MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil: Former President Lula da Silva found guilty of corruption
Former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who rose from childhood poverty to become a two-term president, was convicted on corruption charges on Wednesday in the first of five graft trials he faces.He was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison. He will remain free on appeal. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNever thought I would see the day. CFK must be unnerved.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know what you mean, and with 9 and a half years for only one of 5 charges, he's unlikely to escape all charges on appeal.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nine and a half years and he's still free....he should leg it....
Jul 12th, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nine and a half years.....one for each finger...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse +1Poetic justice Eh Jack?
Jul 13th, 2017 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The process of ACTUALLY putting him behind the bars - that too for [+/-] TEN years - is very slow, complicated & can be “made” politically cumbersome.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +2PT certainly can AND will ensure the maximum possible delay; by which time, they are most likely to be back in power AND with His Majesty as the President [AGAIN]!
MANY [corrupt] politicians have already sensed this and are likely to jump sides and will be willing to join the PT.
:o)) - Ain't that the truth........Sad.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@golfcronie
Jul 13th, 2017 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If he hadn't chopped off his 'pinky' (deliberately - in a lathe - the story goes) , he'd have been sentenced to 10 years...
Jack Bauer
Jul 14th, 2017 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“If he hadn't ….the story goes”
You’re the perfect example of such claims as being proof-less and truth-less.
The case moves closer to becoming a cause célèbre, much to Brazil’s shame, if the UNHRC makes a ruling in his favour. There is no evidence against him, only speculation. As there are no witness’s, no incriminating written evidence, nor audio recordings to support such a verdict. Such an abuse would not be permitted under a civilized legal system. The trial has confirmed entirely the claims of the defence.
THE headline should read: “Lula and the rest of the two thousand crooks were found guilty of corruption”, will escape long prison-sentences AND will NEVER return their illicit earnings to the country.
Jul 15th, 2017 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1MANY continue to STEAL - habitually and in doing so for more than TWENTY years, they have jointly amassed MULTI-Billions [if not TRILLIONS] and NOT just a few millions of USDs!
NOW, the system is finally hankering about a triplex and some property that only costs about USD 3M - which is a farthing, a joke and a humiliation of intelligence!
: NO wonder Brazil continues to remain and suffer as one of the Under-Developed Nations!
: WONDER how Brazil got actually qualified to deserve an invitation for the G20 Meeting!
TH
Jul 16th, 2017 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're the perfect example of....bla, bla, bla....don't you ever get tired of showing off your ignorance and spewing out the same ole sh*t ?
Jack Bauer
Jul 16th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I present as fact is always supported. What ever opinion presented is solely on the legal merits. Whereas, your claims have been rarely supported and seem to represent the opinions of wing nuts that frequent local bars nightly.
“Furthermore, as predicted months ago by the Brazilian sociologist and political scientist Emir Sader, even without proof of personal enrichment or making use of his post to get illegal advantages, Lula had to be accused, indicted, found guilty and sentenced.
'In order to prevent that a democratic, popular, sovereign government takes office again in Brazil, it is necessary to get Lula out of the political life, regardless of the way used,' Sader noted.”
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=15546&SEO=lula-and-legal-procedures-as-a-weapon-of-war
Trollence Shill supporting his tripe with Prensa Latina? The official state news agency of Castroist Cuba? Just like he is always citing the Grauniad and Glen Greenwald? He's about as believable as Fox News, with all that that implies, kinda like Kamerad/Komrade Rique. Just more proof that he is just another “useful idiot,” who supports violence as long as it is in the service of his “Populist” masters...
Jul 16th, 2017 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/07/05/blood-on-the-walls/
imoyaro
Jul 16th, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn’t take much to bring you knee jerk reactionaries into the light “.. he is just another ..who supports violence” No I do not, nor do I suffer from the narrowness of attributing political connotations to a purely legal subject, like yourself.
“Lula is bringing his case at the UN because he cannot get justice in Brazil under its inquisitorial system,” said high-profile British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.
“The same judge who is invading his privacy in this case can have him arrested at any moment and will then become his trial judge, deciding on his guilt or innocence without a jury.
“This is a serious fault in the inquisitorial system as it operates in Brazil.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/brazil-ex-president-un-petition-luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva
Robertson is an international jurist, human rights lawyer, and academic. …In 2008, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon appointed him as a “distinguished jurist” member of the UN’s Justice Council, which nominates and supervises UN judges.
Assuming this Geoffrey Robertson knows what he is talking about, then the big question is who decides Lula's appeal, and are they independent?
Jul 16th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@imoyaro
Jul 16th, 2017 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -1No use trying to get any sense out of him....he's no better than a robot. Repeats the same nonsense until he believes it. Don't know why he even insists on posting so much BS, it proves nothing....it only wastes our time.
The fact is that the 218 page sentence has so much proof in it - public and private documents, e-mails, cell-phone transcripts, besides the testimony of several crooks who were in cahoots with the toad....if TH refuses to accept it, it is his problem.
Jack, he's an extremist, and you can't reason with clowns like that. I'm an obvious right winger to him because I am a moderate. I've taken those political tests they have out there through the years and always come up within 3% of the 0 middle point, + or - depending on who was giving the test. One thing I have learned is that when clowns like Trollence Shill and Kamerad/Komrade Rique take over, the first people they target are the moderates, usually by calling them Fascists, when they themselves are the National Socialists. The best way to attack them is humor, as doctrinaire hacks on the left and the right cannot abide it. ;)
Jul 16th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0imoyaro
Jul 17th, 2017 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike the rest of you I am so apolitical I can’t recall the last time I voted. My interest is the legality of the situation as measured against international norms. As for JB he has an obvious political bias against Lula and still cannot point to one specific proven instance of his wrong doing, to wit:
Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: ...
12 Jack Bauer; “..'Military dictatorship', ..history is showing,.. that it was good for Brazil
Brazil remembers the 50th anniversary of the coupe…
15 Jack Bauer; “..Am pretty sure that military are accompanying all this … I hope they DO take over...”
“because I am a moderate.” Yeah and I’m the Queen of Sheba. You have absolutely not a clue as to how alarming is the presence of ‘lawfare’ is in Brazil to real moderates. But then there may be a bona fide answer for your failure to acknowledge what has actually occurred.
“Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.”
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
REF: The Former President: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Lula-Da-Silva-Brasil-293x420.jpeg
Jul 17th, 2017 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0AND VERY LIKELY; THE FUTURE PRESIDENT TOO - THANX TO THE REST OF THE CROOKS!
@imoyaro
Jul 17th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0did you see TH's “As for JB he has an obvious political bias against Lula and still cannot point to one specific proven instance of his wrong doing”....
Well, he's half right - I do hate Lula, an ignorant bastard who betrayed the Brazilian people, the majority of whom are too stupid to realize it. But to prove I'm not biased against him, I dislike most Brazilian politicians - they're nearly all crooks, but Lula managed to top them all.
But he's wrong, pathetically wrong about Lula's innocence....he simply refuses to see what everyone else already has....the 218 page sentence is so full of proof that even the president of the TRF-4 in Porto Alegre classified it as meticulous, relevant and impecable in its conclusions. The difference between TH and most other 'petistas', is that the latter, even being upset with the fact that the toad has been convicted, realize that, unfortunately, there IS proof of his corruption. Only his closest collaborators - also corrupt - still insist on this “no proof” crap.
As to Hill's claim that he is apolitical, and can't remember the last time he voted, it is either a lie - because why would someone who doesn't bother voting in their own country, take such an interest in foreign politics, especially when concerning the corrupt, which in his opinion cannot be guilty simply because they threw a few crumbs to the people...time has proven it was just a gimmick to kid them that they were doing just fine - or, he can't remember because his memory is so shot to hell, that he has to invent his lies as he goes along.
The fact that he sees you (and me) as a fascist, when you're a moderate, indicates that he is definitely a communist.....but to be called a fascist by the Hillbilly, plus the fact that he can't refrain from quoting me incessantly, is an honour.
The only defence he can come up with, are his irrelevant quotes of other peoples'
opinions....for the simple reason he cannot formulate one of his own
Jack Bauer
Jul 17th, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the last time he voted, it is either a lie” Good luck with proving that one. As other than a claim by Folha, as to Temer’s popularity. Which they admitted was at variance with the data base they were relying on. I cannot recall you ever providing a source for your claims. “take such an interest in foreign politics” are you being deliberately obtuse or are you that stupid. As I have repeatedly stated that it is the legal connotations that interest be not the political agendas.
“indicates that he is definitely a communist.” Is there no end to your libels? I can’t stand extremists like you or communists. Primarily, because both are intolerant. Communistists additionally, because they have attempted to co-op history facilities with anthropologists and sociologists. With their wrong revisionist historical theories exactly like you do with Brazil’s history.
“the 218 page sentence is so full of proof” But, somehow your unable to provide specifics as always. Like Robertson I saw how this was going down. I’ll give you a prediction, when the UNHRC renders its determination it will be castigating for Brazil.
In fairness,Jack, despite the walls of verbiage, Trollence doesn't impress me as somebody who could work his way through “Das Kapital,” let alone some of the lesser works of the canon, such as “What Is To Be Done?” or more amusingly “ Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder?” by Comrade Lenin. I'm afraid this is a case of “Why not take the 'gentleman' at his own word.” He's not political, he's in it for the money. ;)
Jul 17th, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i’mayahoo
Jul 17th, 2017 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If one is to stand for something. Being in opposition to human rights violations is, in my view, a worthwhile end in itself.
@imoyaro
Jul 17th, 2017 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing about Trollence (quite appropriate, btw) impresses me, at all...except his stupidity. If it weren't a waste of my sentiments, I'd feel sorry for him. But let him insist all he wants...“I'm apolitical, it is the legal connotations that interest me, you are intolerant, I'm an expert on Brazilian history, I'm a legal expert, I've provided the burden of proof, bla,bla,bla” ....it won't change the facts. Why doesn't he read Lula's sentence, and see the proof for himself ? Of course not...it would shatter his little world.
And who gives a damn what the UNHRC determines with regards to Lula ? It's about as relevant to Brazil as a fart on a curtain rail...
Jack Bauer
Jul 17th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it won't change the facts.” Exactly.
“May 15, 2017
Former President Lula’s innocence was proved by the testimony of the 73 witnesses that were heard under oath in the three-story apartment case. The Federal Attorney’s Office acknowledged it doesn’t have any evidence to ground the accusations made against Lula as they call new witnesses.
The defense showed that, in addition to the fact that the apartment doesn’t belong to Lula, its owner, the OAS, gave the property as security in several financial transactions, according to what the witnesses stated throughout the hearings. …
The decision also generates the incurable nullity of the proceeding as it denies the production of expert evidence “to establish who would be the owner of the apartment 164-A at the Solaris Condominium and also if the property was given as security in a financial transaction by the OAS Empreendimentos”. If the Federal Attorney’s Office bring charges that leave material traces – even with no grounds for that – the production of expert evidence is mandatory (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 158).”
http://www.averdadedelula.com.br/en/2017/05/15/lulas-defense-will-take-measures-against-the-illegalities-of-the-decision/
@Trollence
Jul 18th, 2017 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't twist my words, numbnuts. Funny how you choose to believe the testimony of Lula's witnesses, but not that of the accusation's witnesses.....very selective and biased.....anyway, for every single person who testified in Lula's favour, there is the same number who testified against him....but of course, Trollence only believes what he wants to, then says it's proof...
As to the apartment not being in Lula's name, there is nothing strange with that....that is simply the MO of corrupt politicians to hide assets. As to “establish who would be the owner of the apartment 164-A at the Solaris Condominium”, that is easy : there are two signed contracts (found in Lula's SBCampo apartment), first one with Bancoop, registering the purchase of an apartment on the 7th floor, and a 2nd, with OAS (when they later took over the construction after Bancoop filed for bankruptcy - caused by João Vaccari, Lula's treasurer), altering it to one of the 17th floor, apt 174....which later became 164 when they altered the floor plan to accomodate the triplex, the lower floor of which is on the 16th floor...thus 164.
If you insist in consulting Lula's site, what can you expect to find ? LIES, defending Lula...I know you are the gullible type, but that is stretching it...
Jack Bauer
Jul 18th, 2017 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As to the apartment not being in Lula's name, there is nothing strange with that......that is simply the MO of corrupt…to hide assets.”
Then according to you we are all guilty because we can’t prove we don’t have ownership. Firstly, if it as cut-and-dried as you claim, then why did Moro deny the mandatory application of Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 158. Which requires determination of expert option as to the question of ownership. Secondly, if “there are two signed contracts (found in Lula's SBCampo apartment), first one with Bancoop, registering the purchase of an apartment on the 7th floor, and a 2nd, with OAS”. If this was true it begs the question as to how you fail to provide a citation of such important evidence? Otherwise, its not difficult to conclude your claim has absolutely no merit.
“There is the same number who testified against him” But not one could prove his ownership.
@TH
Jul 18th, 2017 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lula claims he's innocent - in this case - because the triplex isn't in his name....that only proves exactly that .....it may not be in his name but the proof points to the fact that he 'was' ('was', because now it's been confiscated) the de-facto owner.....go ahead and refuse to accept this, I don't care....tons of supporting docs, as well as testimony show that the apartment 'was' his and we all know how it would be transferred to him - by using the name of a front man....as he's always done....In the vain attempt to try to convince everyone that he is as poor as a church mouse, and that he is the victim of political persecution....“vá contar isso p'ra suas negas, burraldo”.
Jack Bauer
Jul 18th, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the confirmation that there are in fact no “signed contracts”. It was just another of your constant and boring artifices.
“but the proof points to the fact that he 'was’”. Excuse, me if I don’t take the word of a confirmed “perpetrator of inexactitudes”.
The proofs all in fact exonerate Lula, to wit:
“The executive admitted that neither Lula nor his family has never possessed or owned the apartment 164A in Solaris Building. He made reference to a unilateral reservation of the apartment from hearsay at OAS, but which was never confirmed by any of the 73 witnesses heard previously under oath.”
http://www.averdadedelula.com.br/en/2017/05/04/lulas-defense-points-out-stir-made-to-press-a-plea-bargain-agenda/
@TH:
Jul 19th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0ALL the transactions [secretive, clandestine, illegal, illicit] are supposed to be without ANY possibility of Tracing & Tracking the Money-Trail; back to the culprits.
The Trusts, Foundations, Betting Houses & Casinos [legal AND illegal], Overseas Banks, Anonymous Offshore Accounts, Money Laundering Schemes, Exchange Changers [doleiros], and the [Trustworthy] Contacts serve exactly THIS SOLE PURPOSE!
Obviously; there are NO Contracts, NO Agreements [written & signed], NO Bank Transfers, NO witnesses, NO Proofs, NO receipts, NO Invoice, NO Bill, NO Obvious Evidence OF ANY KIND OF TRANSACTION!
Hence a 100% Foolproof Evidence - a SMOKING GUN - if you are looking for; THERE WON'T BE ANY!
:o))Bonehead
Jul 19th, 2017 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0So according to your hare-brained logic you must be guilty as you also cannot prove a negative. So much for Brazil’s compliance with her obligation under The Universal Declaration of Human Rights requirement to the presumption of innocence.
“If the Federal Attorney’s Office bring charges that leave material traces – even with no grounds for that – the production of expert evidence is mandatory (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 158).”
@DT:
Jul 19th, 2017 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly for THAT specific reason [lack of sufficient proof]; ALL the crooks - more than 2'000 of them - have been milking Brazil - for more than TWENTY Years - and still are enjoying their Total Freedom. And those who are behind bars [for the namesake ONLY] will S00N be scot-free to go on milking Brazil.
In addition to This Specific Reason; they ALSO have their Special Privileges, the new laws & the modified old laws; for guaranteeing their water-tight protection.
The ignorant masses who believe in the innocence of these crooks must either be a laughing stock of these same crooks or are in one manner or the other; benefitting from considering the crooks as completely innocent. Election 2'019: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/a_further_blow_to_democracy_in
:o))Bonehead
Jul 19th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take your goal-posting political machinations out of consideration. As the subject matter under scrutiny is Lula. Thanks, for the confirmation that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be swept aside to accommodate your flawed reasoning.
I watched it a few days ago. But since you have raised the issue then I can address it.
GREENWALD
“.. Rousseff, impeached on charges that, …, are extremely petty in the context of the corruption claims lodged against the people who removed her. .. you take the next PT candidate, … and make him ineligible to run for office ..there is a real attempt to preclude the public from having the leaders that it wants ..her successor, Michel Temer, ..now they’re talking about removing Temer and installing the next person in line, Rodrigo Maia, …which means you’ll go from a center-left party to a center-right party to a right-wing party without a single vote being cast. …that this is a further blow to democracy, that this is really just politically driven, that there are all kinds of corrupt figures on the right, including President Michel Temer and Senator Aécio ..about whom there’s much more tangible and concrete evidence of criminality, and yet haven’t been convicted, haven’t even left office. Aécio is still in the Senate. ..And Temer remains running the country, even though the whole country heard him on audio approving bribes paid to witnesses to keep them silent. .. Michel Temer, shortly after he was installed as president, came to New York and spoke to a gathering of hedge funds and foreign policy elites in New York and said that the real reason Dilma was impeached was not because of these budgetary tricks she was accused of using, but it was because she was unwilling to impose the level of austerity that international capital and the business interests in Brazil wanted. That’s why they put Temer into office, to, quote-unquote, ..”
Briefly; I'm not for or against any particular politician or a political party. The point is that ALL are crooks. But U keep missing the point - COMPLETELY! Just forget it!
Jul 19th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:o))
Jul 19th, 2017 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“But U keep missing the point” Do I? As the following appears to indicate an intolerant bigoted view of Brazil.
“The ignorant masses who believe in the innocence of these crooks” and “the point is that ALL are crooks.
Yes, there are many problems, due to a fragmented political system with exactly the same difficulties that Italy suffered from for many years. Apparently, the same malaise has affected significant aspects of its judicial system as well. That does not mean all politicians and all judges are tainted.
@TH
Jul 19th, 2017 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please excuse ME for exposing your fanatical adoration of corrupt assholes like Lula.
I have long given up trying to convince you of the contrary, my only purpose in replying to your bs is to expose you for what you are...an ignorant commie.
@:o))
Quando vamos perceber que esse idiota não merece o nosso tempo ? Ele se acha um gênio, pensa que entende a politica Brasileira apesar de nunca ter morado aqui, e adora defender os corruptos. Pau na B dele !
Jack Bauer
Jul 19th, 2017 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“is to expose you for what you are...an ignorant commie.” “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
But to you anyone who doesn’t agree with your fascist megalomania vision must be a communist.
Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: ...
12 Jack Bauer; “..'Military dictatorship', ..history is showing,.. that it was good for Brazil
Brazil remembers the 50th anniversary of the coupe…
15 Jack Bauer; “..Am pretty sure that military are accompanying all this … I hope they DO take over...”
“Brasileira apesar de nunca ter morado aqui,”
Then how would I know of your quaint custom of salvaging your soiled toilet paper. The only country that doesn’t allow a motorist to turn right, when safe, on a red light. That most sidewalks are trip hazards as they maintained by the property owner and not the municipality.
@Twinkle Toes
Jul 20th, 2017 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've never lived here...“quaint custom of salvaging your soiled toilet paper.” ???? where the hell did that come from ? or is that what you do in your home ? salvage it to blow your runny proboscis on ?
But what you consider 'top secret' information, supposedly only known, as implied by you, to someone who has lived here, is easily accessible to anyone on the internet....and to tourists.....try another, you fraudulent, opinion-less hillbilly.....
Ah, and please keep on quoting me...you might even learn something.
Jack Bauer
Jul 20th, 2017 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse -1You collect your ‘poopy-paper’ for disposal with the household garbage because of your inadequate sewerage systems which would block up otherwise. Incidentally, I don’t in my own home and have never had a paper blockage. “information, .. is easily accessible to anyone on the internet.” If thats so ,how come you haven’t indicated where such information is available. Or is this one of your never ending 'porkies'.
“Please keep on quoting me...you might even learn something.” I’ve learn’t all need to know a long time ago. But since your always so fast and lose with the truth. I think it’s important for casual reader to fully comprehend exactly who why you’re always trying to pass off propaganda as fact.
Hi, Jack! REF: “Quando vamos perceber que esse idiota não merece o nosso tempo?”: :o))
Jul 20th, 2017 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was a relief, I was worried he meant something much worse!
Jul 20th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terence, all those are the sort of things that would be in a guide book, can't you come up with something more obscure?
Also “I’ve learn’t all need to know a long time ago.” How arrogant. Everyone should be open to learning new things. What's the point in discussing stuff otherwise?
DemonTree
Jul 20th, 2017 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“All those are the sort of things that would be in a guide book” Which guide book would that be since your the one making the claim?
Under the rules of logic I’m not required to, the person that claims I don’t live in Brazil is the one who bears the burden of proof to prove his assertion. Please enlighten me as to what new I could possibly learn from person who lies about every issue.
Oh where are these “signed contracts” of Lula’s for the condo, that he claims exist. Can’t produce them can he? No surprise there, I rest my case.
“The wretched conceit of a liar, in supposing himself clever enough to invent stories so ingenious that they shall, for any time, impose on people for the truth, and the still grosser folly in imagining, as he must do, that the world will, without investigation and analysis, take for granted anything he chooses to assert that world more shrewd, more cunning, and as prying as himself what a conceited ass must the liar be! How superior over others in cunning must he not believe himself! What fools must he not suppose the rest of mankind!”
CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogos
@TH
Jul 20th, 2017 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you're not claiming you lived in Brazil then why did you give those examples to try and prove it?
I don't actually care whether you did or not since all you do is quote other people, I'm just curious.
Jack doesn't lie about every issue, but even if he did then so what? You didn't say you couldn't learn anything from Jack, you said you learned all you need a long time ago.
@TH
Jul 20th, 2017 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Where I live the sewerage system works just fine, thank you. Your “I don’t in my own home and have never had a paper blockage” is interesting…is that because you crap into a hole in the ground at the back of your garden ?
You trying to imply that because I didn’t send you a link - for your easy reference - that there is no info on the matter in the internet ?….weak, lol ; anyone who has spent one day in Brazil knows the sidewalks are full of holes…like the roads…not exactly classified information.
Keep on spouting your bs, it’s what people have come to expect from you, fraudulent Trollence.
@DT
“Jack doesn't lie about every issue”...thanks. I can only imagine that the Fraud says I lie about 'every issue', because his sensitivity tells him to hate me and question anything I post....Do I care ? NO !!!!
But for his information, I don't need to lie about anything...simply tell things either as they are, or as I percieve them, based on experience. When I don't know something, or can't remember, have no problem admitting it.
But going back to Terry the Fraud, he is so adept to 'rules' - when it suits him - and he'll claim anything to try to show his pseudo-superiority...He has no “self”, he's all about other people's quotes, as if he doesn't exist as a rational organism...I'm sure Freud could have explained it.... maybe he got hit on the head once too often, as a kid...
DemonTree
Jul 20th, 2017 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If you're not claiming you lived in Brazil then why did you give those examples to try and prove it” They were posed simply by way of illustration to show the absurdity of the original claim by Proof-less and Truth-less. I haven’t claimed anything, I don’t have to, it's not my burden. I’m not me who made the original assertion. You and the rest of the wing-nuts can drag those ‘goal posts’ every which way you want. But, it doesn’t change who the onus is on.
“He who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument”
http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.ht
Where’s guide book that you’re relying on? Doesn’t exist, so all it shows is that birds of feather flock together.
“Jack doesn't lie about every issue” Then you’ll be happy to confirm which ones he doesn’t lie about. My experience is that he would lie about what he ate for breakfast.
@TH
Jul 20th, 2017 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now I'm just confused. Have you lived in Brazil or not?
“Then you’ll be happy to confirm which ones he doesn’t lie about.”
Oh no, you said he lies about every issue, and “He who asserts must prove.” It's your claim, you prove it. And it better had be EVERY issue, because even if you can show he lied once that doesn't cut it.
Also, I see you called me a wingnut, which is ridiculous because my views are left of centre. I won't ask you to prove it because you can't, but please stop claiming things that aren't true.
@JB
I'm inclined to believe him when he says he's interested in the legal aspects and not the politics, because legal stuff seems to be ALL he's interested in. And he treats this comment section like a courtroom, demanding people prove anything and everything. It wouldn't be so bad if he would follow his own rules and not claim things that are obviously false and/or impossible to prove.
Tweedledum aka Proof-less and Truth-less and his slavish follower
Jul 20th, 2017 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Where I live the sewerage system works just fine” Then you must be the exception because there is no commercial or residence, be it modest or lavish, that doesn’t have a receptacle lined with a plastic bag. For the disposal of used toilet paper in the bathroom.
“I didn’t send you a link” Simply because one does not exist, the proof of which is your failure to meet your mandated obligation.
“I don't need to lie about anything..” Then it begs the question why you do.
Or whenever I have challenged your version of any claim. You have time and time again been proved a liar. If this isn’t so, here’s your golden opportunity to make me eat my words. But you won’t because you can’t. Just like you can’t produce a link to your claim of the “signed contracts” of Lula’s for the condo, because it doesn’t exist. So that’s two birds with one stone.
@DT
Jul 20th, 2017 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fraud is really doing a good job, all by himself, of exposing what a nutcase he is....
If not mistaken, think that a poster, a couple of years back more or less, mentioned that the “fraud” “had” lived here....in view of his claims of 'expertise' on Brazil, I asked him to confirm that he indeed had, to give his claims some credibility. As he insistently refuses to confirm one way or the other, one can only conclude he is arrogant to an extreme, or is a bullsh*tter...or more likely, both. Then he adopts the childish attitude of “I don’t have to, it's not my burden”.....and even tells us something that everyone knows, as if it proved anything... His comment to you “Where’s guide book that you’re relying on?” is an unmistakable sign that he's lost it....
The fraud's first upset with me was when I mentioned the 60's 'freedom fighters' were just a bunch of Cuban trained commies, then he became 'ill' when I didn't condemn the military and said they hadn't been all that bad, and now it's my attacks on Lula that upset him....poor little Terry...
He might even be interested in the legal aspects, and not the politics, but he can't resist the adoration of the corrupt and the far left....otherwise, why does he systematically deny the existence of proof against Lula , and join the chorus of the ignorant who claim he is the victim of political persecution...a bit pathetic for someone who professes to be interested in “legal aspects”....he believes what he wants, and there is nothing impartial about that.
One of the first signs of his dementia, was when he started demanding I prove my “opinions”....Can't someone think what they want, based on what they've seen/ heard, or must they 'prove' everything they say in an informal discussion ?...to me, he is nuts, not worthwhile engaging.
@TH
Jul 20th, 2017 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You and the rest of the wing-nuts”... “and his slavish follower”.
“an ad hominem attack ..is nothing else than an open admission by “the other side” that they have no more reasonable arguments, ...that they have lost not just the plot but also the debate. ...” Edzard Ernst
Thanks for that admission. Evidently you cannot prove that Jack Bauer lies about every issue.
@JB
It's true that he always argues one side and is very predictable about it. I don't agree with you about most things, but people disagree about stuff all the time, it's not the same as lying.
No one adores the corrupt though, people either believe Lula is innocent or support him despite the corruption.
Tweedledum aka Proof-less and Truth-less and his slavish follower
Jul 20th, 2017 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Now I'm just confused. Have you lived in Brazil or not?”
Thats obvious, my personal life is not open for disclosure. I don’t want to know any other posters personal details and I’m not divulging mine, because I choose not to, end of discussion. Let me put as succinctly as I can. In the famous quote of Byron to Mrs Wordsworth “fuck-off”
“’Freedom fighters' were just a bunch of Cuban trained commies,” “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
“He is arrogant to an extreme, or is a bullsh*tter.” The fallacy of an ‘and or argument’.
So the rest of longwinded diatribe is to cover the fact that there are no contracts tying Lula to the condo. Therefor, you are exposed yet again as a liar.
It was a simple question Terence, there's no need to be rude.
Jul 20th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since you are evidently not going to hold yourself to the same standard as others and prove what you said, there is no point continuing. Good night.
Tweedledum aka Proof-less and Truth-less and his slavish follower
Jul 20th, 2017 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well if JB was presented with such an opportunity to engage in a coup de grâce yet still declines. It Begs the question, it means he can’t point to any exchange where his duplicity wasn’t revealed.
“You and the rest of the wing-nuts”... “and his slavish follower” Whats your point? because they are certainly accurate as to your description. “An ad hominem attack” you better address that to the king of them JB.
“Evidently you cannot prove that Jack Bauer lies about every issue.” Well, I certainly did in our present exchange, and an innocent man would have leapt at an opportunity to rebut my assertion. What’s absolutely certain is his failure or silence on the matter is viewed as an admission thus:
“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
NO need to get all THAT worked-up. The GOOD news is: http://www.otempo.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.1499187.1500502265!image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/main-charges-resize_620/image.jpg
Jul 21st, 2017 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@DT
Jul 21st, 2017 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's probably a waste of time trying to educate the “fraud”, but here goes...to “prove” I'm not lying about info being accessible on the internet regarding the wonderful sidewalks in most Brazilian cities, anyone can google “as calçadas esburacadas de São Paulo”, or can open various links ...Try this one :- “https://youtu.be/IJHOXELf-JM” - “calçadas Brasileiras intransitáveis”...
That many of the 60's 'freedom fighters', were trained in Cuba, is public knowledge...needs no proving.
The “fraud's” claim that “ 'I' must be the exception because there is no commercial or residence, be it modest or lavish, that doesn’t have a receptacle lined with a plastic bag. For the disposal of used toilet paper in the bathroom”, is rubbish...if that is the reality he is familiar with, it indicates that if he ever lived, or visited friends here, then they must live in sub-human conditions. Otherwise, the only reason for receptacles - in 'public' bathrooms - is to throw the bulkier paper hand-towels ....but it seems that to throw used toilet paper in a bin is what the “fraud” is used to. Probably keeps it use the other side.
If he thinks he's proved I'm a liar - about anything - let him TRY to prove it... otherwise,
he should keep quiet.
We don't have to agree on everything, opinions don't have to coincide...but to be called a liar by someone who disagrees with your opinion, and even demands you 'prove' it, is absurd.
Your comment “No one adores the corrupt though, people either believe Lula is innocent or support him despite the corruption” - the 1st part is true for 99% of people, - the other 1% refers to most of the political class, which benefits handsomely from it...until caught...then they become offended...before going to prison....To believe Lula is innocent is the same as believing water isn't wet...and those who 'support him despite the corruption', are either the manipulated masses, or those who are benefiting from it in some way or another
Tweedledum aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Jul 21st, 2017 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sidewalks, which also state who is responsible for their maintenance? “That many of the 60's 'freedom fighters', were trained in Cuba, is public knowledge.” Then this would also be in the public domain with credible support, which you still are unable to provide. Until it is I can simply say it’s bollocks and that would have acceptance in logic and rhetoric.
“lined with a plastic bag. For the disposal of used toilet paper in the bathroom”, is rubbish...if that is the reality he is familiar with, it indicates that if he ever lived, or visited friends here, then they must live in sub-human conditionss”
“In common with most Latin American countries, the sewage system in Brazil can't cope with paper being flushed, so use the bin provided.”
//www.wheredoiputthepaper.com.
“Where Do I Put my Toilet Paper? ..a trash bin. And, yes, that's where you put the paper after you used it.”
//thebrazilbusiness.com/article/going-to-the-toilet-in-brazil
“Living in Brazil: Electric showers, toilet litter and other oddities ..that nasty plastic basket with everyone´s used toilet paper in it. I hate being gross in my blog, but it´s a gross thing, believe me. For some unexplained reason, Brazilian piping and sewage is not compatible with toilet paper so people never flush the toilet paper down their toilets. Instead, they provide little baskets, sometimes with lids and sometimes without, beside the toilet for the toilet paper. If you refuse to use them, as I did at first, you end up blocking their entire piping system.”
https://brazilphenomenon.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/living-in-brazil-electric-showers-toilet-litter-and-other-oddities/
So thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide conclusive evidence of your unmitigated lying. You readily supply much of the same content as o saco de merda.
@JB
Jul 21st, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it is pointless as he is a hypocrite. He demands everyone else proves everything they say and is always complaining about shifting the burden of proof and ad hominems. Yet when I challenge him to prove his accusation, first thing he does is shift the burden of proof and demand you prove your innocence, and try to discredit me with ad homs.
As for not being able to flush loo roll, it is common in many countries. When I visited Panama there was just one city I stayed where you could flush it, and the water was also drinkable in that city. So I can believe there are places in Brazil where it is okay, and others where it is not. Can you drink the water in Sao Paulo?
I wasn't meaning the political class when I said no one loves the corrupt, or including the businessmen who bribe them. Perhaps they find it convenient to get laws and loopholes made as they want them. But I don't think it is so obvious Lula is guilty; like most people I haven't read the judgement and don't intend to - umpteen pages of Portuguese legalese is not my idea of a fun time - and only have reports in the press to judge by. And I don't think those who support him despite believing him guilty are being unreasonable, when it's hard to name any politician who is not involved in the corruption. You want Temer to stay in power long enough to pass his reforms despite thinking he's probably guilty, why wouldn't Lula's supporters feel the same?
Proof-less and Truth-less’s lavish follower
Jul 21st, 2017 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do mange to type with that appendage in your mouth? Its bitch when your hero is always proved wrong. Claims “If he thinks he's proved I'm a liar - about anything - let him TRY to prove it…” Then he is completely proven to be liar by my following post with three citations, and there are many more from where they came from. But you condemn me, even though I prove every assertion I make and have never lied. Simply because if I’m mistaken about something I have no problem manning-up. Supporting a revealed fascist makes your claim of “being a moderate” simply unbelievable. So you have further corroborated my description of you being a ‘wing-nut’ as absolutely correct.
@TH
Jul 21st, 2017 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Lavish”, heh.
Do you understand that someone can be wrong about something but not be lying?
Could be because they misremembered, or believed something they read in the papers that wasn't true, or just because it's a matter of opinion.
By the way, I have never once seen you man up and admit you were wrong, and you still haven't even tried to prove the assertion I asked you to in this very thread. If someone else tried to wriggle out of it as you did, you would be the first to accuse them of lying and logical fallacies.
I don't normally ask people to prove everything, I'm only asking you because it is what you do all the time. Pretend it was Jack accusing you of lying about every subject, you would demand he prove it rather than disproving it yourself.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!