MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Sao Paulo police disperse five days of demonstrations against removal of Rousseff and calls for fresh elections
Police in Sao Paulo, Brazil's financial and industrial hub, used tear gas on Sunday to disperse thousands of demonstrators at the end of a peaceful march to protest the removal of populist president Dilma Rousseff last week in an impeachment trial. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules0.25% of the population, incl. children.
Sep 05th, 2016 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Organised and funded by Labour unions and the PT populist party.
Protests Against Brazil’s President Temer Continue: https://twitter.com/TheRioTimes/status/772841982456725504
Sep 06th, 2016 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Hepatia
Sep 06th, 2016 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Populist!
These anti-Temer demonstrators, summoned by the PT and the PCdoB, are no more no less than a bunch of disgruntled lefist union workers (CUT) - who have lost their jobs due to their “heroine's” incompetence - , hired vandals belonging to outlaw social movements (MST, MSTS), and other dregs of society that get R$ 30,00 plus a baloney sandwich for marching, chanting anti-govt slogans and waving their red flags . Their social / intelectual level makes them easy targets for manipulation (by the PT) and when the protests become violent, with vandals destroying public and private property alike, it is to instill a feeling of unrest and insecurity in law-abiding citizens, in the attempt to discredit the Temer Govt, plus a good dose of getting their “revenge” on the “rich”....
Sep 06th, 2016 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 04
Sep 06th, 2016 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“when the protests become violent, with vandals destroying public and private property alike, it is to instill a feeling of unrest and insecurity in law-abiding citizens, in the attempt to discredit the Temer Govt, plus a good dose of getting their “revenge” on the “rich”.”
Dilma has had plenty of experience at this, from the COMINTERN playbook.
Cue the Terence Hill bun fight.
@5 Kanye
Sep 07th, 2016 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mere coincidence, but this afternoon I met up with an old aquaintance of mine (an ex-neighbour), who works in the SP police intelligence unit. This unit is exchanging information with military intelligence and apparently, most of the money diverted by the PT to the outlaw groups mentioned above, has gone towards funding a ragtag army of idiots who will spare no efforts to create social unrest with the purpose of defending the PT's sick plans for Brazil.....on the up-side, if they rear up their ugly heads too much, the Armed Forces will chop them off.
Sounds likely - Communists set that precedent 100 years ago, and it's routine tactics.
Sep 08th, 2016 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose you will be subpoenaed now by THill
@7 Kanye
Sep 08th, 2016 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sh*t, I forgot about Terry....think I should be worried ?
92 Kanye “Argentina recognizes Brazil's…”
Sep 11th, 2016 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's yourself and Jack that insist that he has merely passed an opinion, whereas the the record indicates it was a statement of fact.
You keep attempting to define the issue as to being purely subjective, to wit: “That Mr Bauer has made an unprovable statement ,,,You have not even proven that it is incorrect.” Which is absolute sophistry, when there's a clear delineation for evaluating the truth of such statements. As the following indicates your claim is absolute piffle, for which there is no academic support.
“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
My dictionaries/thesauruses indicate ”opinion - belief, judgement, thought(s), school of thought, thinking, way of thinking
Which prior to that states,, they're only true or false so it doesn't comply with the analogy of being unprovable as you are are attempting to foist on it.
“It is reasonable for us to expect you to back up your own opinion link” . Once gain: Your claim is redundant under the criteria of burden of proof since that permits you to fallaciously shift the burden of proof from Jack, that needs justification, then demand that I, his opponent justify the opposite of the claim. ”The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.“ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
I think we'll havebtonagree to differ, Mr. Hill. That's your opinion.
Sep 11th, 2016 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections#comment448330: My past experience of you Brits is that you do not have a good command of the English language. So, let me start by reviewing the meaning of the word, “populist”. From Merriam-Webster:
Sep 11th, 2016 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Definition of populist
1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.”
The Populist Party described in (1) no longer exists so that definition cannot apply to me. But I am a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. How could it be otherwise?
The US is a populist country - so much so that most other countries are aristocracies by comparison. And this comparison is especially true in the case of countries such as the KSA and the UK which are run by royalist and theocratic regimes.
So I thank you for your complement - irrespective of whether you meant your comment to be that or not.
Webster perverted the English language just as you do and Mr Capi Troll does.
Sep 11th, 2016 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 010 Kanye
Sep 11th, 2016 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mine is an authoritative opinion that is adhered to by all, and fully supported by evidence and yours is not.
@11 Hepatia
Sep 11th, 2016 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.”
As I'm sure you know, this is what people are talking about here. Do you support the above?
The US is currently afflicted with populism in the form of one Donald Trump, whereas in the UK unfortunately the Brexit referendum has shown some characteristics of it.
And it's 'compliment' by the way.
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections#comment448895: The English language is defined by the English spoken in America. And Merriam-Webster is the dictionary of Americans.
Sep 12th, 2016 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The patois spoken by you Brits in no way defines or informs the English language in any way.
The same applies to Spanish and Portuguese. The Spanish spoken in the US, Mexico and the several other Spanish speaking countries is what defines Spanish. What is spoken in Spain is not relevant to the language. Similarly for Portuguese with respect to Brazil and Portugal.
15
Sep 12th, 2016 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Hill,
Where are you??
Again, conspicuously absent.
Surely, here is a controversial opinion, worthy of your special talents of inquisition.
Interesting that T Hill never takes Mr Think, Mr. Hepatia, Mr. Voice, or Mr. Capi -Troll to task over their radical opinions.
Very telling.
@15 Hepatia
Sep 12th, 2016 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0I got that definition from Wikipedia, an American site. So your little rant about languages is irrelevant.
Are you a populist by that definition?
In any case no one holds the copyright on a language. It's defined not by governments but by the people who speak it, no matter which country they live in.
16 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0You must be new around here. Why don't you try a search using mercopress, Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire or Voice, Vestige, Think where you find I have demolished his sophistry just like I have yours. As for the rest most of them don't merit my attention.
That's a lot of searching, for what, one or two posts?
Sep 12th, 2016 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem unwilling to engage them, now.
It makes one wonder what your criteria is for applying the Inqusition, and “demolishing” the opinions of others?
19 Kanye “That's a lot of searching, for what, one or two posts?”
Sep 12th, 2016 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again it's not my burden since it's your assertion. But just to show the desperate fraud you engage in, as you've lost every issue you have raised, and this was just the first page. The only tool I need to deal with a tool like you is logic.
https://www.google.com.br/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Voice,+Vestige,+Think,+mercopress&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=w6_WV6z1FYyRwATjp6iwBA
en.mercopress.com/.../humanitarian-approach-the-new-falklands-policy-of-the-macri-..,en.mercopress.com/.../falklands-state-of-the-nation-economic-challenges-but-also-hop…,en.mercopress.com/.../falklands-back-to-the-future-why-the-new-approach-from-arge..,en.mercopress.com/.../argentine-malvinas-question-support-group-has-a-branch-in-sa., en.mercopress.com/.../falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-c…, en.mercopress.com/.../ban-ki-moon-emphasizes-on-the-freely-expressed-will-for-non…,en.mercopress.com/.../a-positive-outlook-for-the-falklands-at-fia-s-annual-general-me…, en.mercopress.com/.../argentina-s-threat-against-falklands-oil-companies-with-no-imp…,
@9 THill
Sep 12th, 2016 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“92 Kanye “Argentina recognizes Brazil's…”
It's yourself and Jack that insist that he has merely passed an opinion, whereas the record indicates it was a statement of fact. ”
“The record indicates it was a statement of fact .”......Tinker Bell, I have said before and will repeat once again, for the benefit of your tiny brain : I don't need to prove anything - least of all to you. The information given is supported by reports on recent historical events accepted as accurate, by several articles easily found on the internet (and of course, personal experience) ; look 'em up, unless you're afraid they'll contradict your beliefs.
The rest of your post is just sour grapes and meaningless conjecture, since (1) you cannot prove I'm wrong...and (2) you're a frustrated communist.
Further, your constant refusal to answer 2 very simple questions : where'd you live in the 60's ? and now ? just confirms you didn't live here then and probably never have, so you need to rely on biased, left-wing sources, for your information. Not exactly credible.
And finally, I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not.
@11 Hippylarious
The definition you have presented for “populist” is, as you imply, somewhat outdated, but not for the reason you have given : it says that a populist is “a member of a political party CLAIMING to represent the common people”. What still rings true, is that they only CLAIM to represent the COMMON PEOPLE.... Fact is , they represent only themselves, using the 'common people' (i.e., ignorant people) as a means to attain their objective...they adopt policies which increase their popularity with the sole objective of remaining in power, to enable them to steal, while ignoring the basic rules for a 'sound' economy.
“The US is a populist country”....are you nuts ? a country cannot be 'populist', only a person or a government can, as is the current democraP government in the US.
21 Tweedledum “I don't need to prove anything” he said in his humble opinion. While the rest of the world accepts the following as the only acceptable criteria of truth of a statement. “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” 61 Jack Bauer http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/01/argentina-recognizes-brazil-s-institutional-process-and-president-temer. It certainly does Ollie, so you're claiming that that you're the only one on planet who's in step. It warrants a warrant.
Sep 12th, 2016 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Deep thinking, Philosophy; Burden of proof
Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing “side” to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.
Abuse
Burden of proof is often abused in rhetoric and arguments.
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://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/01/argentina-recognizes-brazil-s-institutional-process-and-president-temer.
T Hill,
Sep 12th, 2016 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How thick are you?
This is not a formal debate. Mr Bauer is under no OBLIGATION to prove to your satisfaction what he says is true.
Is your thinking so rigid that you cannot comprehend that?
He has made an unproven, and likely unprovable statement based on what he says is his subjective first-hand experience.
You have not disproved it, nor are you obligated to.
Quoting one third party unknown source may lend weight to your argument, but it certainly does not “prove” your his statement is untrue.
Even your pals over at the Flat Earth Society are likely able to grasp that concept.
As to your list of the “demolished” adversaries that you have confronted in the past, I have to take it back, you do appear to argue with nearly everybody. Am I to understand that I am part of the list you deem “worthy”?
I'm deeply honoured.
23 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Mr Bauer is under no OBLIGATION to prove” Apparently he is under the only accepted criteria for resolving the truth of such statements. Which is ad nausium, bearing the burden of proof for his assertion. If you wish accept his statements, bully for you, but no other rational person does. The only reason a person who is required to provide warrant doesn't, is because no such evidence exists. Therefore, with argumentum a fortiori, the only rational for such a condition is because the claim is untrue period. “Quoting one third party unknown source”. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof; www.dictionary.com/browse/burden-of-proof; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/; esgs.free.fr/uk/log02.htm; www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html;learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/
Forget it Mr Hill;
Sep 12th, 2016 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too late.
You were basing the entire premise of your argument on a single quote by a third party, from sources that were unspecified.
Based on what you presented yourself, your logic was flawed and your argument inconclusive, yet you insisted that it was not.
Asked to specify the authors of the outside opinions, you could not.
ie: the motivations and bias of the writers to produce that opinion were not revealed, and yet you still insisted your argument was supported.
We questioned it and you said it did not matter as you trusted the journalist.
Additionally, you said you were not required to provide Burdon of Proof.
Now, days later, are you retroactively trying to add additional
inverted information to say you were right to
trust one story?
IIRC, You conceded that the Brazilians had made up their own minds within their own legal system, according to their own Constitution.
Outside opinions do not matter.
You have criticised J Bauer for stating an opinion without proof.
It is fully acknowledged that it was his own belief and his own opinion.
When is the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society?
25 Kanye
Sep 13th, 2016 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you can't refute my post so you're engaging in the fallacy of moving the goal-posts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
I have presented an apparently unbiased source by professional journalist(s). It's pretty simple, if you can't refute it, it stands.
“You have criticised J Bauer for stating an opinion”. Which is an out and out lie, as what was proffered wasn't an opinion. It was a statement of historical fact, which was untrue. Which is why he cannot provide any support for it. All the King's horses and all King's men...
You yourself have tried moving the goalposts, as you realised your original argument was flawed and insufficient.
Sep 13th, 2016 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good try.
27 Kanye
Sep 13th, 2016 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0A devoid fact less opining, otherwise you'd be able to produce the contradictory evidence of such.
@22 Hill
Sep 13th, 2016 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My opinion is neither humble, not haughty. It is an honest portrayal of events as I see/saw them, and because I do/did, it is only natural I have an opinion about them...which I do not need to prove. The reports on the events of the 60's, as I mentioned, are available on the internet. I didn't invent them, nor would I need to......and why would I ? nothing to gain by it. Ask any educated person who lived here at the time....Oops, I forgot, you don't know any, and have no friends.
““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” 61 Jack Bauer”
I see you liked it, to the point that you actually had to repeat it . Thank you. Fits you like a glove. The rest of your post, from “Deep thinking, Philosophy; Burden of proof” up to “until evidence is presented for the claim.” is typical Terry. Plain bs.
@24
More of the same definitions, over and over again. Think we should call you Terry Goebbels.
@26
“It was a statement of historical fact, which was untrue”.
If untrue, PROVE IT. Otherwise.....
The reason you refuse to tell everyone on here where you lived in the early 60's and where you live now, is a strong indication that IF you do, your house of cards will come crumbling down....Conclusion : you are blabbing uselessly on a time and on events you have no clue of, other than your left-wing sources, which OF COURSE, are completely neutral.
I think you've been sized up pretty accurately by most on here, so may I suggest you go and meet up with your most recent pals, the Brasshole and Hippy. They really seem to appreciate you. Invite them for a drink on the top of your mobile goal-posts.
29 Jack Bauer
Sep 13th, 2016 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The rest of your post, from “Deep thinking, Philosophy; Burden of proof” up to “until evidence is presented for the claim, is plain bs.” which is supported by ten other sites at post # 24. Who again supports your contention that you can proffer assertions devoid of proof? “If untrue, PROVE IT.” Your demand is considered an “Abuse; Burden of proof is often abused in rhetoric and arguments. 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
Your attempts to shift your burden to some utterly irrelevant personal issue is simply a diversion. From the fact that the following sciences or fields of law, philosophy,debating and logic all demand the same criteria that, 'the party that asserts must prove' otherwise they don't recognise such submissions. In other words it is considered a lie, while your attempted diversions are simply a 'red-herring.'”A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections#comment448920: I do not know were this so called definition comes from - it is not the definition of populism. I have already given you the definition.
Sep 14th, 2016 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, it is possible that the quote may be applied to populists as an attribute. For instance FDR, one of the great American presidents, alluded to the malevolence of “organized money” (aka 'Wall St.') with respect to the American people on a number of occasions. And, of course, he put the Wall St elites back in the box - something I wish President Obama had done.
Donald Trump is not a populist. He is the opposite. His 'Make America White Again' campaign is designed to appeal to a minority of the male WASP population who are stressing because they are no longer an absolute majority of the population. His campaign is explicitly exclusionary.
I'm not surprised that you Eurotrash have no knowledge of populism. It is an American movement and the word is an American word. And you have no understanding of America or Americans.
@30 Hill
Sep 14th, 2016 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““The rest of your post, from “Deep thinking, Philosophy; Burden of proof” up to “until evidence is presented for the claim, is plain bs.” .......which is supported by ten other sites at post # 24.
You are really quite 'thick' Terry, aren't you ? When I said that ”The rest of your post“....”is plain bs”, I was not referring to the sites themselves, even though I have no interest in reading them, but to the fact that you incessantly present them, as if their content is what rules the world.....
You say my my assertions are devoid of proof, and challenge me to prove certain events that no longer can be (personal experience), yet, when I ask you to prove they are untrue, my demand is considered an “Abuse” ??
I think that “Shifting the burden”, in this case, is quite the right thing to do, and your inability to handle this, is proof of your liberal streak.
But I have three questions for you :
1) why do your arguments always revolve around others having to present the “burden of proof”, despite the fact that you never PROVE anything - your heroes' opinions, definitions and quotes do not prove a damned thing - and in most cases I'm just presenting an opinion ?
2) Have you always been as haughty as this, believing you are the only 'smart' guy on the 'planet' (to use your terminology) ?
3) Are you going to tell us where you lived in 1961 ?
You see Terry, it is hard to believe that an idiot, like yourself, can actually exist, and the answers to the above might prove you are actually human.... Your intelectual level is compatible with that of “Hippy”....just look at the crap 'it' (or whatever you want to call the 'poster') has written in #31.... makes absolutely no sense....
As I said, it is becoming more and more obvious that you, Hippy and the Brasshole belong to the same club. You all think in exactly the same way.
@31 Hepatia
Sep 14th, 2016 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I got the definition from Wikipedia. You wouldn't argue with the People's encyclopedia would you? ;-)
And Donald Trump is most certainly a populist. Populists come in lots of flavours, and he's the right-wing kind, combining populism with nationalism.
You must have heard him claiming the 'failed Washington elites' have started pointless wars, sent people's jobs to Mexico and China, and generally screwed over the common people. The fact that he only appeals to a subsection of the population doesn't negate this. A lot of those people think of themselves as the only 'real' Americans anyway.
I don't think populism is always bad, by the way. It usually arises when the politicians are ignoring the concerns of the majority of people; in America the loss of secure, well paid jobs which are replaced by short-term, low paid ones; and the high level of immigration. Forcing these issues onto the agenda is no bad thing.
But it definitely has a dark side. See Venezuela where political opponents are cast as traitors and enemies of the people. If you're against the populists, you must be part of that evil money grabbing elite who are trying to snatch back the country.
33 DT
Sep 14th, 2016 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ If you're against the populists, you must be part of that evil money grabbing elite who are trying to snatch back the country.”
This is a bit ironic. Hepatia must therefore be opposed directly to EnriquevMassot, yet both are supporters of
Evita K and the Peronists.
(Good name for a skiffle band, don't you think?)
http://youtu.be/Z_XTt7paEg0
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!