. Talkatone lass bla bla bla

    • St. Joe Massive
      October 8, 2013

      Rubbish

  57. I'mWondering
    October 7, 2013

    Thank you for this article.

    “The constitution does not say how many consultations is required so if there was one consultation to come up with a joint nominee there was consultation as far as the constitution states.”

    Amen!

    i keep saying that this provision is open to staturoty interpretaion because it is not definite as to what the process is. Where does it say that a consultation is needed for each nominee?

    who is to determine what the number of consultations needed was? I think waht was done is constitutional becuase they Opposition had a chance with the original nomination. After that, the PM could have choosed to go straight to the House. But nominating other candidtes, it did not violate any Constitution as the Constitution does not specify.

    too many legal minds trying to determine what could be an issue that needs statutory interpretaion. And what’s more – because it is not clear as to a set rule, then lawyers will interpret it to their purpose. It is not set in stone.

    I also have an issue with that 14 day period that the UWP keeps claiming needed to expire before they could take action. Based on how I read that provision- i understood it to be during the period of 14 days – not after!

    • One Love
      October 7, 2013

      . . . so it all boils down to a matter of OPINION – I RESPECT BOTH POINTS OF VIEW (opinions)

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        Thanks that is all I ask and that we not allow politicians with their personal agendas to destroy Dominica. I was simply suggesting that a call for disrespecting the office of the president was not justified. This would be an embarrassment to the country as well had untold repercussions for generations. And I would hope that I could be a UWP express that opinion and there would be no party backlash. It seems what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

      • I'mWondering
        October 8, 2013

        It boils down to interretation.

        I am not blowing air out of you know where because i’m not like most people on here who do not work in the legal field.

        that’s my life – that’s all i do.

        Just last week i was part of a group that went to a Court of Appeal seeking interpretation of a phrase and it was all based on the word “MAY”

        People need to understand that laws can be ambiguous and can be changed. that’s a reason why there are always amendments, repealed sections etc. When the laws were made- they fit at the time, but as new situations arise…you go to court soemtimes to let the court explain and make sense of it and create a “test” by which others may follow.

        I stand behind my understanging of this section … i am not going to simple adhere to what others think just cause.

        There is a reason why the defense and prosecution has different theories- it’s about interpretation.

  58. Papa Dom
    October 7, 2013

    Dexter get out of here with that foolishness. Contrary to what the AG/DPP stated, what skerritt wrote does matter. The letter to Mr John stating that skerritt’s preferred choice for president has declined the nomination is an important piece of communication. Common sense, FairPlay and the spirit of the constitution dictates that the process of consultation should have been restarted. The 90 lead time imposed for the consultation was to allow ample time for meaningful discussion on a new president. Skerritt sees the office of president as unimportant so he treated the process in flippant manner. Not that it is important but I must tell that as a former class mate I know you can do better.

    • ON POINT
      October 7, 2013

      This is a constitutional issue so having voiced your opinion like Mr. Francis the court would be the right place to settle the matter.

      • mystery
        October 7, 2013

        And all I am saying is that it is possible that we are on the same side, for Dominica, but have a different point of view. My humble opinion is that consultation is to see if there is someone in Dominica who both parties would support. How much consultation does that take and was there any other suggestion after there was no agreement on the first suggestion.

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      My foolishness tells me that the consultation is to see if there is a joint nominee not that every nominee should be consulted on to see if they can be joint. As in this case where the PM’S nominee withdrew that they have to consult again all the opposition would have to do is nominate a candidate of their own, vote for the new nominee of the PM, or when they hear of the new nominee decide to support that nominee or not. The fact is that the speaker would have to receive a letter saying there was a joint nominee which was not the case. I think that the mistake is thinking that the constitution asks for a consultation on a joint nominee more than once.

  59. read mee
    October 7, 2013

    Life is a two way street. Is it Angelo alone identifying the callers? The Prime Minister did it on talking point when he identified Ronnie Isidore. He went as far as asking him why wasnt he at parliament.Secondly, If u think that there is no constitutional authority breached on the election of the current president and that u do not support disrespect for the office of the president Then thats u. I as a teenager still think that it was done wrongly. U all are just too BIAS.

    • Ron
      October 7, 2013

      Ronnie identified himself when he called….

    • ON POINT
      October 7, 2013

      U were done wrongly? What does that mean. if you think so strongly about it, that is a constitutional issue, so take the matter to the court where there is a better understanding of the law and allow the court to address the matter. Your opinion of what the law says is just that, an opinion.

    • Okok
      October 7, 2013

      On what basis do you think it is wrong? You cannot just think it is wrong as a teenager. You should read the constitution and understand it then come out and speak. Okay

    • mystery
      October 7, 2013

      It is a good attempt and encouraging that you are a teenager.It would be good to provide some constitutional authority or support for your position otherwise in the real world of debate you score no points.

  60. Channel 1
    October 7, 2013

    :lol: :lol: :lol: ……….but watch what the caller type and send for DNO to post dere nuh…………

    But what trouble is dis…….. :lol: :lol: :lol:

    • Objectivity
      October 7, 2013

      Ok – so your point is?

      • Channel 1
        October 7, 2013

        @Objectivity – Objectivity, go read an encyclopedia and stop being idle.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available