Comments on: Starling Proposes Referendum Clarity Act 2014

By: bluebird

bluebird — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 21:55:26 +0000

AH! and Hotels being built in Bermuda,as I remember the “HOTEL: at Castle Harbour, you know the one that was called “MARRIOT”.
The one that the BIU/PLP was going to show who was BOSS,so they left.
I SEE THAT MARRIOT now have 700,000 rooms and building more Hotels
YES seven hundred thousand rooms,but non in Bermuda.
Looks like Marriot has showed WHO IS BOSS.
Had we been more welcoming and worked with them instead of against them
as the enemy.We could have had many of the people that use there 700,000
rooms referred to the Bermuda location.
I think we shot ourselves in both FEET on that one.

By: bluebird

bluebird — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 21:37:57 +0000

We are a Country run by an Elected Parliament,the Government of the day
does the Business of the Country.Matters not if you like or dislike the
the particular party at the present time.
If you “CANNOT” get elected you cannot have input as to how the country
is Governed.
But you are trying to do the same VIA REFERENDUM.
Suggest you go and give it a try in the country where you got the “IDEA” from.

By: PBanks

PBanks — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:58:43 +0000

I fear you ask too much out of certain persons known more for trolling and deflecting than contributing useful commentary.

By: Triangle Drifter

Triangle Drifter — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:23:14 +0000

It does not appear that many care what Starling thinks. Bout as many as the votes he got.

By: BermyL

BermyL — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:21:13 +0000

I respectfully disagree. “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming for the purposes of creating new jobs for Bermudians and encouraging hotel development?” I can’t imagine there are many Bermudians that would oppose creating new jobs and encouraging hotel development.

It could have said “do you favour the passing of legislation allowing new hotel developments to obtain licenses to operate regulated casinos”. This would be far less loaded and biased.

How would people feel about a referendum question like “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming at the risk of further erosion of our morals with the possibility of causing a few suicides after people lose their last dollar to multi-billion dollar casino corporations?”

I’m an OBA supporter (just barely) but there’s no denying the way that question was worded was extremely biased. Let’s call a spade a spade. Moreover, the intent of Mr. Starling’s proposed legislation makes a lot of sense to me. Calling for neutral and intelligible referendum questions can only be a good thing for such a democratic exercise as a referendum.

By: BermyL

BermyL — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:08:49 +0000

Can you comment on the message and not the messager? This would lead to a higher level of discourse in this country.

By: LiarLiar

LiarLiar — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:16:35 +0000

I personally did not view the proposed referendum question as being loaded or biased.

This is due to the fact that the issuance of casino licenses would only be granted to new hotel developments and as such the original question was very relevant to the proposal.

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:03:52 +0000

I’m curious why aren’t you over in Syria or has that lost it’s importance.

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:50:10 +0000

‘do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming?’

But that has bias…it is asking for an individuals perception on regulated casio gaming.

You could have said ‘Are you against the introduction of Regulated Casino gaming’
and the voting results would have been very different.

There are many poeple who are not for regulated Casino gaming, but those same people are not against regulated Casio Gaming.

See it’s not that simple is it Starling.

IMHO you’d be better off removing ANY opinion or BIAS

Government to introduce legislation for regulating Casio gaming. YES or NO (voter to put X in appropriate box).

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:05:52 +0000

A self proclaimed Marxist Stalinist who holds nor never held Public Office is continually attacking the Government over issues that do not concern him nor really affect the subject he refers too.

Cherry picking.

Let it go Mr. Starling.
Your doing what your friend Lenin did.
Divide.

Shalom.

By: Bermuda Boy

Bermuda Boy — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:35:59 +0000

Starling…leave this alone. It’s a done deal!