<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">Representatives should not be imposed on the constituency, they should come out of the constituency so that the people can see them move about and not only during the campaign and then in five years to make amends.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">I agree 100%.</p>

<p align="left">Most, if not all constituencies receive absolutely dismal representation across the board in parliament. We accept whatever pathetic candidate a party throws at us.</p>

<p align="left">This should be the other way around, a constituency should be mandating who they want representing them, and not taking garbage from anyone. That’s how you make political parties wet their pants and establish a precedent of good representation, easy. </p>

<p align="left">This representative should be visible, working, and circulating within the community for the entire term of governance, anything less is not acceptable.</p>

<p align="left">Moss obviously understands the spirit of the constitution, but I don’t think the same can be said for the general population who have yet to understand the extent of the power they hold and this could be a miscalculation for Moss, but who knows what the future holds...</p>

<p align="left">We are at a crossroads, and we need real leaders, not people who function as if the government runs on autopilot. The government doesn’t have an autopilot switch.</p>

<p align="left">We need leaders who are servants of the people running the show, not political prancers or rhetorical masters who can make people laugh or believe in unicorns.
</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">Whether a feminist or not, no responsible journalist, writer or media personality would ever toss these words around, ignoring their meanings and origins and the people affected by the acts and views of the world they describe.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">I know it’s hip and cool to be a feminist, looking for micro-aggressions and arguing ad infinitum over words and meanings, but don’t you think that you’re a little too trigger happy?</p>

<p align="left">I read that column a while back, and while I disagreed with almost 100% of it, I have a hard time understanding how the columnist trivializes the word ‘rape’.</p>

<p align="left">By the way, rape has two meanings which depend on its contextual usage. The first has a sexual connotation, and its second is to seize, plunder, or despoil by action or force. Its origins are even more surprising.</p>

<p align="left">If the phrases “rape the people economically” or “rape them of their individual personal freedoms” or “rape them of their money” trivialize the word 'rape' and demonstrate rape culture, then the English language has taken a real good beating, and that’s coming from an old timer.</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">It's a sad day in the Bahamas for so many Bahamians to be talking so much crap about our city of Nassau.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">..Or perhaps today is the day for a reality check. As far as I’ve read, not one person in this comment section agrees with your sense of reality. </p>

<p align="left">I live in Nassau, and that video didn’t shock or disappoint me at all, in fact, it was a very factual video. This island is filthy, I’m sorry, but it’s true.</p>

<p align="left">For a video that tame, a lot of people sure got offended, so I guess it’s a good thing that the more raw stuff doesn't hit social media, because I’ve seen some interesting things. Maybe the shame will motivate? Who knows.. </p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">Accusing others of being unpatriotic. How trite. A mirror should be placed before her.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">I agree. There is hardly any grounds for accusing a fellow citizen of being unpatriotic, but this is the game they default to. I wouldn't even accuse my worst enemy of being unpatriotic because they have their pride too.</p>

<p align="left">This is the typical strategy of painting opposing views as anti-Bahamian. People demonstrate their patriotism in multiple ways, some show their love for country by criticizing the bad state of affairs, some demonstrate it through cultural means like Junkanoo, others may show their love through sports, and some yet will show their patriotism through praise.</p>

<p align="left">Those who call others unpatriotic are trouble makers, and here’s why; It is the single most used political tool to control opinions and borders what some like to call “fascism”. </p>

<p align="left">Proponents believe that the population should only have one opinion and it must agree completely with the actions of politicians. </p>

<p align="left">So as much as I dislike Mr. Bethel I would never accuse him or the opposition of lacking patriotism.</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts laughed off the former PLP MP’s political aspirations, saying he “seriously doubted” that Mr Moss would affect the governing party’s votes or support base.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">Chairman Brad is quite correct, their support base is impeccable, and every general election demonstrates this, even in times where they lost badly.</p>

<p align="left">They have an absolute 40% vote that is generally guaranteed regardless of performance, and a support base of 30%. That’s what you call historical advantage.</p>

<p align="left">Anyway, for Moss this is bad news, and my opinion is that every time a new political party emerges, the government's second term in office gets that much easier. The electorate’s voting style hasn’t changed and it’s very unforgiving.</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">Mr. Gomez, if you want to fight corruption, then please apply the same rigorous standards to your own party, after all, they happen to be the government and the decision makers, so it is their conflicts of interest that can and are bringing the country into disrepute.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">What you say is good but fantasy man, I’m sorry, not happening. This is politics in its rawest form, to play the paragon of truth, but render justice selectively. Partisan politics is where it’s at and from their position they view corruption in their ranks as eating bread or drinking water.</p>

<p align="left">His reputation is at risk though, some people already see him as a hypocrite. I thought the trick was to attack both sides simultaneously to give an air of neutrality, and then pounce when the electorate is distracted with legal fireworks. </p>

<p align="left">As for me, I can’t even begin to take his anti-corruption image seriously because he’s still in Cabinet. He set his deadline though, so the opposition looks like they’ll have to get ready for some legal jangling. You can almost smell the vitriol in air. What a country we have.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Edit:</b> Just read the article again and it's interesting that "he softened his self-imposed deadline", that's just asking for media annihilation...</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">“This notion that this is a political issue is really false,” he added.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">Says the man who’s not only a sitting member in parliament but also a Cabinet Minister in the government’s entourage preparing for legal action against select opposition members. That’s the epitome of politics buddy, I’m no fool.</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">At the time, he underscored that this proposed legal battle, which was a personal decision and is being carried out by his attorneys, had nothing to do with the Christie administration or the Ministry of Legal Affairs.
</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">If this is truly a personal decision, then why are you still a Cabinet Minister? And if it had nothing to do with the Christie administration then I think we’d better call it the Gomez administration, cause he sounds like the real boss. The headline should say “Government ‘In Discussions’ as self-imposed deadline nears.”</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;"> In Bahamaland, we define poverty as not being able to afford a car, go dancing, to a movie - or to take a shopping trip to Miami. These have nothing to do with poverty.</p></li>
</ul>

I agree. I believe our problem is greed, not poverty.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">And to think, if he had not brought it to the public's attention, the masses would be none the wiser. </p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">Perhaps he's a tad bit too green. He has the freedom of choosing his own battles in the press but he really couldn't help himself on this one.</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="color:gray">K P Turnquest told Tribune Business that Moody’s appeared to have “weighed differently” its concerns over high levels of household debt, the official 12 per cent unemployment rate and labour market inflexibility.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">This isn’t surprising. Moody’s and S&amp;P use different guidelines for their credit ratings.</p>

<p align="left">But it looks like the deputy leader for the opposition is level headed, and it’s good to see him give a commentary that highlights the contrast in both reports.</p>

<p align="left">He needs to keep his eyes open though, as there are already those who will make it their duty to paint him as anti Bahamian, and unfortunately this type of rhetoric is brutal.</p>

<p align="left">It stems from a completely polarized form of political thinking, where a person believes that the opposition wants bad things to happen for political advantage. The worst example I’ve seen of this, is when someone says that the opposition wants more murders to happen so that they can win the next general election.</p>