Lil Hammerhead pointed something out the other day that has been really getting to me. She said that it is so odd that as soon as a conversation regarding the Casino Act starts to focus on the provisions of the act itself all of the Proponents quickly tuck tail and run.... usually tossing a few choice personal stabs before ducking out.
Why is this?
This blog actually started out indirectly because of the Saipan Casino Act. I had posted a comment on Mr. Turbitt's blog after he ran his column praising Casinos. to make a long story short, he banned and censored my comments when i told him that the public may infer that he was in support of the Saipan Casino Act. I also asked him if he had even seen the Act before running the column in the local paper. His response was unprovoked personal attacks resulting in him censoring my comments and banning me from his blog. My only point I was trying to get through was that he may want to specify that he is in support of Gambling and not the SCA if that was the case. Turns out a month later he seems to be singing that tune now... go figure.
I still don't understand why he lashed out in such a manner. If he ever posts the deleted comments the public can read through them and see that he was overly defensive and was reacting like a cornered cat.
But let me get back to my initial point. It appears that no matter what blog I hop onto that is dealing with the subject of the Saipan Casino Act, the proponents keep pushing these false promises in support of the act. As soon as I post a concern or question directly related to the provisions contained within the Casino Act they shell up and all goes completely quiet.
Here are a few blog examples:
http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/?p=5#comment-339
http://www.saipanwriter.blogspot.com/ (multiple instances on this blog)
http://saipanuvian.blogspot.com/2007/10/sour-grapes-for-tuesday-october-16th.html
http://saipanuvian.blogspot.com/2007/10/sour-grapes-for-tuesday-october-9th.html
Many other blog chains exist online and they all follow the same trend.
The only explanation I have is that those in support of the Act blindly embraced it without ever reading it. After coming under heat and trying their darnedest to argue their points they read the Act and found out that they were completely off-base in supporting it. Rather than come forward and just admit that they no longer support the Act itself they stick their heads in the sand like an ostrich. A few from time to time will shoot out nonsensical comments still preaching support but with no factual basis and still with no acknowledgement what-so-ever to the concerns and questions that have been raised.
Their is another possibility. Perhaps they did change their tune and decided to speak up and inform the public that they were no longer in support of the Saipan Casino Act. Perhaps that news go out to the NMDIC Mafia and they have bound and gaged them and thrown them into the back of a truck and driven them out to Marpi.
I guess what I am trying to get at is can anyone at all that is still in support of voting Yes on the Saipan Casino Act please step forward and address the numerous concerns that have been raised by myself and many others? Can any one of them address the damn Act itself?
Key Lime Pie
7 years ago
6 comments:
They have not disappeared, they are now going house to house, taking their deception to a new level: one to one.
Not to worry, they cannot fool enough voters to pass the act.
Just heard today that they have reached a new high.
They are tellign people that if they don't want the Casino in Saipan that they need to checkmark Yes. They said it is the way the law was worded. A No is an indicator of support for the Act.
Talk about messed up
The Commonwealth Election Commission has received reports that there are individuals informing our citizens and registered voters that a “yes” vote means “no” for some of the questions on the November 3, 2007 general election ballot.
There are seven (7) questions for Rota and for Saipan and the Islands North of Saipan, and six (6) for Tinian and Aguiguan, that require a yes or no vote. The questions are all found on the right-hand side of the ballot and they are for the four (4) judicial retention questions and the two (2) House Legislative Initiatives and the Saipan Casino Act for Saipan and the Islands North of Saipan and the Rota Casino Act of 2007 for Rota.
For the record, a “yes” vote means that a voter is approving the question, whether it is for the initiative or for the retention of the judicial officers. A “no” vote is a vote in opposition, a disapproval, of the question.
Thus, if a voter votes “yes” on the Saipan Casino Act, for example, that voter is voting to approve the initiative. A “no” vote means the voter is not in support of the initiative.
The same goes for all the questions on the right-hand side of the general election ballot.
Anyone having more information about this issue is asked to please report the matter to the Office of the Attorney General, the Public Auditor or to the Commonwealth Election Commission.
Sincerely yours,
GREGORIO C. SABLAN
Executive Director
COMMONWEALTH ELECTION COMMISSION
Post a Comment