Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:38 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 76  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 25267
taenang yan...

dinidisregard na yung mga patay na hindi maibabalkl ang buhay...



yung napatay lang nila ang binibiling e ang PNP is to implement the laws..

ilan ba nahuli at nasolve ng PNP sa death under investigation?

unti now, marami under investigation pa rin..

asan na yung SERVE ang PROTECT...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 28439
Location: JARO,Iloilo
pati pala patay sa car accident at Crime na hinde involve ang drugs isinama nang Rappler sa EJK .

a classic Example of half truth and how Yellow Media propaganda work ....Kaya maraming uto-uto na Dilawan :lol:

_________________
Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 28439
Location: JARO,Iloilo
Image

ito pala yun.....hinde pala fake tullad nang sabi ni Bading bugoy :lol:

_________________
Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:03 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:53 pm
Posts: 32727
Location: <eastern>
Image

De Lima: pag ako nakalaya Dann44 ipapakulong kita :lol: :lol:

_________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 25267
ang PNP ay hindi po drug on war lang...

lahat ng krimen kailangan isolve...

yan ang mandato nila sa konstitusyon...

dapat ipakita rin nila ilan ang nasolve nila sa 7,000 deaths...

tapos ang usapan...

hindi yung naglilinis ng kamay parang si poncho...

nagpulis pa kayo...

ahihihihihihihi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 18248
paano namang magiging anti-beki iyang si pres. digong, e di ba syokeng pari ang pers lab niyan? :lol:

_________________
"at least 2 years pa lang kaming nauuto ng tatay digong namin"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 25267
magupdate na ng listahan si waray waray boy...

ahihihihihihihi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 28439
Location: JARO,Iloilo
EJK on Drugs ang pinag uusapan hinde involve ang patayan na walang kinalaman sa Drugs . palusot ka pa Bading :lol:

_________________
Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 25267
ahihihihihihi

EJK on drugs...?

para kang yung kalbo na pulis...

ayaw matawag na salvage... DUI na lang...

ahihihihihihihi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:08 am
Posts: 2082
Image

Why Poodut is so scared to show his bank accounts to prove this wrong? LOLs

:biglaugh:

_________________
Netizens: "Paano ba makakaahon ang Pinas kung ang pangulo ay walang paninindigan, duwag, traydor, inutil, sinungaling, sakitin, sira ulo, kriminal at magnanakaw?"
Duterpwe: “sinabi ko na sa inyo na wag nyo ako iboto."
Dutertards: nganga


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 19172
Location: Cbo.LP.HK
Makinig ka sa ate mo. :biglaugh:

_________________
"Here’s to a long life and a merry one, A quick death and an easy one, A pretty girl and a true one, A cold beer and another one." - Lewis Henry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:21 am
Posts: 4164
Can't accept they are responsible for all the mess and corruption in the country. Liberal doesn't have any sense of accountability for the garbage they left the country with. They feel like they are the best anecdote for the country when they are not they are mediocre at best. The country is so behind militarily and economically that China will do as it pleases with this poor country that can't do anything but continue being stupid monkeys which leads to little to no progress.


Last edited by Numero uno on Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:17 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 5104
parang template lang :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:

We are on the same side that convicted felons cannot be used as witnesses, that's why I did not believe you when you said the charges against them were dismissed, until you provided the link, have you forgotten?

You are the fanatic because Pnoy has already finished his term and found guilty of corrupting congressmen but you still believe him, whereas Duterte has no issue of corruption, yet. It is not fanaticism when you believe someone to be clean even when detractors say otherwise. I have followed Digong since his candidacy and I have yet to see proof of wrongdoing on his part.

I did not call you a jerk or sissy, only Pnoy. Had I said 'You're a jerk or a sissy', then you are right. What I said was, 'What a jerk!' or "Sissy!'. There was no subject using your handle or second personal pronoun, 'YOU'. Those are expressions of disgust, not unlike similar expressions as 'TangIna' 'Sonamagun', etc. Review your grammar. If you think I was referring to you, that's your problem. Your wordings are even worse, like comparing me to a 'headless chicken banging yourself into walls', etc.I could have compared you to a harlot or a clown, but I won't stoop to your level.

1. Of course I know that the WPS ruling was handed down during Duterte's time (it was actually at the end of Pnoy's term although he was already a lameduck president at that time and Duterte has not yet taken oath of office, if I remember right).

2. I know that the SC issued an adverse ruling on PDAF. You did not understand what I meant when I said that he appointed Sereno to get a favorable decision. I am right because Sereno always favored Pnoy in almost all rulings issued by the SC. It doesn't matter if the SC en banc issued an adverse ruling but that his appointee (Sereno) voted in his favor.

3. Of course I know that majority of the SC justices were Arroyo appointees. Common sense, because she had been in power for 9 years. Most of the justices were probably 50 to 60 years old by the time they were appointed so it is but normal that some would still be serving under Pnoy, unless they would be impeached or already of retirable age.

4. I know that intelligence funds are hard to account for under any president, not just Duterte. It is but normal that Duterte's budget would be greater than Pnoy's because the economy is growing and so is the budget. What is important is that the president is not corrupt, unlike Pnoy who distributed pork barrel funds during his time that benefited Napoles and some lawmakers who are now detained without bail.

5. Granting that Gutierrez was the subject of impeachment proceedings before Pnoy, was she actually impeached or convicted? Last time I heard, she was forced to resign. I'm not faulting the president for his prerogative; I'm just pointing out to you the reason behind it.

6. There is a mountain of difference between having an overwhelming evidence against a wrongdoer and the desire by the SolGen to utilize her as a state witness. The former shows that she is most probably guilty of the crime, whereas the latter shows that the SolGen most probably believes that she is not the most guilty of the crime committed. If she can be a state witness, why not?

Me arrogant? Reread your posts and you will find out who is the arrogant one. You even bragged that you won the discussion because you showed different links as proof. Links do not a proof make. For example, when you provided the link of the Human Rights report or findings, you concluded that the report is credible as proof against Digong. Human Rights org is unlike the SC or any court for that matter who study cases intensively before issuing judgment. Human Rights is obviously biased against Digong, so it's not a credible judgment of wrongdoing.



Emmanuel53 wrote:
Gutierrez was impeached by the House of representatives , and would have met the same fate of Corona. Again I did not say that the drug charges against the convicted felons can be dismissed. So if you believe otherwise , then you also believe that the case against De Lima is flawed and hence the government of Duterte is using underhanded and illegal means to silence its' detractors.

1. Find me a link where Pnoy was found guilty of corrupting congressmen, and I mean guilty not a figment of your imagination.

2 Duterte has no issues of corruption? COA findings reveal that 80% of 11000 contractual workers might be ghost employees . Further Duterte's continous refusal to open his bank accounts give credence to this. Duterte also lied when he ordered the AMLC to open his accounts without an enabling court order.

3. Check your timeline - the Arbitral Tribunal handed down its' ruling on July 12. Duterte took his oath on June 30. How can it be at the end of Pnoy's term? I don't know what papers or sources you are reading , you can't even get simple things like dates correctly, yet you call me uninformed. How long does it take to check on dates? Like Duterte you pluck figures out of the air.

4. How can one justice even if it is your appointee and even if she is the chief justice influence voting , if majority of the appointees are beholden to a former president - the vote on the PDAF is 14 - 0 against.

5. The intelligence fund of Duterte is 2.5 billion, Pnoy's total budget is 2.9 billion - the economy was also expanding under Aquino's time. What does intelligence funds directly have to do with the economy?

6. Read again - Napoles was found guilty in an illegal detention case. You have your signals mixed again.

7. So you did not call me names eh, then what is this - Are you willing to go to war yourself? If not, just shut up, sissy!

Let me remind you of the first words that you used which were antagonistic -

1.Use your coconut shell on why we have trade imbalance with China.
2.Haha! This Emmanuel bloke sounds like a rabid dog whose tirades are similar to De Lima's and Trillanes'
3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.

I can cite more but these comments were in the early pages of our exchange - I called you a headless chicken after being on the receiving end of all these tirades - so who's grammar needs to be checked? You have already displayed your arrogance since the early pages of this exchange.
Palusot pa more.



Quote:
Now, the fish is hooked through the mouth. You just stated that Gutierrez would have met the same fate as Corona, and Corona was removed as a result of a political process, not a judicial one, so in a way, it was an extrajudicial process. The removal of Corona was flawed because the senators and congressmen who voted against him were bribed using the pork barrel funds, and they comprise the supermajority. If you don't believe it (because you[re a fanatic and just mouthing the same statements as those of Trillianes and Delima), then there's nothing more I can do. Of course, I agree that if the process is illegal, then it's flawed. That's common sense. You said drug charges were dismissed, which is why I asked for a link. If the link is based on facts, then we are on the same boat. I'm not a fanatic like you. I base my judgment on reason, not affiliation.

1. Why do you need a link when the SC already ruled that there was something wrong with the DAP disbursement? Napoles, Revilla, et al are proof that pork barrel funds could have been squandered. I don't have the luxury of time like you to search for those links so you should be familiar with current events. Didn't you tell me that? But wait a little longer and Pnoy would be next to Delima, et al.

2. 'Might be' is not a conviction. If you can prove to me that Duterte was convicted for those alleged ghost employees, I would believe you. Otherwise, it's pure hearsay.

3. I've already told you for the nth time that I don't have the luxury of time to delve into details because I base my opinion based on what I read about current events. If it was July, so be it. The date is not the issue here but whether Pnoy could have enforced the ruling or has the courage to drive the Chinese away from the shoals, because you criticize Digong as 'bahag ang buntot' against the Chinese which is farthest from the truth. He is just being practical.

4. Anybody can influence voting. If you think the CJ cannot influence voting, then you are naive and do not deserve to argue with me. Influencing and succeeding are 2 different things. She may have influenced or convinced some justices but getting the majority is another matter. Now, if you think the 14 justices are beholden to the previous president, then you don't believe that the SC is independent; that the justices are biased. What more lawmakers during Pnoy's term who were bribed with pork barrel funds?

5. Therein lies the difference between the 2 presidents. Pnoy already calculated that minus the pork barrel funds, the remaining available budget would be 2.9 billion. Without corruption, the budgets would have been similar, although it would depend on their priorities. The size of the budget does not indicate corruption but rather, it indicates available funds and allocation priorities.

6. So you don't believe that Napoles amassed billions from the pork barrel funds because she was not yet convicted? Don't force me to express 'What a jerk!' in disgust again.

7. If I did not put a comma after 'shut up', or placed the pronoun 'you' before 'sissy', then you may be right. But the reason I put the comma there was to show that the last word was intended as an expression of disgust. If I had uttered those words, you would understand what I mean. The last word would be spoken in a low tone, after a high tone for 'Just shut up'. But if you're not a sissy, you don't have to get offended. I don't use cuss words, so I use actual words in disgust.

If you think these sentences are antagonistic, that means you are not familiar with hyperbole.

1. But if you want plain language, then 'Use your head' would be fine.

2. If you prefer the American term, then 'This Emmanuel fellow' would be fine.

3. I don't see anything antagonistic in this sentence.

The problem with you is that you are imagining me delivering these sentences as you would have delivered them yourself, that is, the arrogant way, which is why you found them antagonistic. The problem is not with me but with you. I suggest you review your Grammar 101.



Emmanuel53 wrote:
Is impeachment an extra judicial process?

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of Government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

Extra judicial - not legally authorized ,

Palusot pa more.

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption , so you're not talking of conviction on the other hand you judge Pnoy guilty of bribing congressmen, any link you can provide which declared Aquino guilty. Then as you say that is also pure hearsay.

Again the Supreme Court voting is 14 - 0 , so how did Sereno influence the voting?

I don't seen any antagonistic in the sentence? ?? You should be the one reviewing your grammar 101.

Funny you can type long sentences , but cannot verify two dates which would surely take less time than what you wrote.

Palusot pa more.

Dig yourself a deeper hole.

Oh and about Napoles , sure I believe she amassed billions , does that make her principal or accessory? Careful, careful.


Quote:
I did not say that impeachment is not legal because it is part of the procedure of ousting a govt official. I said IN A WAY it was extra-judicial', that is outside of the justice system where wrongdoers are tried through the courts. In the Corona case, he resigned because he knew that Pnoy had the number, not because he admitted he was guilty or was proven guilty. If i remember right, he died a free man. I repeat, impeachment is a politically motivated process, not a judicial one.

Meriam Webster: Extrajudicial
1. not involving, occurring in, or forming part of a legal proceeding
2. stemming from something outside of a court proceeding
3. occurring or arising outside of the course of judicial duties

The problem with you is you have the penchant for selectivity - just choosing the meaning favorable to your argument. Palusot pa more!

Napoles already owned up to profiting from the pork barrel. The Mamasapano incident is another. It is immaterial whether Pnoy was convicted or not (not yet), but material and circumstantial evidences point to conviction. Some lawmakers already admitted that they were bribed or otherwise 'threatened' to toe the line. That's not hearsay. Digong is still starting as president and there are no issues against him. Therein lies the difference.

The voting result does not show the influencing of anybody because the SC votes as a body, that is, whatever side wins, everyone would vote the same. I repeat, you may try influencing others and succeed in convincing some, but that does not guarantee success.

I don't see anything antagonostic in this sample sentence you presented. If you were antagonized by it, then you should not be arguing in social fora.

'3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.'

Of course, I can type long sentences because I'm just replying to your posts. Don't tell me that scrolling your post and replying it is harder than searching for a news source. Palusot pa more.

For the case of plunder, she cannot be the principal because she is not a govt official. She can only be an accessory. Do you understand what plunder means in our justice system? Palusot pa more!

[/quote]
Corona did not resign , he was impeached. How many times do you have to embarrass yourself with falsities?

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption, he had as mayor of Davao. Lawmakers also admitted that pork barrel is back , and with a vengeance , so using the same line of reasoning that you employed , this is not hearsay.

Everyone would vote the same where did you get that - the Supreme Court voted 14 - 0 on the PDAF, on the question of Marcos' burial - the vote was was 9 - 5 . Tsk tsk , are you in another world, where an alternate reality exists?

How long did it take me to find the voting results - less than a minute.

Oh and about the comma - review your grammar -" Any comma essentially represents a pause – one that gives your readers the signal to take a quick breath before continuing with the next portion of the sentence. When a comma is used, it places more emphasis on what immediately precedes and follows the comma." So it aggravates the whole thing.

Ignorance is not an excuse - you don't have the time to check your facts , then refrain from posting. And about Napoles who said anything about plunder - the charge against Napoles was malversation of public funds.

And be original - don't be a copycat - Palusot pa more.[/quote]


Corona was impeached, alright, but he died before receiving his sentence, that's why his crime was extinguished upon his death.

Everybody can file a case against anybody, but if they don't have evidence, it won't prosper. Although what he did as mayor has nothing to do with the presidency, I haven't heard any news that he had been convicted of corruption.

I've read somewhere (I forgot where) that on certain (major?) issues, the SC justices first vote according to their conscience, then agree to vote again unanimously in favor of the winning decision, probably to avoid controversy on such decision.

It only shows that you have nothing inside your head and just googling your replies. I thought you knew so many things at first, but not anymore.

You are free to interpret my expressions, but I stick to how I felt about your posts. For example, when I one of your posts made me laugh so hard, I exclaimed: 'What a jerk!'. I did not say, 'You're a jerk!'

Of course, her case can not be plunder! That's why she is being considered as state witness against the senators for being just an accessory to their crime.

Look whose talking! The reason why you did not reply to my definition of 'extrajudicial' is because you did not check your facts. It only takes a minute to do it. Why not tell yourself to refrain from posting to avoid embarrassment?
Palusot ka pa! Next time, google the meaning first as you're wont to do with your other posts instead of using your own definition. Admit that your innate knowledge is limited at best.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:57 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 6263
Emmanuel53 wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:

We are on the same side that convicted felons cannot be used as witnesses, that's why I did not believe you when you said the charges against them were dismissed, until you provided the link, have you forgotten?

You are the fanatic because Pnoy has already finished his term and found guilty of corrupting congressmen but you still believe him, whereas Duterte has no issue of corruption, yet. It is not fanaticism when you believe someone to be clean even when detractors say otherwise. I have followed Digong since his candidacy and I have yet to see proof of wrongdoing on his part.

I did not call you a jerk or sissy, only Pnoy. Had I said 'You're a jerk or a sissy', then you are right. What I said was, 'What a jerk!' or "Sissy!'. There was no subject using your handle or second personal pronoun, 'YOU'. Those are expressions of disgust, not unlike similar expressions as 'TangIna' 'Sonamagun', etc. Review your grammar. If you think I was referring to you, that's your problem. Your wordings are even worse, like comparing me to a 'headless chicken banging yourself into walls', etc.I could have compared you to a harlot or a clown, but I won't stoop to your level.

1. Of course I know that the WPS ruling was handed down during Duterte's time (it was actually at the end of Pnoy's term although he was already a lameduck president at that time and Duterte has not yet taken oath of office, if I remember right).

2. I know that the SC issued an adverse ruling on PDAF. You did not understand what I meant when I said that he appointed Sereno to get a favorable decision. I am right because Sereno always favored Pnoy in almost all rulings issued by the SC. It doesn't matter if the SC en banc issued an adverse ruling but that his appointee (Sereno) voted in his favor.

3. Of course I know that majority of the SC justices were Arroyo appointees. Common sense, because she had been in power for 9 years. Most of the justices were probably 50 to 60 years old by the time they were appointed so it is but normal that some would still be serving under Pnoy, unless they would be impeached or already of retirable age.

4. I know that intelligence funds are hard to account for under any president, not just Duterte. It is but normal that Duterte's budget would be greater than Pnoy's because the economy is growing and so is the budget. What is important is that the president is not corrupt, unlike Pnoy who distributed pork barrel funds during his time that benefited Napoles and some lawmakers who are now detained without bail.

5. Granting that Gutierrez was the subject of impeachment proceedings before Pnoy, was she actually impeached or convicted? Last time I heard, she was forced to resign. I'm not faulting the president for his prerogative; I'm just pointing out to you the reason behind it.

6. There is a mountain of difference between having an overwhelming evidence against a wrongdoer and the desire by the SolGen to utilize her as a state witness. The former shows that she is most probably guilty of the crime, whereas the latter shows that the SolGen most probably believes that she is not the most guilty of the crime committed. If she can be a state witness, why not?

Me arrogant? Reread your posts and you will find out who is the arrogant one. You even bragged that you won the discussion because you showed different links as proof. Links do not a proof make. For example, when you provided the link of the Human Rights report or findings, you concluded that the report is credible as proof against Digong. Human Rights org is unlike the SC or any court for that matter who study cases intensively before issuing judgment. Human Rights is obviously biased against Digong, so it's not a credible judgment of wrongdoing.



Emmanuel53 wrote:
Gutierrez was impeached by the House of representatives , and would have met the same fate of Corona. Again I did not say that the drug charges against the convicted felons can be dismissed. So if you believe otherwise , then you also believe that the case against De Lima is flawed and hence the government of Duterte is using underhanded and illegal means to silence its' detractors.

1. Find me a link where Pnoy was found guilty of corrupting congressmen, and I mean guilty not a figment of your imagination.

2 Duterte has no issues of corruption? COA findings reveal that 80% of 11000 contractual workers might be ghost employees . Further Duterte's continous refusal to open his bank accounts give credence to this. Duterte also lied when he ordered the AMLC to open his accounts without an enabling court order.

3. Check your timeline - the Arbitral Tribunal handed down its' ruling on July 12. Duterte took his oath on June 30. How can it be at the end of Pnoy's term? I don't know what papers or sources you are reading , you can't even get simple things like dates correctly, yet you call me uninformed. How long does it take to check on dates? Like Duterte you pluck figures out of the air.

4. How can one justice even if it is your appointee and even if she is the chief justice influence voting , if majority of the appointees are beholden to a former president - the vote on the PDAF is 14 - 0 against.

5. The intelligence fund of Duterte is 2.5 billion, Pnoy's total budget is 2.9 billion - the economy was also expanding under Aquino's time. What does intelligence funds directly have to do with the economy?

6. Read again - Napoles was found guilty in an illegal detention case. You have your signals mixed again.

7. So you did not call me names eh, then what is this - Are you willing to go to war yourself? If not, just shut up, sissy!

Let me remind you of the first words that you used which were antagonistic -

1.Use your coconut shell on why we have trade imbalance with China.
2.Haha! This Emmanuel bloke sounds like a rabid dog whose tirades are similar to De Lima's and Trillanes'
3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.

I can cite more but these comments were in the early pages of our exchange - I called you a headless chicken after being on the receiving end of all these tirades - so who's grammar needs to be checked? You have already displayed your arrogance since the early pages of this exchange.
Palusot pa more.



Quote:
Now, the fish is hooked through the mouth. You just stated that Gutierrez would have met the same fate as Corona, and Corona was removed as a result of a political process, not a judicial one, so in a way, it was an extrajudicial process. The removal of Corona was flawed because the senators and congressmen who voted against him were bribed using the pork barrel funds, and they comprise the supermajority. If you don't believe it (because you[re a fanatic and just mouthing the same statements as those of Trillianes and Delima), then there's nothing more I can do. Of course, I agree that if the process is illegal, then it's flawed. That's common sense. You said drug charges were dismissed, which is why I asked for a link. If the link is based on facts, then we are on the same boat. I'm not a fanatic like you. I base my judgment on reason, not affiliation.

1. Why do you need a link when the SC already ruled that there was something wrong with the DAP disbursement? Napoles, Revilla, et al are proof that pork barrel funds could have been squandered. I don't have the luxury of time like you to search for those links so you should be familiar with current events. Didn't you tell me that? But wait a little longer and Pnoy would be next to Delima, et al.

2. 'Might be' is not a conviction. If you can prove to me that Duterte was convicted for those alleged ghost employees, I would believe you. Otherwise, it's pure hearsay.

3. I've already told you for the nth time that I don't have the luxury of time to delve into details because I base my opinion based on what I read about current events. If it was July, so be it. The date is not the issue here but whether Pnoy could have enforced the ruling or has the courage to drive the Chinese away from the shoals, because you criticize Digong as 'bahag ang buntot' against the Chinese which is farthest from the truth. He is just being practical.

4. Anybody can influence voting. If you think the CJ cannot influence voting, then you are naive and do not deserve to argue with me. Influencing and succeeding are 2 different things. She may have influenced or convinced some justices but getting the majority is another matter. Now, if you think the 14 justices are beholden to the previous president, then you don't believe that the SC is independent; that the justices are biased. What more lawmakers during Pnoy's term who were bribed with pork barrel funds?

5. Therein lies the difference between the 2 presidents. Pnoy already calculated that minus the pork barrel funds, the remaining available budget would be 2.9 billion. Without corruption, the budgets would have been similar, although it would depend on their priorities. The size of the budget does not indicate corruption but rather, it indicates available funds and allocation priorities.

6. So you don't believe that Napoles amassed billions from the pork barrel funds because she was not yet convicted? Don't force me to express 'What a jerk!' in disgust again.

7. If I did not put a comma after 'shut up', or placed the pronoun 'you' before 'sissy', then you may be right. But the reason I put the comma there was to show that the last word was intended as an expression of disgust. If I had uttered those words, you would understand what I mean. The last word would be spoken in a low tone, after a high tone for 'Just shut up'. But if you're not a sissy, you don't have to get offended. I don't use cuss words, so I use actual words in disgust.

If you think these sentences are antagonistic, that means you are not familiar with hyperbole.

1. But if you want plain language, then 'Use your head' would be fine.

2. If you prefer the American term, then 'This Emmanuel fellow' would be fine.

3. I don't see anything antagonistic in this sentence.

The problem with you is that you are imagining me delivering these sentences as you would have delivered them yourself, that is, the arrogant way, which is why you found them antagonistic. The problem is not with me but with you. I suggest you review your Grammar 101.



Emmanuel53 wrote:
Is impeachment an extra judicial process?

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of Government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

Extra judicial - not legally authorized ,

Palusot pa more.

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption , so you're not talking of conviction on the other hand you judge Pnoy guilty of bribing congressmen, any link you can provide which declared Aquino guilty. Then as you say that is also pure hearsay.

Again the Supreme Court voting is 14 - 0 , so how did Sereno influence the voting?

I don't seen any antagonistic in the sentence? ?? You should be the one reviewing your grammar 101.

Funny you can type long sentences , but cannot verify two dates which would surely take less time than what you wrote.

Palusot pa more.

Dig yourself a deeper hole.

Oh and about Napoles , sure I believe she amassed billions , does that make her principal or accessory? Careful, careful.


Quote:
I did not say that impeachment is not legal because it is part of the procedure of ousting a govt official. I said IN A WAY it was extra-judicial', that is outside of the justice system where wrongdoers are tried through the courts. In the Corona case, he resigned because he knew that Pnoy had the number, not because he admitted he was guilty or was proven guilty. If i remember right, he died a free man. I repeat, impeachment is a politically motivated process, not a judicial one.

Meriam Webster: Extrajudicial
1. not involving, occurring in, or forming part of a legal proceeding
2. stemming from something outside of a court proceeding
3. occurring or arising outside of the course of judicial duties

The problem with you is you have the penchant for selectivity - just choosing the meaning favorable to your argument. Palusot pa more!

Napoles already owned up to profiting from the pork barrel. The Mamasapano incident is another. It is immaterial whether Pnoy was convicted or not (not yet), but material and circumstantial evidences point to conviction. Some lawmakers already admitted that they were bribed or otherwise 'threatened' to toe the line. That's not hearsay. Digong is still starting as president and there are no issues against him. Therein lies the difference.

The voting result does not show the influencing of anybody because the SC votes as a body, that is, whatever side wins, everyone would vote the same. I repeat, you may try influencing others and succeed in convincing some, but that does not guarantee success.

I don't see anything antagonostic in this sample sentence you presented. If you were antagonized by it, then you should not be arguing in social fora.

'3. Do you think that all facebook users are REAL persons? You are just clueless as if you were born yesterday.'

Of course, I can type long sentences because I'm just replying to your posts. Don't tell me that scrolling your post and replying it is harder than searching for a news source. Palusot pa more.

For the case of plunder, she cannot be the principal because she is not a govt official. She can only be an accessory. Do you understand what plunder means in our justice system? Palusot pa more!

[/quote]
Corona did not resign , he was impeached. How many times do you have to embarrass yourself with falsities?

You said Duterte had no issues of corruption, he had as mayor of Davao. Lawmakers also admitted that pork barrel is back , and with a vengeance , so using the same line of reasoning that you employed , this is not hearsay.

Everyone would vote the same where did you get that - the Supreme Court voted 14 - 0 on the PDAF, on the question of Marcos' burial - the vote was was 9 - 5 . Tsk tsk , are you in another world, where an alternate reality exists?

How long did it take me to find the voting results - less than a minute.

Oh and about the comma - review your grammar -" Any comma essentially represents a pause – one that gives your readers the signal to take a quick breath before continuing with the next portion of the sentence. When a comma is used, it places more emphasis on what immediately precedes and follows the comma." So it aggravates the whole thing.

Ignorance is not an excuse - you don't have the time to check your facts , then refrain from posting. And about Napoles who said anything about plunder - the charge against Napoles was malversation of public funds.

And be original - don't be a copycat - Palusot pa more.[/quote]


Quote:
Corona was impeached, alright, but he died before receiving his sentence, that's why his crime was extinguished upon his death.

Everybody can file a case against anybody, but if they don't have evidence, it won't prosper. Although what he did as mayor has nothing to do with the presidency, I haven't heard any news that he had been convicted of corruption.

I've read somewhere (I forgot where) that on certain (major?) issues, the SC justices first vote according to their conscience, then agree to vote again unanimously in favor of the winning decision, probably to avoid controversy on such decision.

It only shows that you have nothing inside your head and just googling your replies. I thought you knew so many things at first, but not anymore.

You are free to interpret my expressions, but I stick to how I felt about your posts. For example, when I one of your posts made me laugh so hard, I exclaimed: 'What a jerk!'. I did not say, 'You're a jerk!'

Of course, her case can not be plunder! That's why she is being considered as state witness against the senators for being just an accessory to their crime.

Look whose talking! The reason why you did not reply to my definition of 'extrajudicial' is because you did not check your facts. It only takes a minute to do it. Why not tell yourself to refrain from posting to avoid embarrassment?
Palusot ka pa! Next time, google the meaning first as you're wont to do with your other posts instead of using your own definition. Admit that your innate knowledge is limited at best.

[/quote]
So he was impeached, tsk tsk , then why did you say he resigned , simple matter of fact and you can't get it straight.

You said . issues of corruption, not conviction and neither was Aquino convicted of any , yet you said Pnoy was guilty. Double standard.
Simple waiver of bank accounts and Duterte couldn't produce one , when he and Cayetano were the first ones who actually challenged other presidential aspirants with a fake waiver which cannot be used. If Duterte has nothing to hide , then issue a waiver. He even made a big show of ordering the AMLC to show his net worth when in fact an enabling court order needs to be issued.



So where did you read that the Supreme Court has to vote unanimously? I already knew beforehand that the Supreme Court casts individual votes and are not obligated to vote unanimously, I just validated the vote results as example. But then you don't get that do you, very few people actually remember the actual tallies of how SC justices vote on certain issues because the vote results are not always the same.

Tsk tsk, so you're now dinging me on one word extra judicial - so based on your definition everything occurring outside the courts is extra judicial - so the legislative and executive processes are all extra judicial - go ahead ding me on that and make a laughing stock of yourself.

I was just playing you - and you didn't even check it out - her case was plunder and malversation of public funds , and corruption of public officials. Pinasakay lang kita, sumakay ka naman.

Napoles was charged with three counts of graft, malversation of public funds and corruption of public officers in connection with the anomalous disbursements of former Cagayan de Oro Rep. Constantino G. Jaraula’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a pork barrel, from 2004 to 2007. The disbursements totaled P50 million.

Go ahead continue making a fool of yourself in this discussion. Again it takes less than a minute to check the info.

And continue being a copycat at the same time - palusot pa more.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 76  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group