MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil's ex attorney general claims he was fired for trying to deepen Petrobras corruption case
Brazil's new government is trying to stifle a corruption investigation targeting politicians and major parties, the former attorney general said in a magazine interview a day after being replaced by President Michel Temer. The former official, Fabio Medina Osorio, told weekly magazine Veja that he was fired because he tried to deepen the so-called “Car Wash” corruption probe into the country's oil company Petrobras. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHere's the true nature of the soft coup against Dilma Rousseff beginning to appear.
Sep 11th, 2016 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rousseff was never accused of stealing money, which cannot be said of many of the legislators to voted to oust her.
It may very well be that Rousseff was an obstacle to those wanting to milk the country to death for their exclusive benefit.
Yes!
Sep 11th, 2016 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Massot
Sep 11th, 2016 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It may very well be that Rousseff was an obstacle to those wanting to milk the country to death for their exclusive benefiT”
Says who?
It is at least, just as likely that's not true.
Do you have a link?
Man!! T Hill should be all over this, but he won't be. Very telling.
Dilma was President. She was unauthorised to secretly manipulate finances to deceive the voters and ensure her re-election.
Did the “other legislators” do this?
Do you have a link for that?
Hearsay or complete fabrication from the hinterland.
This is not news. It was clearly forecast by some of the phone intercepts of congressmen (no congresswomen seem to be involved) and administration officers. The impeachment is the plan to “stop the flow of blood”.
Sep 12th, 2016 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 03 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Brazil and the Art of Giving All to Friends and the Law to Foes; …Indeed, this modest line tells its audience a great deal about why Dilma was fired by Congress and what is likely to transpire over the next two years and four months of the Michael Temer presidency. …Dilma's ostensible puritanism on the issue of corruption might have been overlooked at feeding time by the political elites had the trough continued overflowing….
SEAN BURGES 09 SEPTEMBER 2016 Dr. Sean W Burges is a senior research fellow with the Washington DC-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs as well as deputy director of the Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies at the Australian National University and a visiting professor at Carleton University.
http://www.brazzil.com/24037-brazil-and-the-art-of-giving-all-to-friends-and-the-law-to-foes
” Rejects Coup Thesis, But Does Not See Budget Manipulation as Justification for Rousseff's Removal”
Ombudsman, Folha De S.Paulo
http://www.brazzil.com/24037-brazil-and-the-art-of-giving-all-to-friends-and-the-law-to-foes
T Hill
Sep 12th, 2016 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's fine Mr. Hill, but this is not up to you, or anyone else outside of the Brazilian government and Judiciary.
Self-determination, whether you agree or not.
Here, have a go at this one:
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/10/falklands-response-to-malcorra-s-statements-of-air-links-to-argentina-and-the-oil-industry#comment448934
Or tell us about Mr Hepatia's opinion:
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/10/falklands-response-to-malcorra-s-statements-of-air-links-to-argentina-and-the-oil-industry#comment448934
Go ahead, buddy
This should be very revealing.
6 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0You asked the question “Says who?” in response to the poster who suggested “Rousseff was an obstacle to those wanting to milk the country” I have shown you the opinion of a neutral
expert. If don't like my answer, don't ask the question. But don't be so dishonest and move the goal-posts when your query is successfully answered. If you want to know what my views on self-determination then place it along with my name and mercopress and enlighten yourself. “Here, have a go at this one” et al. Why don't you go and fuck yourself as I don't take directions from morons like you.
@6
Sep 12th, 2016 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you EVER shut up Troy/Kanye?
http://www.brazzil.com/24042-brazil-wants-to-sweep-corruption-charges-under-the-rug-says-fired-attorney-general
Sep 12th, 2016 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although Dilma was not directly accused / convicted of corruption but passively, she let her allies steal the billions. These allies are actively involved in corruption till TODAY.
Besides not governing the country efficiently, she let the country nose-dive into the economic and political crises.
If these “crimes” ARE serious; she should have been kicked out long before the situation got into the bigger mess!
7 mr Hill
Sep 12th, 2016 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I salute your dedication to tenaciously flog a dead horse in some instances, but ignore slander and carefully crafted misleading propaganda in others.
Nobody can tell you what to do, but it's illuminating what the burden of proof watchdog of MP goes after.
10 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets see, the last lame bitch is about the fact that others won't adhere to your dictates. That's because they're exercising both 'free-will' and 'freedom of expression' ideas that have been in the mainstream of political philosophy for the past several centuries. You haven't been able to raise a single issue in the last I don't know how many posts They have consisted solely of personal attacks. It's not my responsibility that your incapable of an original thought, or that you and your big-head have been bested. Your latest consisting of only innuendo, as you cannot refute the truth of my post.
@1 Reekie
Sep 12th, 2016 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cannot but agree that “Rousseff was never accused of stealing money, which cannot be said of many of the legislators to voted to oust her” - for the simple reason she has not been accused - YET......There is still plenty of time, and many corruption-riddled State-run companies and State company pension funds to be investigated . She may not have dipped her pen into company ink, but she sure presided over a ton of corruption ; her allegation that she “knew nothing”, (same as her mentor, the 9-fingered mollusc) doesn't hold water. She at least turned a blind eye to all the stealing ...the Petrobras corruption speaks for itself - and while 'she' was Minister of Mining & Energy, and President of the PB Aministrative Council. How blind does someone have to be to not 'see' it ?
To believe your 2nd paragraph, “It may very well be that Rousseff was an obstacle to those wanting to milk the country to death for their exclusive benefit”, you've got to be really naive. She was no obstacle. Repeating what I said above, she may not have dipped her pen into company ink, but she was aware of all the corruption going on under her nose, in the government and in the State -run companies, such as PB, executed by a well organized gang. Strange, isn't it, that her and Lula's greatest ally in Congress, Delcidio do Amaral (Senator & PT leader) denounced the PB corruption scheme and said Lula commanded the gang, while Dilma looked on. After that, Delcidio became their mortal enemy....how could he 'smear' their untarnished reputations like that ? How about the Pasadena Refinery ? A US$ 1.0 billion overprice. But of course, to you liberal folk, there is absolutely no indication that any of this occurred....it's just the figment of someone's crazy mind. PB did not lose 85 % of its market value overnight, and nearly go bankrupt, over nothing.
Seems you got the Brasshole (#2) all excited....good for you !
11 mr Hill
Sep 12th, 2016 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Personal attacks”.
You are no stranger to attacking others yourself.
In fact, it seems to me that you lost your temper very early on when you could not deny Mr Bauer's right to offer an opinion, without providing the Burden of Proof“ that you insisted on.
I seem recall a great deal of name-calling and character assassination, on your part.
You then very amusingly accused me of ”censoring” you.
Get a grip.
T HILL's list of crusades:
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections#comment449066
13 Kanye
Sep 12th, 2016 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Mr Bauer's right to offer an opinion, without providing the Burden of Proof” Thats a lie as he never proffered an opinion, he issued a statement as historical fact which is totally untrue, very different as he is required to meet his burden of proof.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof; legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof; www.dictionary.com/browse/burden-of-proof; www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/BurdenofProof.aspx; www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof; scienceornot.net/.../the-reversed-responsibility-response-switching-the-burden-.; ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/four-more-fallacies/; www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/; esgs.free.fr/uk/log02.htm; www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html;learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/
Your objection was to his “personal experience”.
Sep 13th, 2016 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are free not to believe or want to believe, or admit that you believe.
How many times are you going to re-visit this?
15 Kanye.
Sep 13th, 2016 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0My objection was his lieing which he has substantiated by his failure to meet his required burden.
@5 THill
Sep 13th, 2016 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Dilma's ostensible puritanism on the issue of corruption might have been overlooked at feeding time by the political elites had the trough continued overflowing…”
“...ostensible puritanism...” that's the joke of the century. But keep on defending the indefensible. That's what liberals and socialist do. The only trough that ever overflowed was the PT's, and even this dried up because she virtually bankrupted the country...and PB. If the 'poor darling' was a puritan, as you claim, the reason you presented for her being kicked out - because the trough stopped overflowing - makes no sense, or, was she OK with corruption for 6 years ? Might evidence of that be that the opposition waited 6 years to react ? But, if such a “flow” to the opposition did exist, it only stopped because 'she' screwed things up. Twice.
@15 THill
“My objection was his lieing ......”
It's easy to say something you don't agree with is a lie....obviously your perpetual /only defence when contradicted. Instead of calling me a liar, without the slightest proof, other than your left-wing bias, prove that my personal experience and the events portrayed are an invention...or, STFU.
Before you come back with your favourite tactic, saying I am inverting the burden of proof, given that your “proof” is only your opinion , what's wrong with doing that ?
While I'm perfectly aware I cannot prove the incidents I witnessed over 50 years ago, that is what usually happens to just about 99% of people on a daily basis....if the commie inspired criminals had waited around for the press to catch them on film and interview them, there would be proof.
Try something more practical than just posting definitions and quotes. They are boring and mean nothing.
In yr #11 to Kanye, you write “...others won't adhere to your dictates...”; Seems that only the Brasshole and Hepatitus adhere to yours....the idiots you attract, says a hell of lot about you..
17 Jack Bauer
Sep 13th, 2016 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...ostensible puritanism...” “But keep on defending the indefensible.” Are not my words but those of an expert a Dr. Sean W Burges who is a senior research fellow with the Washington DC-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs as well as deputy director of the Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies at the Australian National University and a visiting professor at Carleton University.
“It's easy to say something you don't agree with is a lie” Its even easier when 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.
“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 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.
“I cannot prove the incidents I witnessed over 50 years ago” Funny how there is not one single person on the planet that is even aware of these invisible events. Theres very simple and obvious answer as to why. That's because they never occurred, and that's why you remain unbelievable.
Mr Bauer,
Sep 13th, 2016 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Hill's (an alias) belief in the truth is unassailable.
His interview:
https://youtu.be/IV927b8o_jk
#1º:
Sep 14th, 2016 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lula-chefe-dos-esquemas.jpg?resize=580%2C386
#2º:
http://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lula-chefe-dos-esquemas.jpg?resize=580%2C386
#3º:
http://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lula-chefe-dos-esquemas.jpg?resize=580%2C386
@18 Hill
Sep 14th, 2016 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Me : ”“...ostensible puritanism...” (a joke), “But keep on defending the indefensible.”
You : “Are not my words but those of an expert a Dr. Sean W Burges ”
Exactly what I've been saying for months ....you aren't intelligent enough to form an opinion of your own. Your dear Dr. Burges may have all the degrees in the world, but his statement “Dilma's ostensible puritanism on the issue of corruption might have been overlooked at feeding time by the political elites had the trough continued overflowing….” is nevertheless only HIS opinion, based on what HE read or heard. Or, by any chance does he, like you, believe that he knows more about her illegal actions and her gross mismanagement of the economy than Dilma's accusers and her opposition in both houses of Congress ? If so, he's as arrogant as you are. You don't know how to listen to the arguments of both sides, to then form an opinion...of your own....you take the lead from your 'mentors', and express their opinions...as if they were the only truth...because they suit your leftist ideology.
“Funny how there is not one single person on the planet that is even aware of these invisible events. ”
What is funny, well, not really funny, more like sad and pathetic, is that you actually believe that.....“not one single person' ?? I could name many. The fact that you can't, just proves you have never lived here, at least not in the 60's....why don't you tell us where you were ? why do you systematically ignore this question? Your silence says everything. If not mistaken, wasn't it you who claimed, in your defence for someting or another, that you were bullied at school ? Is it a lie ? Can you prove you got the shit beaten out of you ? even if you can't , it would explain why you are such a pussy.
@19 Kanye
”Mr. Hill's (an alias) belief in the truth is unassailable. More accurate would be “belief in HIS truth”....and only he decides what that is...
21 Jack Bauer
Sep 15th, 2016 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You aren't intelligent enough to form an opinion of your own” In your opinion, but apparently I'm smart enough to expose the crock of shit that you attempted to foist on this forum as a true statement of fact. “Is nevertheless only HIS opinion” Who qualifies as an expert, who teaches at above graduate level. While you're a former shipping clerk, who has no expertise or experience in researching such matters. “I could name many…” But you don't, which makes your claim even more futile. “The fact that you can't.” But, I can that's why I'm so confidant in challenging your historical fiction. But until you can produce evidence to support your claim, I'm holding them in abeyance. So you're a guy who is either a liar or can't recall post of a few weeks ago. “Wasn't it you who claimed you were bullied at school” You stated that before 74 Jack Bauer “Looks like you must have been bullied as a kid….” http://en.mercopress.com/2016/07/27/rousseff-and-lula-will-not-attend-rio-olympic-games-opening and I responded. “Not at all as little kid I punched the lights out a gang leader called Pie-face who was three-years older. I was carried around the school on the kids shoulders. To be honest, I was a new kid and didn't know him from Adam. All I knew was he was picking a fight with me, I don't recall any fear, only a sense of aggrievement. Every time I moved school, the first day somebody picked a fight. When I won they didn't bother me after that. I never picked fight unless I saw someone bullying a smaller kid.”
@22 Hill
Sep 15th, 2016 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever, numbnuts.
Just one question : wherever did you get the notion that I was 'shipping clerk'?
While I did work in the shipping industry (amongst others), in Sales and Marketing , as well as in Operations, I was quite a bit higher up the ladder.....so much so that today I lead a damned good, problem-free life.
But at the risk of being accused of 'abuse', I must do a “Terry” on you, by asking 'where's the proof of your silly claim ?' Should I send you a link to some site on “the burden of proof” ?
You can hold my claims in “abeyance” until the cows come home for all I care....makes no difference to anything.
I have noticed of late, that you are commiting some gross grammar mistakes....what's your problem ? is the stress getting to you ? Is Pie-face haunting you again ? But don't bother telling me, I don't want to know anything about your mediocre life, other than where you lived in 1961-64...
23 Jack Bauer,
Sep 15th, 2016 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Just one question : wherever did you get the notion that I was 'shipping clerk'?” Which I have referenced numerous times, with-out your refutation. Which means your acquiescence of silence signifies acceptance. So it's a little too late to now be denying it.
So even if your self promotion's' were accepted, and that would be one hell of stretch given that I have revealed you lying on numerous occasions. Where in this experience dipshit is there anything that qualifies you in researching, yet alone passing judgement on the opinions of experts.
“You are commiting some gross grammar mistakes” But your comment is much more indicative of your own problems. ”It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“ illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120
“Grammar Pedantry Syndrome” is a form of OCD in which sufferers need to correct every grammatical error.” twitter.com/uberfacts/status/218151002707206145
“A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy,“ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
”Where you lived in 1961-64..” Already answered eons ago, although it has absolutely no relevance other than in your deformed little mind.
24 Mr Hill
Sep 15th, 2016 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“23 Jack Bauer,
“Just one question : wherever did you get the notion that I was 'shipping clerk'?” Which I have referenced numerous times, with-out your refutation. Which means your acquiescence of silence signifies acceptance. ”
Best one yet!!
I just cannot stop laffing - you are truly stupid.
Let's say he just did not dignify your condescending remark, with a response.
On the other hand , you could be onto something really great.
You, Terry Hill, could simply accuse Think, Vestige, Voice, Jack Bauer, or Barack Obama and Queen Elisabeth II of being paedophiles and if they didn't write back to you in the negative, it must be true.
In that case, you would be honour bound to call the police with your findings and they would be obligated to arrest them!
Wow!!
THill
“So it's a little too late to now be denying it”
Please supply a reference link laying out a table of acceptable time limits for issuing denials.
I suspect it's really you that was called “Pie Face”.
I'm timing you for a denial.
25 Kanye
Sep 15th, 2016 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously you are unaware of the rule which is mostly applied in civil law. Criminal usually allows for the protection against incrimination, although that has been modified in the UK. But if one had to verify all the matters that are ignorant of then I would have be writing into perpetuity.
“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
@23 Hill
Sep 15th, 2016 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you chose to 'reference' something 'numerous times', it's your option - it's just what you do - all the time. Did it ever occur to you that I might have considered your presumptions too stupid to even comment on ? Probably not.
If your wierd logic was anything else but wierd, you'd be able to make anyone be what you wanted.....that's probably why you believe you are 'smart'....how many times - 'numerous' times I would think - did you have to tell yourself you were smart before you actually started to believe yourself ?
Just for the record, not that I consider it demeaning to be a 'shipping clerk', but I never was one - sorry for breaking the bad news to you. Anyway, I am quite sure my employers wouldn't have paid me what they did, just to do a clerks job.....But, as you cannot present the “burden of proof” of your conclusions, based only on what you would like to be true, keep on insisting......Won't change things one iota.
More annoying than when someone corrects your grammar mistakes, is to know that they are right. ......isn't it, numbnuts ?
Where do you get all this crap, about being ill, OCD , from ?? you must be a very unhappy person. When's the last time you had your head examined ?
If you want to be useful - I admit, a tough proposition - instead of telling people they are what YOU 'think' they are, go to a shrink and get cured.
”Where you lived in 1961-64..”
Please indulge me, and tell me again. You don't really expect me to remember, or keep records on someone as insignificant as yourself, do you ? It is very relevant, in that it might explain your infinite amount of knowledge and authoritative opinions on recent Brazilian history.. Otherwise I'll be obliged to conclude that you are just an “unrepentant” liar, posting what he “wishes” were true ....
Mr Bauer,
Sep 15th, 2016 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have pronounced T Hill as “stupid”, and accused him of being the fellow called “pie face”
He has failed to refute either accusation in his response.
Therefore, according to his own rules, he has “accepted” what I said as the truth.
According to him, it is also, too late now to deny those accusations.
27 Jack Bauer
Sep 15th, 2016 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I might have considered your presumptions too stupid to even comment on” Since I haven't presented any of my presumptions it would be an impossibility for you to have commented on them. As for the others which are well established in the fields of logic, philosophy, and law it may well be that you're simply 'gobstruck', and unable to find any effective refutal.
“You cannot present the “burden of proof” of your conclusions, based only on what you would like to be true”. As I clearly stated my conclusion is not based on that. But, rather on your 'silence' which is considered equally conclusive.
“Where do you get all this crap, about being ill.” Researching idiots like yourself dipshit, something you've yet to achieve, your preferred modus operandi is shooting from the hip, which invariably ends up with you shooting yourself in the foot.
”Where you lived in 1961-64.. You don't really expect me to remember, or keep records on someone as insignificant as yourself” Since you've already indicated it's absolutely insignificant, then why ask about irreverent nuances?
@28 Kanye
Sep 16th, 2016 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hill is constantly in denial, evident once again by his haughty remark “ Since I haven't presented any of my presumptions it would be an impossibility for you to have commented on them”......To himself, he is always right, even when he's wrong“...
His comprehension of what I called insignificant, is somewhat lacking ....I said ”he“ was insignificant, but his ”whereabouts in the early 60's”, is relevant.....every time he tries to twist our words, the deeper he sinks in his own shit. He has denied the obvious, more than once (and that's putting it nicely), so that is what one comes to expect from such an idiot.
28 Kanye
Sep 16th, 2016 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have pronounced T Hill as “stupid”, and accused him of being the fellow called “pie face”” You don't even know what you're babbling about as at the time you've used the word stupid, it was because you where totally unaware of the legal effect of 'silence'. So you where making an argument out ignorance, so you can't get more stupid than that. You never accused me of being 'Pie-face' you said you 'suspected', idiot. Regardless, a claim of factual knowledge of something you haven witnessed is an absurdity, which isn't recognized in any legal setting. “It's also, too late now to deny those accusations.” No, it's not as its been an impossibility to reply, as your post only appeared after my viewing and replying post to Jack's. You haven't stated what you claim to have said, and this is the first available opportunity to refute what ever you're babbling about anyway, which I do so now.
Moreover, for your theorem to be applicable you will have to show where there is legal acceptance of such a claim. That personal insults have become issues of fact if unrefuted. Which there little doubt, you will be unable too. Moreover, there are two more legal principles you will have further to overcome.
First, “The law does not concern itself with trifles” http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx
Secondly, ”Argument against absurdity of legal reasoning; In the modern Europe it was used by English lawyers, as a principle (rule) governing interpretation of law. Thanks to its practicality it was named the “golden rule of interpretation”. Together with two other rules: the literal rule and the mischief rule, it composed a canon of interpretative activity of lawyers. It has become also an important argument justifying the use or rejection of certain methods of legal reasoning.” http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx Argument_against_absurdity_of_legal_reasoning_fundamental_subsidiary_or_rhetoric
30 Jack Bauer
You opine and whine a lot. But, at the end of th
@31 Hill
Sep 16th, 2016 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You opine and whine a lot. But, at the end of th......”
But at the end of the day, I prove you are an idiot. Q.E.D.
28 Kanye
Sep 16th, 2016 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have pronounced T Hill as “stupid”, and accused him of being the fellow called “pie face”” You don't even know what you're babbling about as at the time you've used the word stupid, it was because you where totally unaware of the legal effect of 'silence'. So you where making an argument out ignorance, so you can't get more stupid than that. You never accused me of being 'Pie-face' you said you 'suspected', idiot. Regardless, a claim of factual knowledge of something you haven witnessed is an absurdity, which isn't recognized in any legal setting. “It's also, too late now to deny those accusations.” No, it's not as its been an impossibility to reply, as your post only appeared after my viewing and replying post to Jack's. You haven't stated what you claim to have said, and this is the first available opportunity to refute what ever you're babbling about anyway, which I do so now.
Moreover, for your theorem to be applicable you will have to show where there is legal acceptance of such a claim. That personal insults have become issues of fact if unrefuted. Which there little doubt, you will be unable too. Moreover, there are two more legal principles you will have further to overcome.
First, “The law does not concern itself with trifles” http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx
Secondly, “Argument against absurdity of legal reasoning; ... it composed a canon of interpretative activity of lawyers. It has become also an important argument justifying the use or rejection of certain methods of legal reasoning.” http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx Argument_against_absurdity_of_legal_reasoning_fundamental_subsidiary_or_rhetoric
30 Jack Bauer
You opine and whine a lot. But, at the end of the day its all for naught, because you prove absolutely nothing, other than being a very sore loser.
T Hill
Sep 17th, 2016 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've blown a gasket.
Non sequitur, does not compute, Landru guide us ... etc
34 Kanye
Sep 17th, 2016 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since you can proffer no factual support for your post, you join the exalted status of Jack, confined to whining on the sidelines.
There is little point in debating the trees while ignoring the forest.
Sep 17th, 2016 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The forest here is the issue of who controls the country: it either is the old privileged, wealthy class who insists in keeping the bulk of the domestic GDP for itself, or those who want a new, more inclusive society where progress is within reach to all citizens.
Those representing the old order have recently discovered that corruption is unacceptable--only on the part of those they want to take down--while they continue to “do business ” as always.
That is the new strategy used throughout Latin America to keep the old order in power since the good old--fashioned coup d'états fell out of favour.
In spite of some hiccups, however, this ship has sailed. The experience of several progressive governments has showed a different path is within reach, and electors aren't close to forget that.
Mr Massot,
Sep 17th, 2016 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your views are in the minority.
How has your Marxism worked so far?
You talk of the GDP, and having access to it.
The GDP you speak of in your K utopia, is less and less every year, with only Evita K herself sharing it with Florencia and Maximo.
#37 Kanye
Sep 17th, 2016 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The GDP you speak of in your K utopia...”
Well, Kanye: the participation of the working class in the GDP may seem an utopia to you, but it has a strong impact on the lives of the majority of citizens.
Of course, you believe it's a good choice to publicly advocate for the wealthy and powerful in hopes they throw a few crumbles your way.
Keep hoping, my boy. And let me know when your dreams are fulfilled.
That's high falutin' talk Mr Massot, but you ignore the point - Evita K and her policies were driving the economy into the ground.
Sep 18th, 2016 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0That means, each year, there is less GDP per person, which translates to less $$ for handouts for each successive year, until the gov has nothing to give the workers, the working poor, or the unemployed, after Evita K takes her cut.
@34 Kanye
Sep 19th, 2016 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hill talks of whining....but yet he uses up all his space to whine and moan that he is superior, that he has proved beyond any doubt that he is the 'smartest' guy on the planet , to justify his cock-ups and then accuse you of 'abuse' when you point them out, and always end telling you he has won, you have lost....if I were to take this BS seriously I might be concerned, but as it is, we all read his shit and have a good laugh....
40 Jack Bauer
Sep 19th, 2016 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To whine and moan that he is superior” As usual long on wind and totally devoid of any poof. Otherwise, you'd be able to show where I have so stated. The only truth you've revealed is about yourself. Which is that you suffer from an inferiority complex, and it is fully justified.
JB
Sep 19th, 2016 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Point taken.
40 Jack Bauer
Sep 19th, 2016 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Justify his cock-ups and then accuse you of 'abuse' when you point them out” Again, if this were true show where, you won't be able to. So it's another endorsement of my accusation of your reliance on untruths.
@41 & 43 Hill
Sep 20th, 2016 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your” comments are all that are required to prove my point.
@42 Kanye
Sometime ago I came across a trueism which describes Terry so well ; here it is :
“When you are dead, you don't know it - only the others. It's the same way with stupid.”
JB
Sep 20th, 2016 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is right at times with some of his recent arguments with Voice.
However, when he is wrong, he will not allow himself to back down.
Fundamentally, he is unable to differentiate between an “unproven statement” and a “lie”.
You made an unproven remark based on personal experience and fully disclosed that.
When he characterised it as a lie, ie: definitely not true, then the onus is on him to back that up.
He cannot comprehend that simple logic.
44 Jack Bauer
Sep 20th, 2016 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You wouldn't recognise a truism if it hit you between the eyes, as you've never relied on one previously. The only truism that is confirmed, is that your allegations, you have always failed to provide a source for. Thus proving, you are any not only a confirmed liar, but, a person totally lacking in ethics. But, then studies have shown that right-wingers are not the most intelligent of people. Which, given the extremity of your politics explains why you are more stupid than most.
46 T Hill
Sep 20th, 2016 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Until you prove that his statements are LIES, deliberate untruths, he is not a “confirmed liar”.
You have not “confirmed” any facts, only raised unsubstantiated doubts.
47 Kanye
Sep 20th, 2016 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be utterly stupid, its Jack who made assertion, therefore his burden to prove, not mine to disprove. His failure makes him a liar, as it is entirely his onus.
48 mr. T
Sep 20th, 2016 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is you who is being “utterly stupid”.
You can say he has “not proven” his statement, but you cannot state definitely that he is “lying” or that his statement is untrue, unless you prove it is incorrect.
Otherwise, logically, you yourself are only offering an unsubstantiated, unproven opinion of your own.
49 Kanye
Sep 20th, 2016 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“But you cannot state definitely that he is “lying” or that his statement is untrue, unless you prove it is incorrect.” Not my burden, already answered and you were unable to refute it then, post #9 http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections
“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.
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.
So if its false, according to the accepted criteria then it's a lie, since its impossible to be anything else.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!