MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina recognizes Brazil's institutional process and president Temer
The Argentine government expressed on Wednesday respect for Brazil's institutional process and iterated its willingness to continue advancing toward a real and effective integration based on respect for human rights, democratic institutions and International law. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI am surprised The Malevolent Midget Malcorra didn't 'throw HER hat to Temer now she's missed the UN job and it's clear she is an embarrassment to Macri.
Sep 01st, 2016 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dilma lost her Bolivarian Revolution ally of Evita K
Sep 01st, 2016 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And hopefully the MadUrine will be ousted as well...
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0No surprises here.
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are.”
“…….absolute respect for Human rights, democratic institutions and International Law.”
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina uses high sounding language like that a lot, it believes that, if you repeat something over and over and over again, it becomes reality.
It’s just like their attempt to steal the Falklands by claiming that the Islands have always belonged to them, they keep repeating the same falsehoods believing that will become reality.
#5 downunder
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina” is, like any other country, a mix of people with different beliefs and political ideas.
You would be more accurate if you referred to the Macri administration as the author of the grandiose statements you referred to, which do not represent all Argentines.
Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia freeze relations with Brazil
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But Argentina recognizes Brazil,
seems south America is not as united as they like people to think.
Mr Massot,
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You would be more accurate if you referred to the Macri administration as the author of the grandiose statements you referred to, which do not represent all Argentines”
As an advocate for the Argentine People, who do you think the Falklands belong to?
Are you in agreement with Malcorra, Filmus, and Evita K??
#8 Kanye
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please refer to my previous posts on the matter.
Please re-state your position, in this context, with your most recent comment.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did not Evita K's gov. spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time energy and money telling the world precisely that all Argentines keenly desired to “recover” part of the their motherland that was ripped from them?
You seem to be in lockstep with Evita K and her policies and positions.
Now that Argentina and Argentines are being criticised for taking this position, you are saying that it is only Macri's government saying these things, and does not represent all the people.
C'mon, Mr. Massot, which is it? Are you that spineless?
I've no doubt the decision to remove Dilma Rouseff is legally sound. That doesn't make it any less cynical though.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, the Falklands is off-topic.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine government official statement seems to be reasonable and diplomatic.
Argentina officially respects the new government of Brazil and acknowledges that this is an internal
affair and resolved according to their laws and constitution.
One can always be cynical of political motivation, but Dilma is legitimately tainted with the financial manipulation.
Polls also indicate that she was very unpopular with the disillusioned population.
@6 Reekie
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your comment to 'downunder'...
“You would be more accurate if you referred to the Macri administration as the author of the grandiose statements you referred to, which do not represent all Argentines”,
are equally applicable to La Kretina, and in the same way definitely didn't represent all Argentines back then......it is clear you have a short, selective memory.
While many insist that Dilma's removal was a coup, what do those same people have to say regarding Fernando Collor's impeachment in 1992 ? The PT voted 'en masse' to impeach him, despite the fact that his crimes were insignificant compared to those now attributed to Dilma, not to mention the result of the Dilma 'experience' ; while Collor was undoubtedly guilty of several crimes, both common and of fiscal responsibility, what triggered the process was the fact that his brother Pedro denounced him and PC Farias (Collor's right-hand man) for master-minding a corruption scheme, through extorsion, probably because - and it was notorious - Collor was having an affair with Pedro's beautiful wife, Maria Teresa. All this, considered acceptable by most Brazilian politicians, wouldn't have caused much of a ruckus, if it weren't for the fact that Collor systematically refused to share the loot with his political adversaries in the other parties that supported him - so he had to go.
And the fact that she was elected with 51% of the popular vote, is no excuse for her to remain in power if the support of that 51% simply melted to less than a measly 10%, as popularity polls later confirmed during 2015/16.
“According to various reports, independent auditors did not find Rousseff involved in breaking fiscal responsibility laws.
Sep 04th, 2016 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Two days after Rousseff’s impeachment, the new vice president, Rodrigo Maia, signed legislation allowing for the amendment of an existing law addressing new rules for credit without Congress' approval.” guess he's making sure there's toilet-paper in the washroom to cover their derrières.
http://www.voanews.com/a/brazil-ousted-president-promises-strong-position-against-new-government/3492216.html
The whole jing bang lot of these politicians are corrupt, intent only on feathering their own nests and egos as quickly as possible.
Sep 04th, 2016 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So heres and idea. Most constitutional monarchy political systems seem to work pretty well. Although Brazil abolished the monarchy in 1890 the royal family still exists as private Brazilian cityzens.
Perhaps it time to bring them back to do the ceremonial duties? Its happpened before, Spain and Bulgaria being two recent examples of new monarchic forms.
So what does this forum think?
@ 15 redp0ll
Sep 04th, 2016 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain and Bulgaria being two recent examples of new monarchic forms.”
Not too sure about the Spanish example!
Didn't the King have to abdicate in favour of his son due to 'cough, cough' certain irregularities typical of those expected from the Spanish, something to do with:
“his monarchy has been mired in corruption claims and gaffes which included the infamous hunting photo with dead elephant in Botswana in 2012, prompting WWF to sack him as honorary president.
Also rumoured to have bedded 1,500 women, allegedly including Princess Diana.”
Now of course the Spanish don't presently HAVE a government!
But the Brazil Nuts deserve a break from all the graft, don't they?
Everything has its time and space in the world.
Sep 04th, 2016 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 A lot of what you say is hearsay. Of course some monarchies are better than others but the do represent what should be a coat hanger to hang national cohesive identity on. Memories of the Spanish Civil War and the subsequent Franco fascist dictatorship are still very fresh. Something similar could never happen again? I wouldnt bet on it.
Sep 04th, 2016 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An example of what I mean is Belgium,two different nations held together by the glue of a common monarchy. And they have had their royal scandals too.
@14 THill
Sep 04th, 2016 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““According to various reports, independent auditors did not find Rousseff involved in breaking fiscal responsibility laws.”
Independent auditors ? no way, hired by and paid by the PT.
@17 Brasshole
That's why you are allowed to exist.
14 THill,
Sep 04th, 2016 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““According to various reports, independent auditors did not find Rousseff involved in breaking fiscal responsibility laws.”
Mr Bauer, Mr Hill;
No protest from Pacific Alliance countries, or Argentina, US, UK, China,
The new government is recognised internationally, as a Brazillian internal affair, decided according to their own Constitution and political process.
Brazillian Self-Determination, notably opposed only by the deposed Evita K faction of Argentina, the Populist Dictators Maduro, Morales, and Correa - soon to be popularly removed, themselves.
19 Jack Bauer
Sep 04th, 2016 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Independent auditors ? no way, hired by and paid by the PT.” Unless you can produce evidence that the Voice of America's report is either biased or incompetently produced. I'll give your unqualified opinion the attention it deserves.
20 Kanye
“The new government is recognised internationally.” How does international diplomacy have any bearing on an issue of fact? So you can move those goal-posts back.
Sorry, buddy - they are universally recognised as the legitimate governing body by the Free World, UN , and China.
Sep 04th, 2016 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are not perceived to be an unpopular government, an illegal government, or a coup d'état.
Nor are they in the throes of a civil war.
Brazillian Self Determination - even Lula, Champion of the People, turned his back on Dilma's government.
It's up to Dilma to challenge this through legal channels, according to the Constitution.
She lost.
@18 redpoll
Sep 04th, 2016 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as they change their name back to Empire of Brazil I'm in favour. I suspect Brazil's neighbours would not approve, though!
Of course it might just lead to one more person being in on the corruption, who knows.
22 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0“They are universally recognised as the legitimate governing body” What does that have do with price cheese? Since I have never mentioned the issue of legitimacy of the government, so stop creating fallacies. The only issue I have shown is report from Voice of America that claims “According to various reports, independent auditors did not find Rousseff involved in breaking fiscal responsibility laws.” Anything that attempts to subvert that issue is to continue perpetuating a fraud.
Actually, your that is irrelevant is irrelevant.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is a second ha d account of an “independent” auditor.
That's an unspecified auditor not connected with the case. We have no idea whether they are truly independent, nor acquainted with all the facts.
It is an opinion.
You are entitled to believe it, and form your own opinion as to the legitimacy of Rousseff's ignominious ouster.
Dilma is out. Temer is in her place. Temer's faction won the case within the existing framework of the Brazillian Constitution and processes of the government.
It does not matter if you feel it is unethical, according to Brazil, nobody has made a successful case that it is.
If the US government-funded VOA is giving it a negative opinion, that's not being reflected by US Government Foreign Policy. They are not objecting. It's business as usual for them - they deal with Temer's administration now. That shows they have confidence that he is accountable for honouring US agreements with Brazil. That is giving them tacit recognition of legitimacy.
China has gone a step further, with explicit support of the new government.
There are no howls of indignation from SA neighbours, except those populist dictatorships that have some sort of ideological link to Dilma's PT party.
The Bolivarian Revolutionaries and Chavists, are crying foul because they feel threatened.
We here nothing from Chile, Peru, Columbia, Paraguay - they have given their tacit acceptance and are respecting Brazil's internal politics.
If they felt the new government was illegitimate, that would also suggest their trade agreements etc. were in jeopardy, and they would protest or ask for clarification.
The UN has made no statements or resolutions suggested by an illegal coup.
The country is not in civil war.
Whatever your theories or whatever you want to believe, Dilma is out and Temer runs the de facto government, - Brazilian Self Determination is being respected.
@5
Sep 05th, 2016 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina uses high sounding language like that a lot”
ANGLOS will be ANGLOS.
Anglo nations are the experts in high sounding, ornate, overly trite, hackneyed, GLIB language. This is a typical anglo speech:
“The relationship between [insert ANGLO country here] and [insert anything else here], is of paramount importance to our government and our people, we believe it to be crucial for our future, for both our futures. Our two peoples, in the friendship and partnership that has long brought us together through many common bonds and shared values, will continue to deepen and develop this goodwill and most cherished relation. Our common foes will test out mettle and resolve, but we will prevail, they will not.”
Translation to English:
“I could give a sh!t about your country, I just had to rush here to meet you a$$, and my rookie junior deputy agitant attache to the vice-secretary spent 5 minutes writing this piece for me on EnglishRedact.com. I think I am far better than you and all this claptrap about shared this and shared that is just my Anglo two-faced mouth hole before taking Xanax to calm me down. We could give a rat about our relation going forward, we will just demand what you must do, or else. I just gave latitude and longitude of your capital city to our common enemy ISIS”.
Mr. Troll,
Sep 05th, 2016 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0See if you agree with this:
Argentina respects Brazil's right to Self Determination.
Soon, after Malcorra spontaneously bursts into flame, they will learn to kneel before the Falklanders.
The tail will wag the dog, and the freshly-victimized of Argentina will revel in the persecution and abuses inflicted upon them - truly happy at last.
Argentine insecurities and victimization will be worn as badges of honor.
There, I've saved you having to rant like a demented banshee, for the next several days.
Let me know if you free-associate any more pathetic drivel. We can add that in later, for a laugh.
The official Argentine term Anglo as a race describing any non-Argentine who is of English-Speaking heritage (examples of Anglos: Bono, Lebron James, Tony Blair, Usain Bolt, Dwayne Johnson, Julian Savea, Luci Liu, Ted Bundy, Al Capone, etc), separate racially from white european Argentines, is now becoming accepted usage internationally as well.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://chicago.suntimes.com/lifestyles/dear-abby-skip-the-spanish-with-some-hispanics/
#28
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“is now becoming accepted usage internationally as well.”
The Chinese and Indians think Usain Bolt is an Anglo ? I have never heard that one before and very much doubt it.
So Argentina has come up with THEIR own parochial description of the word “Anglo”. What is “an English -speaking heritage” ? Does the USA qualify ?
Does S.Africa qualify ?
Anglo is a pejorative term used by YOU to include anyone you dislike.
It was formed from an English-speaking heritage.
I don't use it pejoratively, but I do use it condescendingly. The word itself was just a way to describe a race different from Argentines culturally. Usain Bolt is absolutely an Anglo and not one person in Argentina would say he is anything but that.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 025 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Independent…unspecified auditor” Unless you can produce evidence that the Voice of America's report is either biased or incompetently produced I'll give your unqualified opinion the attention it deserves.“
For the record the legitimacy of Rousseff's impeachment is without question, and is to become fait accompli eventually. Again what relevance is diplomatic recognition have to do the fact that ”independent auditors did not find Rousseff involved in breaking fiscal responsibility laws“
As to ”diplomatic recognition“ no nation legally has any other option. It has no impact on matters raised in the media particularly in one that is US government-funded. Additionally reporting, ”Two days after Rousseff’s impeachment, the new vice president, Rodrigo Maia, signed legislation allowing for the amendment of an existing law addressing new rules for credit without Congress' approval.
@Capi
Sep 05th, 2016 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Using it condescendingly *is* using it pejoratively. You're not describing a race or even a culture anyway but just a bunch of people who speak the same language. Do you consider Singaporeans anglos too? I'm sure that would be news to them!
And the woman in your link ought to only speak in English, that way people will talk freely in front of her and she can gather blackmail material. ;)
If the Singaporean's mother tongue is English, then yes, genetically he is Anglo.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And before Skip comes waltzing in with his superior non-argentine education berating me about the idea that “genes are not subject to change due to behavior”, well I guess my inferior Argentine education was superior after all when it taught me it CAN:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/07/how-exercise-can-change-your-dna/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/07/how-exercise-can-change-your-dna/
So if eating and exercise can change your genes, certainly language usage will certainly change your brain chemistry and then the genes.
@33 Capi
Sep 05th, 2016 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lucy Liu's mother tongue is mandarin, and Jamaica has it's own language (and culture); it's related to English, but not the same.
Apparently your education didn't teach you what 'genetically' means. It's true that environmental influences can make your body switch genes on and off. They can't change the set of genes you were born with though.
But hey, speaking a different language really can change your brain; every time you post here, you're becoming a little bit more 'anglo'.
Mr Hill,
Sep 05th, 2016 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I get what you are saying.
You think what happened to Dilma was unfair and hypocritical. You have been plastering around MP, the information that the legislation was changed.
You feel very strongly about it, but in the end, it is just your own opinion.
I am sure there are some stakeholders in Brazil that share your imdignation, but it was done legally and by process.
35 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What happened to Dilma was unfair” More than slightly presumptuous of you, since my posts were without commentary. The legal connotations are what interest me, the merits of impeachment itself has no such connotations. Since it is wholly a political process and not a legal one. So there are not the checks and balances that are expected in legal trial. So it has become a lot less interesting. In the first instance, I simply show what is claimed and what is done are two different things, but apparently entirely permissible. In the second, what the consequences of such a system are. Is such a process fair? Not from my perspective based on adversarial based legal systems. But, thats the route that Brazil has chosen for itself; If it doesn't like it, then its up to Brazilians to alter it.
@21 THill
Sep 05th, 2016 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 019 Jack Bauer
“Independent auditors ? no way, hired by and paid by the PT.” Unless you can produce evidence that the Voice of America's report is either biased or incompetently produced.”
You presume that the Voice of America's report is the gospel truth. It's your right to believe them, but what proof do YOU have, other than their opinion ? In any case, who are these 'independent' auditors who spontaneously rushed to Dilma's aid, and for free ?
But just for your enjoyment, see the below article from “O Globo”, 27 June, 2016 :
“A comissão do impeachment recebeu nesta segunda-feira (27) o resultado da perícia nos documentos do processo. Os técnicos concluíram que as chamadas pedaladas fiscais NÃO TIVERAM A PARTICIPAÇÃO da presidente afastada, MAS FORAM ILEGAIS, e que os decretos suplementares foram RESULTADO DE AÇÃO DIRETA de Dilma Rouseff.
A perícia foi feita A PEDIDO DA DEFESA da presidente afastada. Sobre os decretos de crédito suplementar, os técnicos concluíram que, dos quatro decretos editados sem autorização do Congresso, três alteraram a programação orçamentária e eram incompatíveis com a meta de economia da época em que foram assinados. Eles constataram ainda que A PARTICIPAÇÃO DIRETA de Dilma na assinatura dos documentos FICOU CLARA.
Sobre as chamadas pedaladas fiscais, a perícia constatou que as operações foram ILEGAIS. O laudo afirma que “os atrasos nos pagamentos devidos ao Banco do Brasil constituem OPERAÇÃO DE CREDITO, tendo a União como devedora, o que AFRONTA O ARTIGO 36 DA LEI DE RESPONSABILIDADE FISCAL”.
No caso dos decretos, a perícia afirma que houve sim burla à Lei Orçamentária e nos casos das pedaladas, que ficam confirmadas como EMPRÉSTIMOS, a partir DA CONSTATAÇÃO DE PAGAMENTO DE JUROS......”
So, the report requested by Dilma's defence condemns her....But I suppose it all boils down to whom you choose to believe.....doesn't it Terry ?
#30
Sep 05th, 2016 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The correct term would be “Anglosphere” NOT Anglo which means some thing different in the English language and would indicate a genetic component marker in one's mitochondrial DNA.
To correct your assertions I suggest you read..........
Face of Britain by Robin Mckie which accompanied a Channel Four television series on Britain's population from the ice age to date.
Just because YOU have decided to change the meaning of Anglo, all that this shows is confirmation of your narcissistic personality.
37 Jack Bauer
Sep 05th, 2016 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”There are still many doubts about the legitimacy of the whole impeachment procedure. It is not the first time that a Brazilian President is impeached. Before Rousseff, it was Collor, in 1992. But the similarities end there. Collor’s dismissal, following his involvement in a bribery scandal, was a clear cut case, with consolidated evidence against him. Rousseff’s impeachment, instead, still has many gray areas. The timing is one of them. Since her re-election in 2014, more than 30 requests for her impeachment have been presented, by different factions and with various accusations. None of them passed the vetting of the Chambers until Rousseff’s party withdrew its support to Eduardo Cunha, former speaker of the lower Chamber, and himself under investigation for bribery. Few days after it was Cunha himself to give the floor for the first time to discuss the latest accusations toward Dilma, the accusations which would cost her the Presidency. Since then Cunha, who eventually had to resign in July 2016 over his own corruption charges, and Temer, had become the key players (or the puppy masters for their opponents) of the Brazilian politics.
The content of the investigation over Dilma’s accusations has also raised more than one eyebrow. The former President was accused of having moved national funds from one Government budget line to another, in violation of the Brazilian law. However, in several hearing sessions, the focus of the discussion has been her political choices and her inability to restore the economy. The focus shifted from the impeachment to Rousseff’s overall political conduct so much that the whole debate resembled an electoral campaign rather than a judicial proceeding.”
http://natmonitor.com/2016/09/04/michel-temers-dream-came-true-but-now-he-has-to-rule-the-country/
But I suppose it all boils down to whom you choose to believe.....doesn't it. But, regardless thanks for the info
THill
Sep 05th, 2016 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Is such a process fair? Not from my perspective based on adversarial based legal systems. But, thats the route that Brazil has chosen for itself; If it doesn't like it, then its up to Brazilians to alter it.”
“I make no commentary”“...”
So what's with all the VOA opinion crap??
Is that your 'corroboration of wrong-doing' by Temer, or are you simply cataloging opinions 'without commentary' for our bemusement ?
Brazilian Self Determination.
Interesting that somehow the K's and other Mad populist politicians accustomed to ruling by decree, object to anybody else's Self Determination.
40 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What's with all the VOA opinion crap” Something about the fact the new government is doing exactly what a president was impeached for is crap? Give yourself a shake as it is highly relevant, except to those who are the most partisan opponents. “Is that your 'corroboration…” It sure appears to be dog-on conclusive doesn't it?
“Or are you simply cataloging opinions 'without commentary' for our bemusement.” So whats so puzzling about an obvious contradiction? I think it speaks for itself, or is it the fact you can't impose your censorship on others and prevent such a dissemination occurring?
THill
Sep 05th, 2016 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please, make up your mind.
You just got through telling us not to draw conclusions of your position from your posts without “any commentary”.
“What happened to Dilma was unfair” More than slightly presumptuous of you, since my posts were without commentary”
“...or is it the fact you can't impose your censorship on others and prevent such a dissemination occurring?”
Now who's being presumptuous?
Quite an accusation.
I'll just put it down to, Mr. Hill enjoys arguing.
@28 Trolley
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argies can define “anglo” any way they want - for internal consumption - but your list of “Anglos” couldn't be further off target. Human beings , 100% of African, Maori, and/or Chinese origin, are not “anglos” by any standard. Even if they speak the “King's English”; Take Al Capone for instance, that you claim is an 'anglo'.....his parents were from Salerno, with not a drop of “English” heritage, and emmigrated to the US, but they could easily have gone to Argentina instead, as did so many hundreds of thousands of their countrymen. So by your definition, their millions of descendants are “Anglos”....great logic !
And your claim that such a definition “is now becoming accepted usage internationally as well”, is utter rubbish.
@39 THill
A lot of the political scuffles that you mention are correct, however, it still does not disqualify Dilma's actions , which are defined as crimes by the law , despite her defence claiming the opposite. While Congress could have looked the other way, and “forgiven” her , it chose not to, and if the political component ended up weighing more than the technical one, that was because Congress realized that most Brazilians were fed up to the back teeth with her (pre-election) lies, her gross incompetence, and the corruption, sponsored by all, but mainly the PT , and that as long as she was in power, the country would keep on sinking.
So , despite claims by some that the impeachment process was political, Brazil is better off now that she's gone.
Let's get one thing clear - just so that you don't try to twist my words - I consider Temer the lesser of two evils, and I hope he'll get the country back on track by end 2018 - provided the PT allow him to. And the PT proposal for new elections (only NOW, because Dilma's been impeached), is an exotic idea of difficult, if not impossible, execution.
42 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You think what happened to Dilma was unfair” You ask me for my personal opinion as I originally had stated “For the record the legitimacy of Rousseff's impeachment is without question.” When I give a qualified answer, that in the context of an adversarial legal system with which I am familiar, it is certainly not. But I also didn't believe it was proper for me to give a definite opinion which I also indicated. So how is that presumptuous? “So what's with all the VOA opinion crap??” Is indicative of someone who is actually presumptuous adjective; brazen, overconfident, arrogant,
As I said, argument for argument's sake.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, you are entitled to your personal opinions of course. I suppose they are subjective, from your personal experience. You can choose whether you wish to consider the opinions of others.
Likewise, your personal attacks are due to the subjectiveness of your thinking also.
I'll take them for what they are worth.
See ya, Pard.
45 Kanye
Sep 06th, 2016 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As I said, argument for argument's sake.” That was great self-analyst. By asking for an opinion of your opponent then automatically call into question their motives. Even though it is the legal questions that are their interest. There is little of those under this inquisitorial system as the main component is political
Arrogantly make personal attacks on the product of journalists. Peoples opinions are not the greatest significance, as they are like derrières we've all got one. What to me is significant is trying to pass off a bogus unsupported historical narrative as fact.
“Peoples opinions are not the greatest significance, as they are like derrières we've all got one.”
Sep 06th, 2016 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, not again!
It seems that every thread you start your mini-inquisition and hair-splitting pontificating, I hear you trot out this hackneyed old gem.
I have been straightforward with my own opinion. Take it or leave it. Dispute it if you like. I am under no obligation to 'prove' it to you for simply having the temerity for making the utterance.
At least I have the confidence to draw a conclusion and state directly what it is. Better that than providing links with no “commentary” and waiting for others to 'trip up' (in your mind) and pouncing on them for what you imagine are their inadequate summations.
You seem very easily offended by real or imaginary slights regarding your character or your supposed intellect.
You may object to events in Brazil or feel they are unjust.
Sorry, it's not for you to say.
47 Kany
Sep 06th, 2016 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you ever have a bob on yourself, I wasn't even thinking of you particularly, as I was being expansive. The thread is hopefully about issues germane to the title article. I'm not here to countenance your wounded ego. I'm here to opine about issues, and if I'm on money, I'll hopefully find support for them. So get over yourself and stop injecting your 'feelings' into the subject and try to be a little more mature and objective. Moreover, you can save your dictatorial pronouncements because nobody has died and appointed you the site censor.
Ain't no wounded ego here, compadre.
Sep 06th, 2016 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ain't no censorship either.
But I understand you have to save face - say what you like.
In fact, please, make some definite statements of your own - let's see how clever you are.
No censorship, but be prepared to be judged.
49 Kanye
Sep 06th, 2016 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“But I understand you have to save face ” Another example your flawed judgement. As I've already stated 'naked opinions' don't hold much weight with
me, and yours in particular I don't give a rats ass about.
“No censorship” “It's not for you to say.” Such an obvious contradiction of terms. “Be prepared to be judged.” Knock yourself out I'm absolutely indifferent, “It's no mind, matter to me.” In fact, it's decidedly pleasing that I instigate such obsessive behavior as it means “I really grip your shit.”
You will be judged by what you say. That's only the way of things. Are you uncomfortable with what you say?
Sep 06th, 2016 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ “It's no mind, matter to me.” In fact, it's decidedly pleasing that I instigate such obsessive behavior as it means “I really grip your shit.” ”
That's an odd way to express yourself, you seem to have lost your aforementioned grip.
Lost your little game of one-upmanship too, it seems.
You better rest up for tomorrow. There's always another dead horse to flog.
Good night, sir.
51 Kany
Sep 06th, 2016 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You will be judged by what you say.” He said modestly. “Here Come Da Judge” Flip Wilson.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
“The self-righteous scream judgments against others to hide the noise of skeletons dancing in their own closets.” John Mark Green
“It is the property of fools to be always judging.” – Thomas Fuller
Here is the essence of the matter:
Sep 06th, 2016 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It appears that poor Teri has never had an original or complete thought in his entire existence but serves only to regurgitate the party ideology.
Ever since yankeeboy called him out on his obvious lack of education and facility with logic Teri has been furiously trying to chin the bar and prove him wrong.
Teri, your exertion at trying to keep up intellectually with the leisurely pace here on MP lends a great deal of credibility to yankeeboy's original assertion.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
Sep 06th, 2016 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Bill S.
53 chronic
Sep 06th, 2016 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Here is the essence of the matter” Just more self-serving fact-less drivel.
“It is from a weakness and smallness of mind that men are opinionated; and we are very loath to believe what we are not able to comprehend.” Francois de La Rochefoucauld
“I personally think honestly disclosing rather than hiding one's subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism. But no journalism - from the most stylistically 'objective' to the most brazenly opinionated - has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence, and verifiable data.” Glenn Greenwald
Paddle faster, Teri!
Sep 06th, 2016 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're falling further behind.
56 chronic
Sep 06th, 2016 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're engaging in nothing but personal attacks, says more about yourself than your opponent. As its indicative of someone who operates solely on their childish emotional wants. But this is common place among most reactionaries like you. If this were not true you would have presented some rationally based argument. But you lack the capacity to do that. As you've learnt from previous encounters with me. If your assertions are not up to scratch I will soon expose their vulnerabilities.
“ If your assertions are not up to scratch I will soon expose their vulnerabilities.”
Sep 06th, 2016 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now who is judging?
Nice of Mr Hill to appoint himself to qualify and 'verify' your assertions
@45 Kanye
Sep 06th, 2016 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re Terry's “When I give a qualified answer, that in the context of an adversarial legal system with which I am familiar......”
When Terry, the self-appointed expert on every subject ever discussed on MP, says something, perhaps we should all bow our heads in respect and keep quiet. Don't you know that we are not allowed to have an opinion ? ...according to Terry..
When he runs out of his silly arguments, he takes the liberal approach of trying to discredit you.....and after running out of adjectives, he is the type that resorts to the traditiuonal “you are a racist ”...or, “you are a fascist”.......But of course, despite his fierce defence of Dilma, Lula and the PT, he claims he doesn't partake of any ideology....
See his #46, where he states “Arrogantly make personal attacks on the product of journalists. Peoples opinions are not the greatest significance, as they are like derrières we've all got one.”
He doesn't like it when people choose to NOT take his word as the Gospel truth and don't believe the selected articles of his favourite journalists, whom he puts on a pedestal, claiming that “Peoples opinions are not the greatest significance, as they are like derrières we've all got one,”, as if “journalists” were not just ordinary people , or that they are superior....Weird, isn't it ?
There is a very evident trait in his behaviour - as he is clearly incapable of forming an opinion of his own, so he always quotes other people's as if 'their' opinions really 'proved' something... then he tries to push them down everyone's throat.
See his #57, “As you've learnt from previous encounters with me”.....
Terry is the kind of idiot that asks you a question, then proceeds to answer it himself, because he cannot stand hearing an answer that might not coincide with his 'superior' knowledge......he believes he is jury, judge and executioner, but he is just a fart in the wind.
58 Kanye
Sep 06th, 2016 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do think he is yapping on the perimiter with nothing other than a personal attack, he assert no claims. Since this is based on my prior experiences with him, of which you have absolutely no knowledge. Who is in the better position to make the most valid comment? But don't let it prevent you from opining about matters you know nothing about.
59 Jack Bauer
“Not allowed to have an opinion” The proof of which as usual is lacking. You can opine to your hearts content, the only time I have interceded is when you fraudulently misstate say, the history of Brazil and insist that you are the owner of truth. When the historical record refutes your fictional account.
The VOA account I have direct knowledge as to its accuracy, I assume that if it wasn't one of you scholarly types would put the record straight. My assumption is based on the general acceptance for publication, ithat the journalist must have verified their information from three independent sources. If information isn't true they are dismissed, and of course their reputation as too reliability is shattered.
You like all your ilk, when you can't refute my contentions fall back on the old personal attack, which directly impugns your own character.
@60 THill
Sep 06th, 2016 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again your 'haughtiness' comes to the surface ....like a floating turd...“Since this is based on .......Who is in the better position to make the most valid comment? ” who is trying to give the impression that they are “Mr. Know-it-all” ? Has the truth offended your sensitivity ?
Your “....the only time I have interceded is when you fraudulently misstate say, the history of Brazil and insist that you are the owner of truth”... shows what a conceited jerk you are .... I have never 'fraudulently' mistated anything, and what does the history of Brazil have to do with anything here ? perhaps you want to talk of 1808 , 1822 or 1889 ? that yes is history. The fact that I post my opinion on a few of the subjects offered by MP, based on either fact or my personal experience , is very different to claiming to be the owner of the truth.....People can choose to agree or to disagree, but in your case, you simply dismiss everyone's opinions as if they are bs, and only your version of events is the absolute truth and cannot be wrong. Your statement that you have “direct knowledge as to the accuracy of the VOA account” is what, if not trying to falsely portray your superiority ?....as if your “'direct knowledge” is synonymous with “must be correct” ; you do NOT rely on your own experience to discuss an issue, but resort to 3rd hand information that suits your sick leftist ideology. At the end, another of your liberal tactics, “accuse the accuser”.
Your stubborness in accepting that you are not always right, reminds me of the soldier's mother who, seeing her son march out of step, says of the other soldiers, “look they are all out of step”.....
Enough said, enough time WASTED on you.
61 J Bauer
Sep 06th, 2016 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't waste your time.
THill
“The VOA account I have direct knowledge as to its accuracy,”
What is this unnamed source, then?
According to THill Esq., personal experience is not proof. You said so yourself, dismissing another poster's remarks as unfounded opinion not worthy of consideration.
Tell us what your “direct knowledge”is and let us weigh its merit.
You have 'accused' me of inappropriately interjecting “feelings” into exchanges with you, and condemned others for “personal attacks”.
You might re-read your own posts. I can think of at least one stream of derogatory adjectives you've used in anger and frustration, to describe a poster with opposing views.
You are a hypocrite.
Cue the T Hill bun fight.
57. Teri, they call this weak attempt on your part - transference.
Sep 06th, 2016 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't stick.
Teri, you are a dilettante.
You've dropped more names than any poster in the history of MP.
Even so, your attempt at name association only drags down those with which you try to link your weak non-ideas to.
And it appears that you are about as well received as Reeeeeekie.
Please, prattle on.
You continue to demonstrate your pronounced limitations with each of your keystrokes.
61 Jack Bauer
Sep 07th, 2016 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I have never 'fraudulently' mistated anything”
The unsupported fiction that you have tried to represent as fact in post #26 http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/01/argentina-recognizes-brazil-s-institutional-process-and-president-temer?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aviso_comentarios#comments qualifies as a 'new idea' It was not an opinion, you represented a historical event, which qualifies as fact not opinion, that was untrue. Therefore, it was fraud, and you are revealed as a liar. So keep on blathering all want it it's not going to cover up the proof of what you did.
“Your statement that you have “direct knowledge as to the accuracy of the VOA account ”Was posted in error it was intended to say “I don't have direct knowledge” which is why the qualifying sentence “My assumption is based on the…” is attached. The rest of your long winded diatribe is spent on personal attacks, I guess when you don't have any facts on your side, you don't have any other options.
62 Kanye
“According to THill Esq., personal experience is not proof” Not according to me but to the rules of logic ”the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth(a warrant)“ http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/01/argentina-recognizes-brazil-s-institutional-process-and-president-temer?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aviso_comentarios#comments Otherwise anyone can claim anything based on they're so-called experience. Just like they do here. ”if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.“
”I can think of at least..” If this were true you would be able to cite the statement.
63 chronic
Another empty-headed wingnut who can't mount a successful challenge, and so is reduced to the childish status of name calling.
I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.
If stupidity was a disease, you would be dead right now.
You have an inferiority complex and it is fully justified.
Failed transference again, Teri.
Sep 07th, 2016 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Prattle on.
THill
Sep 07th, 2016 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0is now claiming he has “NO direct experience” and is forming assumptions and deriving his opinions from them.
Now he's contradicting himself.
What are his unfounded opinions worth, do you think?
Mr. Hill
You are flailing blindly. You lost your battle a long time ago.
Teri, you so desperate strive for center stage.
Sep 07th, 2016 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have it.
Here is your chance to shine.
So, Teri - what is your vision of a successful path forward - politically and economically for Argentina?
How do they do it with your guidance?
Huh?
@ 62 Kanye
Sep 07th, 2016 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're right ; time spent on THill is 'time wasted'. But even wasted, it's worthwhile pointing out what a haughty idiot he is.....so, please see below..
@ 64 Terry Tinker Bell
You and your 'unsupported fiction' theory is amusing.....you haven't a clue what you are talking about , but yet you try to sound like the ultimate expert.
See your latest crap :
“....qualifies as a 'new idea' It was not an opinion, you represented a historical event, which qualifies as fact not opinion, that was untrue. Therefore, it was fraud, and you are revealed as a liar”.
Do you have any idea how neurotic you sound ? “new idea, not an opinion, that was untrue, a fraud, a liar , bla-bla-bla”.... You are sick, but perhaps a laxative will clear your head.
Your allegation that :
”Was posted in error it was intended to say “I don't have direct knowledge” which is why the qualifying sentence “My assumption is based on the…” is attached. “
is just another feeble excuse for your stupidity..... like when you tried to excuse yourself by backstepping on the ”minority party“ issue :
”It is noted your further dishonesty in raising the words 'minority party' when I have since amended them to 'minority government' ....so when I poke holes in your arguments, I'm dishonest am I ? By your irrational logic, someone's personal experience has to be a lie if it cannot be proved - not that I, or they, would feel the 'need' to prove anything. Either believe them or not, without irrational accusations. And if you don't have “direct knowledge”, why don't you just STFU ?
You become offended when challenged, and accuse others of your own shortcomings.
I've asked before, but never got a reply : D'you even have any friends ? d'you have a wife ? a girfriend, even if you have to pay her to pretend she likes you ?
an inflatable doll ? Truth be known, you must live alone 'cause no one can stand you.
Damn, I wasted 2 more minutes on you......
Teri, what about your all encompassing, unified theory of future success for Argentina ?
Sep 07th, 2016 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 068 Jack Bauer
Sep 08th, 2016 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can bullshit all you want the burden was yours to prove what you claim. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof Which you failed then, and also on this occasion, thereby confirming that it is a false account. The reason I called you out on this is because I have researched that time period. So I know there nothing supporting your preposterous invention. You must believe I'm as stupid as you are.
I've got the link to the citation that confirms who bears the burden. While you are unable to provide any link to support your claim. So you have further confirmed you are a liar.
Of cause this was the perfect occasion to prove how accurate your account is, but that's impossiblilty. So carry on with your inane bluster and personal attacks, thus adding credence to my assertion.
“Someone's personal experience ” Oh another proof less assertion, another “believe me”. Well I don't because I know what is required to validate a claim.
“But no journalism - from the most stylistically 'objective' to the most brazenly opinionated - has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence, and verifiable data.” Glenn Greenwald
The NSA reporting he led for The Guardian was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service.
Come on, Teri.
Sep 08th, 2016 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fix Argentina with your you knowledge and wisdom.
Everyone is waiting.
Hmm,
Sep 08th, 2016 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0He does love to argue, and cite other sources, but he doesn't even qualify them when his own “commentary” about how they are relevant, or whether they are verifiable or true.
His indignant and simplistic “ a journalist wrote it and it's in a publication, therefore it passed the test” responses, are laughable.
”Their (unspecified) sources must have been researched, investigated, vetted, non-partisan, and educated” is humourously naive.
The whole Socratic proof slash Aristotelian logic thing is not only beyond Teri's feeble intellectual grasp - it even exceeds his most ambitious suspicions.
Sep 08th, 2016 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 72 Kanye
Sep 08th, 2016 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Their (unspecified) sources must have been researched, investigated, vetted, non-partisan, and educated” is humourously naive.
Just like him then?
72 Kanye, 73 chronic, 74 ChrisR
Sep 08th, 2016 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again, for the benefit of the lame and the obtuse. The VOA account I don't have direct knowledge as to its accuracy, I assume that if it wasn't one of you scholarly types would put the record straight. My assumption is based on the general acceptance in the industry that publication, is that the journalist must have verified their information from three independent sources. If information isn't true they are dismissed, and of course their reputation as too reliability is shattered.
So even with adding Creepy Chris to the fray, the combined fact less opinions of the Three Amigos, can't put Humpty Dumpty together again, as he is caught in his own lies.
It's Argentina.
Sep 08th, 2016 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All agree it has problems.
As always, you are enraptured with the eloquence of your own verbosity.
Do you have ANY ideas of your OWN on how Argentina should proceed?
@72 Kanye, 73 chronic, 74 ChrisR
Sep 09th, 2016 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I love to rub it in, see Terry's feeble excuse :
“The VOA account I don't have direct knowledge as to its accuracy, I assume that if it wasn't one of you scholarly types would put the record straight. ”
He naively believes that he can lie , then allege it was a “miner” mistake, but it is all too clear. See his next sentence, trying to squeeze out of his own stupidity :
“My assumption is based on the general acceptance in the industry that publication, is that the journalist must have verified their information from three independent sources. If information isn't true they are dismissed, and of course their reputation as too reliability is shattered.”
Note, Terry's ' “assumption” is based on “his” general acceptance in the industry'.....“without the slightest bit of proof. As if that is not enough to make him crawl back into his hole, he goes on to state that ”if information isn't true they are dismissed“, as if he is privy to how the VOA works.... And ”of course their reputation as 'too' (to ?) reliability is shattered”.
More like 'your' reliability has been 'shattered' Tinker Bell, long ago.
@70 Tinker Bell
Just more bs....just one comment, your blind dedication to Greenwald is starting to look 'muy sospechoso'....
Teri, I'm not like those mean guys that want to hold you accountable for the perceived flaws discerned in the conclusions that you draw from reports of events.
Sep 09th, 2016 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just tell me your theory of economic/political salvation for Argentina.
Go ahead.
77 Jack Bauer
Sep 09th, 2016 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If what I stated was incorrect you would be able to show what is the norm when a journalist causes a false account to be published. As usual, long on unsupported opinions and decidly devoid of any supporting facts. The unsupported fiction that you have tried to represent as fact in post #26 en.mercopress.com/2016/09/01/argentina-recognizes-brazil-s-institutional-process-and-president-temer?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aviso_comentarios#comments qualifies as a 'new idea' It was not an opinion, you represented a historical event, which qualifies as fact not opinion, that was untrue. Therefore, it was fraud, and you are revealed as a liar. You didn't fall off the wall, you ran into it. “,,,and all the King's horses couldn't put Humpty together again”,
77
Sep 09th, 2016 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Jack Bauer
Mr. Hill denounces everyone for not commenting to his standards, yet never has the courage to go out on a limb to voice conclusions he may have gleaned from the articles that he posts.
When said article is challenged, he will say he is not responsible for its content, as we can see he has given no “commentary” on it.
Conversely, if we ask him his opinion, or ask him how his links are relevant to his response, he will say that they “speak for themselves”
80 Kanye
Sep 10th, 2016 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re: “Rousseff's fate has been decided: Senate will make it formal on Wednesday”, 41 Kanye
“There is NO “burden of proof” here” Oh yes there is, under' the rules of logic, according to the following sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof; rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof; rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Teri, you do have ideas? Correct?
Sep 10th, 2016 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 081
Sep 10th, 2016 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are determined to miss the point, aren't you?
People can state their own determined opinions on here as they choose, without being compelled to prove it is true to your individual satisfaction.
It is up to you to decide whether you want to accept it, dispute it with your own information, or simply dismiss it.
Simple.
Likewise,
If you were to walk up to me on the sidewalks of the working man's utopia, Caracas, and say to me, “Goldarn it, buddy, it's likely to rain today”, you would not be compelled to produce a plummeting barometer and various online sources to corroborate your personal observation.
Is that too hard to grasp?
I might think you mad as a hatter, and others may feel the same way, but we are more likely to smile and walk away quietly, smugly confident that you don't know what you are talking about.
Then there is the pedantic way you go about things.
Is that too difficult?
83 Kanye
Sep 10th, 2016 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0People can opine as much as the wish. But this is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact that fraudulently misrepresents a period of history. Which is why he will never be able to prove it. The issue has been falsely represented to suit the author's political bias. I have effectively demolished it in the proper manner, according to the rules applicable to such a situation. Under this requirement, there is no onus on me to disprove his statement thus: “Shifting the burden; Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof “Is that too difficult?” As you can see, not at all. If you can't grasp the requirement then that's your problem not mine, as I'm absolutely correct.
THill
Sep 10th, 2016 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Demolished?
At best, you have made a “moot point”.
“moot point. A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance”
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=SyHUV8meI8-2jwP2x7KQDg&q=moot+point&oq=moot+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0l5.3989.5493.0.9867.6.6.0.2.2.0.249.827.1j4j1.6.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.6.637.3..41j0i3k1j0i131k1.KvaQB3nDqaA
You have only shown that Mr Bauer has made an unprovable statement, and nothing more.
You have not even proven that it is incorrect.
The published opinion that you cite is from unspecified sources with unknown bias.
There may well be competing, equally or better qualified sources that offer a different verdict. You have merely chosen one that supports your view.
In the end, it is not up to those analysts.
The impeachment of Dilma met the requirements of the Brazilian courts, according to the Brazilians themselves.
Teri, you fail.
Sep 10th, 2016 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are unarmed in a battle of ideas.
Teri, even when you steal the ideas of others you lack the simple skills necessary to weave them into an interlocking matrix supporting your own biases.
Teri, you even lack the simple understanding of refutation and its reliance on the hierarchy of authority.
It has to be embarrassing for you Teri but no one compelled you to place your inadequacies on public display.
85 Kanye
Sep 10th, 2016 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That Mr Bauer has made an unprovable statement” Well unprovable in an argument, logic, or philosophy equates to not existing, unless can show otherwise. If such statement doesn't have an origin other than the asserter, then, it follows it must be a lie. As logically it can only be true or false.
86 chronic
So all you two stooges can do is opine, as neither one of you can produce an authoritative source that refutes the standard compellability rule of the 'burden of proof' in this circumstance. So your attempted sophistry fails yet again.
Teri, you are so dumb that you don't even realize that you've unmasked yourself as a halfwit.
Sep 10th, 2016 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@79 THill
Sep 10th, 2016 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If what I stated was incorrect you would be able to show what is the norm when a journalist causes a false account to be published.”
If what you stated was INcorrect, it's on YOU to admit your mistake and to then shut your piehole.
I am not, nor anone else here I believe, is interested in the haughty manner in which you post opinions from biased liberal sources, in your lies or your in 'politically correct' points of view. They are just opinions based on the presumption that only they know the truth and that everyone else is stupid.
Which is the premise you part from in every post.
@80 Kanye
You nailed it. Terry down to a “T”.
Yr # 83 , “Is that too hard to grasp?” a good question, which (1) sums him up pretty well ...and (2) we all know he will not answer.
@84 THill
You claim “ But this is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact that fraudulently misrepresents a period of history. Which is why he will never be able to prove it”.
I know I'm wasting my time with you , but If I'm presuming correctly that by “a period of history”, you are referring to Brazil in the 60's, be informed - once again - that I have first-hand experience of that time, and not wanting to rely only on my memory after 50 years, I researched various sources to get the facts straight and to not let important events slip by. While you obviously didn't live here at the time - not even sure if you ever lived in Brazil, as you refuse to give us that information - you are basing your conclusions on only what you've drawn from carefully selected left-wing opinions, without the slightest proof. So, I invite you to PROVE that what I posted is 'fiction', otherwise, just shut your big mouth.
Your childish remark “I have effectively demolished it in the proper manner,” demonstrates the extent of your imbecility. Just like asking the parish priest to prove what he preaches, and all you get is “you've go to have faith.”
89 Jack Bauer
Sep 10th, 2016 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If what I stated was incorrect you would be able to show what is the norm“ That claim is redundant under the criteria of burden of proof since that would permit you to fallaciously shift the burden of proof from you, that needs justification, then demand that I, your opponent justify the opposite of the claim. ”The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.“ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
”I researched various sources to get the facts straight” No you didn't, otherwise you would present a link to this so-called mythical research. Its just another of your many, many pork-pies, and attempted evasions. So shit and get off the pot or STFU liar.
Teri, any original thoughts?
Sep 10th, 2016 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Huh?
THill
Sep 10th, 2016 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Bauer has made full disclosure that he has drawn a conclusion as to what is true, through his own personal experience, an educated opinion.
He is not obligated to prove it.
You may choose to believe it or not.
You are free to state that you do not believe it.
Just as you question the value of his opinion, he questions the quality and bias of the opinion you quoted, as you do not provide your own (“no commentary”, remember?).
It is up to those following the post to make their own assessment. You clearly give it more credence than some others.
Just as you 'demand' Mr Bauer provide corroborating links, it is reasonable for us to expect you to back up your own opinion link, with supporting links to show the original was not partisan or biased.
If VOA, a US Government-funded online magazine is commenting on the internal politics of a trading partner, and the largest economy in the SA continent, one has to wonder what is at stake, or what they have at stake.
You cannot cherry-pick a link and by dint of the concept of Journalistic Integrity, assert that it is the only accurate and truthful analysis.
At the very most, you have offered an alternative view but fail to say whether you endorse it fully, or not.
It really boils down to belief.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!