In the film “Mandela,” Matt Damon plays an aging anti-apartheid leader who is run out of office by the iconic Nelson Mandela. As a character actor, Damon made one of the best depictions of this legendary hero. He played a role that stood out as a true representation of what a president should say and do, while at the same time showing how change can occur from within rather than from without.
In TOTO. The late Judge Advocate General (JP) Bob Stewart says in his ruling for the release of Nelson Mandela that; “I accept your argument that there was sufficient evidence to find that they had engaged in a conspiracy to depreciate the value of the South African currency, to redesign the monetary system, and to engage in currency trading with the enemy.” The court accepted the evidence in toto in this regard. Additional examples on the Internet. By refusing to confirm the facts of Ford’s story, Flake was essentially refusing to confirm the accuracy of any specific allegation, whether true or not, that the Larger Truth had been exposed by Flake. This decision subsequently destroyed the moral high ground that Flake had espoused throughout the film.
In octopus. An organization of six members elected, perhaps on a platform of ‘one man one vote,’ set forth in an organized effort to alter the Constitution of the United States to place term limits on all legislative branches. One of those proposed changes was to limit the power of the Speaker of the House to the power of a majority of members (groups 1 and 6) of that House. This action was, of course, referred to as the ‘No Budget’ amendment and ultimately failed.
In Singapore, there was a very public argument between Singaporeans as represented by the now bankrupt, but very popular Singlish newspaper, New Straits Times, and the then current Prime Minister, Mr. John S. Lindsay. The theme of this argument was that Singaporeans, unlike Americans, did not want a balanced budget, as the American people did. Mr. Lindsay’s argument was that he could, by passing a special measure called the Full Employment Grants Act, pay for the cost of hiring more people, more teachers, more nurses, more police, and so on to solve the budget deficit. The argument went on to say that he believed that Singaporeans deserved better pay than other peoples because Singapore is a ‘developed nation.’ He added: “If you want to put the full faith on the British people to give you their money without quibbling over the principles, why don’t you vote for me?”
The outcome was the same as had happened in Ford’s case: no budget, no increase in wages, and no promise to pay the surplus monies. Mr. Lindsay’s argument had a flaw. As Ford had said “What they really want to see is some of my money going to the poor,” while in Singapore the method of transfer of money from the winner to the loser has already been fixed (so that if the buyer selects the Toppings System he gets instant payment and if he selects the Gamble System he gets immediate payment). It is therefore unlikely that any of the winners of Toppings System will get a prize under the New Straits Times Lottery.
The second most talked about scenario is that of Toppings Plus Five Star Plus. This is the prize pool where all the winning numbers plus five extra are drawn. The numbers plus five plus are drawn at random. The person who buys the Toppings plus Five Star Plus tickets has the choice of purchasing one ticket per winning combination, or to purchase an additional number or bonus combination (the same as with the Toppings system). If a winning combination is drawn then all of the buyers win the same prize, provided that they also buy an additional number or bonus combination.