MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lula's Summit to gather 11 South American leaders in Brasilia
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's “retreat” Summit scheduled for May 30 will gather 11 South American leaders, it was confirmed Friday in Brasilia. The presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela have confirmed their presence. The only absence will be that of Peruvian President Dina Boluarte, who has internal legal impediments, it was reported. Instead, Prime Minister Alberto Otárola will be attending. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“in a freer and more relaxed working session”, translation = Piss Up.
May 27th, 2023 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1No Falklands invite then, must be because they are part of the S. Atlantic, not S. America.
French Guiana was also not invited.
May 27th, 2023 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands and French Guiana are still European colonies. I think that's why.
Ah, no non-Latinos allowed, so it’s a racist thing then.
May 27th, 2023 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1France is a “Latin” country. Its language is a variation of Latin, like Portuguese and Spanish.
May 27th, 2023 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Suriname speaks Dutch, a barbaric language, as well as English.
Suriname was invited and will be present.
Oh, so it’s Anglophobic Racism then.
May 27th, 2023 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We call that ‘Penis Envy’.
No matter, like I said, the Falklands are part of the S. Atlantic not S. America.
Guyana, formerly British Guiana, speaks English.
May 27th, 2023 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guyana was invited and will be present. kkkkkkkkkk
Mercopresileirão 2023...
May 27th, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Brasil..........: 3
- Inglaterra...: 0
Chuckle..., chuckle...
Apart from the language Guyana is not really Anglo though is it? No, Anglophobic Racism then.
May 27th, 2023 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for Colonies, well what would you call Patagonia or TDF, or Amazonas?
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/22/americas/brazil-amazon-fear-meme-bolsonaro-intl/index.html
Maybe it is time for an “international control zone” and to stop Latin American countries from expropriating and destroy this real ownership of all humanity.”
Anyway, like I said, the Falklands are part of the S. Atlantic not S. America.
JaJaJaJaJa
Stink
Oh do F*ck Off, always Stinking up the place, worse than a fart in a space suite.
Pugol-H, being peaceful does not mean being nice. I'm not good, nor is Brazil.
May 28th, 2023 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1On the day a foreign soldier invades the Amazon without permission, we set fire to it.
We don't need an atomic bomb to destroy everything!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eb_SL-mOPc
Bras
May 28th, 2023 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey, you stay out of the British S. Atlantic/Antarctic and we will stay out of Brazil!
Capishhh!
Oh and we have atomic bombs, lots of them and big ones as well.
https ://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/19/eu-involved-in-talks-with-argentina-and-chile-to-ensure-supplies-of-lithium/comments#comment526155
May 29th, 2023 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0‘The following is a transcript of the interview with Barry Pollack, who is Julian Assange's lawyer in the United States.’
“Most interestingly he also said, ‘if they're not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position,’”
Well, aren`t you the proven liar.
“THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW 1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS [Vol. 25:36
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and non-citizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all ”persons.“ The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to ”the accused.“ And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to ”the people.“
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of journalistic freedom in the United States. It states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
My goodness! Skippy lecturing us “..about some respects between the rights of citizens and non-citizens...” is another example of his weird distorted reality.
May 29th, 2023 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse -2What what several MP readers want from this forum is his apologizing for his long-term STOLEN VALOR falsely posing as an RAF airman during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
“Terence” is a complete fraud, and can be easily searched on his lengthy You Tube channel.
¡Saludos de Chile!
Bras, if a foreign soldier invades the Amazon ??????. nobody is interested in invading the Amazon, nobody wants to invade the Amazon, were do you get these ideas from ?, Brazil is a western democracy and has no enemies in the west, the only small worry you should have is if your southern neighbour gets jealous of you.
May 29th, 2023 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tel
May 29th, 2023 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Didn’t read the article or understand the quote, did you.
Here:
POLLACK: The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one. The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet, whether they're a U.S. citizen or not. But if they're not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position, but that certainly is the position that the government is taking.
Anyway if anyone is lying its Clever Julian’s lawyer, I merely quote him, who you argued didn’t exist.
Juan Cervantes
Of course there is an international plot to seize Amazonas from Brazil, under the pretext of international conservation. It’s all over the Blithernet.
I’m sure Bras is way too clever to be fooled by any such denials.
Skippy has never been here, and you`re not all here. Hers’s a previous humiliation of yourself.
May 29th, 2023 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo Pervert, Psychological Transferee, Malignant Narcissist, Criminal Libeler, Alcoholic, Spam King, a wannabe genocidist, and misogynist
“His ridiculous fantasy about serving during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.”
What's important is what proof, your opinion or my fact. What shame I get to show again what a lying bag of shite you really are.
https://imgur.com/a/WDPeU shows the following engraving:
S.A.C T.L.HILL
No. 18 SQUADRON RAF
MARCH 1963
“No. 18 Squadron - Valiant equipped C Flight of 199 Squadron renumbered 18 Squadron at Finningley on 17 December 1958 and disbanded 31 March 1963.”
https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Valiant
You'll note that Skippy continues his Stolen Valor claim from an old mug.
May 29th, 2023 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet Skippy Jessop actually can be easily found at numerous websites, especially on YouTube that exposes his true identity.
“Terence Hill” is a fraud and he should be ashamed.
L
The only identification that Skippy Jessop has is yourself since you’re the only one who is immersed with him. Case of the pathetic needing the pathetic
May 29th, 2023 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Didn’t read the article or understand the quote, did you. ”
Perfectly, what was unexpected was your deliberate fraud by omission of proof. Congratulations, you`re not the first desperate sandbagger, Stink tried the same stunt, problem is it makes your argument exclusionary under the rules of argumentation.
“Sand bag
to conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent especially in order to gain an advantage over someone”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandbag
Well Assange should get rid of him because a simple reading of the pertinent laws and judgements shows that this guy is full of shit.
There many good lawyers that would be better to defend him.
All that I know for certain is Dki
May 29th, 2023 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tel
May 29th, 2023 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Omission of proof, sandbagging, exclusionary under the rules of argumentation???
What are you talking about?
‘in order to gain an advantage over someone’, not necessary here is it.
I offer no proof here, as I assert nothing here, I am merely quoting Clever Julian’s Lawyer in the US, who you argued didn’t exist.
Now you seem to think you know better than him, perhaps you should offer to defend Clever Julian?
Couldn’t be any worse for him than his situation now, banged up in Belmarsh with idiots for lawyers.
And with a US lawyer, who will defend him if he ever gets to the US, being ‘full of shit’, the guilty verdict and trillion year sentence I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.
PUGOL
May 30th, 2023 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0They're no reason arguing with SKIPPY as he's worthless to argue with.
I do however fully look forward to exposing his scandalous You Tube history.
Meanwhile Madame and I are thoroughly enjoying our farm, es
“I offer no proof here, as I assert nothing here, I am merely quoting Clever Julian’s Lawyer“
May 30th, 2023 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0You’re Ignoring the Burden of Proof, which is the making of a fallacy.
“Shifting the burden of proof
”One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
“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.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof https ://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
“The guilty verdict I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.“
Then it will have to overturn.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of journalistic freedom in the United States. It states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
There is no Skippy here, just your malignant imagination, no proof no truth.
PUGOL
May 30th, 2023 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't have a chance to update my current affairs as I was waisting time exposing Skippy.
We're enjoying our farm and anticipating the upcoming snow season.
I do look forward in further exposing Skippy's sorid double personallty on You Tube...
¡Saludos!
The malignant narcissist is back attempting to project his very own obsession on to others.
May 30th, 2023 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
“Psychological projection is a defence mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.”
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Transference+(psychology)
Poor SKIPPY
May 30th, 2023 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As he says: ”Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.”
SKIPPY explains it all...
Skippy is the obsession of the malignant narcissist Chicureo.
May 30th, 2023 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Poor SKIPPY”
“Lies, Self-Deception, and Malignant Narcissism
Malignant narcissists are messianic precisely because of their massive grandiosity. But it is essential to note that this narcissistic grandiosity is compensation for and massive defense against the very same deeply seated feelings of inferiority found in the narcissist's followers. The narcissist has almost invariably been deeply wounded, betrayed, abandoned, neglected, rejected during childhood, and spends his or her adult life trying to fend off such feelings via the constant acquisition of narcissistic supplies the same way the person suffering from addiction seeks out the substance despite the negative consequences for doing so”.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/201710/lies-self-deception-and-malignant narcissism
Chicureo
May 30th, 2023 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good to hear you et Madame enjoying life, I trust all is well with the new addition?
Off to La Belle France soon for a family wedding, oh la la, I have to behave myself, not allowed to mention Le Brexit, or Waterloo, I’ll manage somehow.
Looking forward to the cuisine though, for at least for a week I’ll be eating like you. No kebabs, jerk chicken and Jamaican Lager.
I have to admit, we eat to live and they live to eat.
Bonne chance mon ami, et Vive La France!
Tel
What ‘burden of proof’ are you talking about???
I assert nothing, I am merely quoting Clever Julian’s Lawyer.
Unless you are arguing he didn’t say that.
https://thedissenter.org/an-interview-with-barry-pollack-julian/
Where is your proof he didn’t say that? Or your argument is fallacious, for all to see.
”What ‘burden of proof’ are you talking about? “
May 31st, 2023 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The one you failed to reveal until your last post, Thus, committing fraud by omission, sandbagger.
Logical Fallacies: Omission and Ambiguity
Fallacies of Omission are logical errors where necessary information is omitted. It often results in the argument being directed away from the missing information.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantium
Literally translated it means “Argument from Ignorance” or it can be called the Appeal to a Lack of Evidence.
https://completedeveloperpodcast.com/logical-fallacies-omission-and-ambiguity/
https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/19/eu-involved-in-talks-with-argentina-and-chile-to-ensure-supplies-of-lithium/comments#comment526155
May 31st, 2023 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly what is ‘omitted’ or ‘ambiguous’, here?
Or is it just that you didn’t read the link or understand the quote?
And now you’re trying to cover up with irrelevances and evasions.
Read what people are actually saying and consider before you answer and this won’t happen.
“Exactly what is ‘omitted’ or ‘ambiguous’, here”
May 31st, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing at all as academic opinion of such behavior judges yours as an “Argument from Ignorance” or it can be called the Appeal to a Lack of Evidence.
Quibble all want when your own deliberate omission of the source citations, is the clear evidence of committing fraud by omission, sandbagger.
Logical Fallacies: Omission and Ambiguity
Fallacies of Omission are logical errors where necessary information is omitted. It often results in the argument being directed away from the missing information.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantium
Literally translated it means “Argument from Ignorance” or it can be called the Appeal to a Lack of Evidence.
https://completedeveloperpodcast.com/logical-fallacies-omission-and-ambiguity/
PUGOL
May 31st, 2023 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The newest addition of our gypsy clan is thriving and all is well.
Madame and I are thoroughly enjoying the farm and really thankful that her cancer treatment is now in remission.
We're now looking forward for an hopefully good snow ski season, which has always been our favorite family sport.
Have a marvelous time in France and I hope your family festivities are joyful.
Always the best wishes!
”Exactly what is ‘omitted’ or ‘ambiguous’, here? ”
May 31st, 2023 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mea culpa. Excuse me all to blazes, why didn`t I think it wouldn`t be on this thread?
As I have previously posted, I operate under the disclaimer. EO&E, Errors and Omissions Excepted.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch-house. As for your claim.
“The guilty verdict and trillion year sentence I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.”
Would be if they didn`t have that gosh, darn First Amendment:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Chicureo
Jun 01st, 2023 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Buen provecho Compadre.
Saludos de Colonia Nervia Glevensium.
Tel
You’re rambling now, not making any sense.
Look:
https://thedissenter.org/an-interview-with-barry-pollack-julian/
I’ll make it simple for you, save you having to read something and learn:
‘Pollack outlines why the U.S. government's position in the case is a “very dangerous one.” He describes several aspects that would likely lead one to believe Assange would be denied justice if extradited to the U.S. for a trial.’
‘The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one. The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet, whether they're a U.S. citizen or not. But if they're not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position, but that certainly is the position that the government is taking.’
‘It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position’
However given that Clever Julian’s lawyer says, ‘Assange would be denied justice if extradited to the U.S. for a trial’, but according to ‘expert opinion’ expressed here, ‘the guy is full of shit’ and ‘There many good lawyers that would be better to defend him’.
‘The guilty verdict and trillion year sentence I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.’
Slaaam Duuuuunk.
“You’re rambling now, not making any sense”.
Jun 02nd, 2023 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Every day the New York Times and the Washington Post publish classified information. The Department of Justice has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act. Up until the current administration, I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the Eastern District of Virginia is a district that has a disproportionately high number of Defense Department employees, intelligence community employees, family members of those employees, people who hold a security clearance, etc.
It is certainly not a representative district. If the case were being tried in Iowa, you would have a very different jury pool then you do in Alexandria, Virginia. I don't think the U.S. government is blind to the fact. The U.S. government could have chosen to charge him in any district in the country because the law is when an alleged crime is committed abroad there is venue in whatever district is the first district that you arrive in the United States. The U.S. government thinks it will get a favorable jury pool in the Eastern District of Virginia.
It still has to overturn a first amendment defence.
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What is rambling about that, my facts or your opinion?
‘The U.S. government thinks it will get a favourable jury pool in the Eastern District of Virginia.’
Jun 02nd, 2023 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good oh, ‘The guilty verdict and trillion year sentence I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.’
Slaaam Duuuuunk.
As for a ‘first amendment defence’.
Clever Julian’s lawyer says ‘It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position’.
However according to you ‘the guy is full of shit’ anyway, so what does he know.
The fact is we won’t know whether the ‘free speech/fruit of the poison tree/ exclusionary rule/ Parallel construction’ defence stands up in court, until it is tested in court.
You have offered no facts, only opinions on what you think the outcome should be.
“You have offered no facts, only opinions on what you think the outcome should be. You have offered no facts, only opinions on what you think the outcome should be”
Jun 05th, 2023 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the contrary it you projecting your own personal bias. I have never proffered my personal opinion. As my remit is history and law, I have simply shown what is the past legal history of the issue. You can be as opinioned as wish, as it make no diffrence to the legal history. I understand you enjoy your own historonics, but to me your boring, as can`t even make a rational argument.
It still has to overturn a first amendment defence.
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Sorry if the truth upsets you here, but trying to misrepresent what you have put in writing is not going to work.
Jun 05th, 2023 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no ‘past legal history’ for this type of charge.
According to Clever Julian’s ‘full of shit’ lawyer:
‘This case is unique. The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act.’
‘The Department of Justice has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act. Up until the current administration, I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.’
You said:
‘It still has to overturn a first amendment defence’
This is your opinion, remembering you are not a lawyer.
You are speculating on what the outcome should be, based on your opinion of what the defence case should be.
The only facts here are that Clever Julian has been charged and is being extradited.
We will only know what defence Clever Julian’s ‘full of shit’ lawyer puts forward, I doubt he will be asking you for advise on that, if and when it gets to trial in the US and we will only know if it is successful when the court reaches a judgment.
Everything else is speculation, conjecture and opinions.
However with a rigged jury and a ‘full of shit lawyer’, ‘the guilty verdict and trillion year sentence I predicted is looking more and more of a certainty.’
Slaaam Duuuuunk.
“This case is unique. The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act.”
Jun 05th, 2023 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No it isn`t as I have already stated, they couldn`t even get so much as a restraining order.
”Pentagon Papers United States history
Pentagon Papers, papers that contain a history of the U.S. role in Indochina from World War II until May 1968 and that were commissioned in 1967 by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. They were turned over (without authorization) to The New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg, a senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for International Studies.
On June 13, 1971, The New York Times began publishing a series of articles based on the study, which was classified as “top secret” by the federal government. After the third daily installment appeared in the Times, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained in U.S. District Court a temporary restraining order against further publication of the classified material, contending that further public dissemination of the material would cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to U.S. national defense interests.
On June 30, 1971, in what is regarded as one of the most significant prior-restraint cases in history, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision freed the newspapers to resume publishing the material. The court held that the government had failed to justify restraint of publication.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon-Papers
‘my remit is history and law’, well you fooled me!
Jun 05th, 2023 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘a temporary restraining order’ is a completely different thing from a charge of espionage.
When has the US Gov ever tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act?
Factual answers only please, no irrelevant blither, ‘when has the US Gov ever tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act?
And we shall see who know more, Clever Julian’s ‘full of shit’ lawyer, or you?
‘When has the US Gov ever tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!