Ok, I will bite. According to Fweddy, which by the way can be easily discovered in history, Sir Roland:
a: Refused majority rule (How is Fweddy's comments playing the race card?);
b: Refused to allow women to vote (How is Fweddy playing the race card? Wouldn't this be playing the gender card? I am confused?);
c: Opposed independence (How is Fweddy playing the race card here?);
These are three distinct inarguable facts, that have noting to do with race. So, please stop spewing your propaganda, Brent Symonette, er, I mean gotouunume.

CaptainCoon, your name is quite appropriate.

DaGoobs, agree completely. I guess my only issue is, we don't know the amount of economic benefits that hosting the relays provided. I am all for government spending money if there is a return. The fact that we cant empirically state what the return is (if any) is baffling to me.

What's the alternative? (no "snarkiness" meant at all with this question).

Would either the Tribune or the writer of the article be so kind as to provide the names of the people involved? Or is that too much to ask for a news story? Calsey Johnson, Ed Bethel and Rusty Bethel must each be shaking their head in shame at the quality of this so-called news story.

John, no argument with your logic. But I blame the PLP...here's why. There should be no question, debate or "political" assertions about the economic value that the relays brought to The Bahamas. The PLP could have commissioned a simple cost/benefit study that empirically detailed what the benefits were of the relays. With the appropriate variables, any second year statistics/economics/math student could have run the regression analysis on STATA. That way, when D'Aguilar claims that the benefits were negligible (my words, not his), there would have been an objective, fact based study to refute (or support) his assertions, and we wouldn't have to be left guessing about what value, if any, was there in holding the relays.. But alas, The Bahamas...what can I say about us?

So, AlexCharles, while I do not agree with your, um, colourful language, I am more than inclined to agree with the point of your post. The Graduate needs to retire in the deep dark anonymous room where he writes his comments and refrain from speaking (or writing) any further.

So your argument is because Freddie did it, it is not okay for Minnis to do it? In both cases it was wrong, however, Freddie isn't in power is he? The king that wears the crown gets the glory, or in this case, the blame. Minnis should cut down on the traveling, and with such a large entourage, many of whom contribute nothing to the even they attend. Oh, and it was a campaign promise of Minnis, too, by the way.

It is Old Fort 2012. And anyone who disputes this is a raging ignoramus.

Hrysippus, I enjoy your posts, too...usually well thought out and not the nonsensical hysterical miasma of foolishness that is pervasive on message boards. Here is where I would like to quibble with you. Sir Lynden has been out of power longer than he was in power (if you count August 18, 1992 as his last day as Prime Minister). Surely, at some point, we need to stop attacking what he has done and recognize that, in this modern Bahamas, we as a group have not done much to change what he did. To me the question isn't, what did Sir Lynden do (or not do as the case may be) but, rather, if he was so awful for this country, why haven't successive administrations deviated from what was done (National Investment Policy, nib, rbdf, rbpf, all basically the same as Sir Lynden left it). To me, that is more of an indictment on us a people than anything Sir Lynden did. So, we should be angry with ourselves rather than him.