Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:03 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 ... 76  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:46 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5878
Do you feel the noose getting tighter, Rizal, or do you have the feeling of sinking into quicksand?

So you tangled with "abugados de campanilla"?

1. How come you couldn't decide if Corona was forced to resign, resigned or was impeached? I couldn't even make heads or tails of these statements , which are replete with contradictions. . You should have your own department of interpretation like Duterte.

Quote:
You don't understand the meaning of 'impeached' and 'forced to resign'? You are already impeached the moment the impeachment complaint passed in form and substance even if you were not convicted of the crime yet. Corona was forced to resign but was not able to resign because he died before doing so. If you were Corona, wouldn't you resign in the face of the supermajority of Pnoy? But before resigning, he chose to answer all the allegations against him. He did not waver. He was impeached by the Senators for a non-impeachable offense. He died before he could resign.

2. How come you didn't know Supreme Court justices can vote individually on issues and their individual votes can be made public?

3. How come you didn't know that the WPS ruling was handed down during Duterte's time? These statements betray the confusion that reigns in that head of yours.

Quote:
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).


Come again, how can it be during Duterte's time but at the same time be actually at the end of Pnoy's term , who according to you was already a lameduck president at that time. So Duterte and Aquino were simultaneously president. Well , your recollection leaves much to be desired. You remembered wrong.

Patikim pa lang iyan. So keep on posting Rizal , and making an embarrassment of yourself.
So you can kick the butts of lawyers eh, you don't even care about the late Miriam Defensor's take on the Napoles case. Live your alternate reality with alternative facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:03 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5878
Do you feel the noose getting tighter, Rizal, or do you have the feeling of sinking into quicksand?

So you tangled with "abugados de campanilla"?

1. How come you couldn't decide if Corona was forced to resign, resigned or was impeached? I couldn't even make heads or tails of these statements , which are replete with contradictions. . You should have your own department of interpretation like Duterte.

Quote:
You don't understand the meaning of 'impeached' and 'forced to resign'? You are already impeached the moment the impeachment complaint passed in form and substance even if you were not convicted of the crime yet. Corona was forced to resign but was not able to resign because he died before doing so. If you were Corona, wouldn't you resign in the face of the supermajority of Pnoy? But before resigning, he chose to answer all the allegations against him. He did not waver. He was impeached by the Senators for a non-impeachable offense. He died before he could resign.

2. How come you didn't know Supreme Court justices can vote individually on issues and their individual votes can be made public?

3. How come you didn't know that the WPS ruling was handed down during Duterte's time? These statements betray the confusion that reigns in that head of yours.

Quote:
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).
[/quote]

Come again, how can it be during Duterte's time but at the same time be actually at the end of Pnoy's term , who according to you was already a lameduck president at that time. So Duterte and Aquino were simultaneously president. Well , your recollection leaves much to be desired. You remembered wrong.

Patikim pa lang iyan. So keep on posting Rizal , and making an embarrassment of yourself.
So you can kick the butts of lawyers eh, you don't even care about the late Miriam Defensor's take on the Napoles case. Live your alternate reality with alternative facts.

Visayan Boy are you back??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:08 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 5104
mang emmanuel patulugin mo muna si mang rizal, bawal mapuyat ang matatanda, baka ma hi blood yan kasalanan mo pa.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:50 am 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1108
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:
Quote:
Now I really got you this time. Pinasakay lang lita, sumakay ka naman. You keep on quoting non sequitur, so I gave you also a non sequitur logic.

Were we not talking about crime proceedings when we defined 'extrajudicial'? But all of a sudden you inserted the framing and ratification of the constitution which is not a crime. It was non sequitur in the first place and your logic does not hold water. You deviated from the discussion and is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as in the impeachment and conviction of Corona. That's tantamount to sophistry which people use when they run out of argument. I'm not senile like you so you cannot impose your logic upon me.

Try harder and review your Logic 101!


Again quoting you - is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as in the impeachment and conviction of Corona

Just to remind you , we were talking of the impeachment proceedings right - again you just shot your foot - was the impeachment of Corona a crime in the sense that extra judicial killings is a crime?

To be more concrete about it , if you are caught doing extra judicial killings aren't you liable before the law? So if you conduct impeachment proceedings are you liable before the law because per your definition it is extra judicial?

What amazes me is you constantly borrow lines from my posts. At least try some originality.



Now I know that you are an illogical person because your logic is flawed, as demonstrated by your post above. Let me explain why since you don't want to go back to Logic 101.

The impeachment of Corona was not a crime, it was the PUNISHMENT for his SUPPOSED crime of not declaring SUPPOSED assets in his SALN. Your senility is now becoming obvious but I'm not surprised because that's what sophistry is all about. Sophists present their arguments as if these were universal truths, but are actually devoid of logic. Why do you equate impeachment which is a form of punishment to extrajudicial killing which is a crime?

Your second and third questions really say it all about your flawed logic. To your question that
'if you are caught doing extra judicial killings aren't you liable before the law?', my answer is YES, of course, IF you are caught, but if not, then it should be substantiated by evidence in a court of law, as in the accusations hurled against Digong.
To your question that
'if you conduct impeachment proceedings are you liable before the law because per your definition it is extra judicial?', my answer is YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND!

How can you be liable before the law for conducting impeachment proceeding? It's not a crime, for ***'s sake! Don't make a fool of yourself! You did not understand what I meant with extrajudicial. Extrajudicial per Definition 2 means that the proceeding was not conducted inside a court of law. You are equating extrajudicial process with extrajudicial killing. What a jerk! (I'm not calling you names, I'm simply exasperated of how shallow your reasoning is, and also your English comprehension. Now everybody can see through your flawed way of reasoning, not to mention flawed questioning. You are not in my level because you just rely on google for your arguments while I rely on my innate knowledge.

And why would I borrow lines from your posts? I only use them to stress my point and I don't mind you doing the same. And don't keep on posting previous posts like a senile old man. Try something new instead of rehashing your arguments. Have you run out of ideas?

_________________
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: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline
Welterweight

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:00 pm
Posts: 348
TheEnigma wrote:
Interesting.

The exchanges are now getting a little more intense -- with both sides dwelling on 'technicalities' (validity of their arguments).

Looks like the end is not near, and neither side will face the final curtain... :lol:


I wouldn't call this argument "exchanges" because only one is in touch with reality. The other is a google analyst whose only concrete source is a distant in law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5878
rizalincarnate wrote:
Quote:
Now I really got you this time. Pinasakay lang lita, sumakay ka naman. You keep on quoting non sequitur, so I gave you also a non sequitur logic.

Were we not talking about crime proceedings when we defined 'extrajudicial'? But all of a sudden you inserted the framing and ratification of the constitution which is not a crime. It was non sequitur in the first place and your logic does not hold water. You deviated from the discussion and is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as in the impeachment and conviction of Corona. That's tantamount to sophistry which people use when they run out of argument. I'm not senile like you so you cannot impose your logic upon me.

Try harder and review your Logic 101!


Again quoting you - is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as in the impeachment and conviction of Corona

Just to remind you , we were talking of the impeachment proceedings right - again you just shot your foot - was the impeachment of Corona a crime in the sense that extra judicial killings is a crime?

To be more concrete about it , if you are caught doing extra judicial killings aren't you liable before the law? So if you conduct impeachment proceedings are you liable before the law because per your definition it is extra judicial?

What amazes me is you constantly borrow lines from my posts. At least try some originality.



Quote:
Now I know that you are an illogical person because your logic is flawed, as demonstrated by your post above. Let me explain why since you don't want to go back to Logic 101.

The impeachment of Corona was not a crime, it was the PUNISHMENT for his SUPPOSED crime of not declaring SUPPOSED assets in his SALN. Your senility is now becoming obvious but I'm not surprised because that's what sophistry is all about. Sophists present their arguments as if these were universal truths, but are actually devoid of logic. Why do you equate impeachment which is a form of punishment to extrajudicial killing which is a crime?

Your second and third questions really say it all about your flawed logic. To your question that
'if you are caught doing extra judicial killings aren't you liable before the law?', my answer is YES, of course, IF you are caught, but if not, then it should be substantiated by evidence in a court of law, as in the accusations hurled against Digong.
To your question that
'if you conduct impeachment proceedings are you liable before the law because per your definition it is extra judicial?', my answer is YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND!

How can you be liable before the law for conducting impeachment proceeding? It's not a crime, for ***'s sake! Don't make a fool of yourself! You did not understand what I meant with extrajudicial. Extrajudicial per Definition 2 means that the proceeding was not conducted inside a court of law. You are equating extrajudicial process with extrajudicial killing. What a jerk! (I'm not calling you names, I'm simply exasperated of how shallow your reasoning is, and also your English comprehension. Now everybody can see through your flawed way of reasoning, not to mention flawed questioning. You are not in my level because you just rely on google for your arguments while I rely on my innate knowledge.

And why would I borrow lines from your posts? I only use them to stress my point and I don't mind you doing the same. And don't keep on posting previous posts like a senile old man. Try something new instead of rehashing your arguments. Have you run out of ideas?[/quote.


Ah, talking about flawed logic, here is an example of a topsy turvy one.


Quote:
You don't understand the meaning of 'impeached' and 'forced to resign'? You are already impeached the moment the impeachment complaint passed in form and substance even if you were not convicted of the crime yet. Corona was forced to resign but was not able to resign because he died before doing so. If you were Corona, wouldn't you resign in the face of the supermajority of Pnoy? But before resigning, he chose to answer all the allegations against him. He did not waver. He was impeached by the Senators for a non-impeachable offense. He died before he could resign
.

Seems like two person arguing but in reality it's only one arguing with himself, couldn't decide which is which.

Another snippet of a split personality, arguing with himself.

Quote:
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).


During Duterte's time but at the end of Pnoy's term, an example of innate knowledge in full display.

But wait there's more.

Quote:
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 porThe 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.


The score for PDAF issue in the Supreme Court was 14 - 0. Only Velasco inhibited from the case which means Sereno voted against it too.

And another one. It keeps on coming.

Quote:
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.


If this were true, why was the vote for the issue of the Marcos burial 9 - 5.

And coming.

Quote:
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.
[/quote]

So you read somewhere, where - Somewhere over the Rainbow - are you living in an alternate reality?

Maybe you should keep your innate knowledge , to yourself , keep it innate.

You used the definition of extra judicial loosely to support your purposes. But isn't it the very objection against extra judicial killings they were conducted without the benefit of court proceedings. You intentionally tried to discredit the impeachment proceeding against Corona by saying it was extra judicial and Corona was never convicted, but so were the victims of extra judicial killings. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. You used a very loose definition of extra judicial and you actually opened the door for the same line of reasoning.

And I would never like to be at your level with your supposed innate knowledge. Yeah the same innate knowledge that betrayed ignorance on basic and fundamental issues.

Oh by the way , what happened to our discourse on Napoles, is she principal, accomplice or accessory based on the Revised Penal Code.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5878
Ersatz wrote:
TheEnigma wrote:
Interesting.

The exchanges are now getting a little more intense -- with both sides dwelling on 'technicalities' (validity of their arguments).

Looks like the end is not near, and neither side will face the final curtain... :lol:


I wouldn't call this argument "exchanges" because only one is in touch with reality. The other is a google analyst whose only concrete source is a distant in law.


Help a friend - was Corona forced to resign , did he actually resign or was he impeached? You're welcome to use google if you're not sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline
Featherweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:47 pm
Posts: 95
Emmanuel53 wrote:
Ersatz wrote:
TheEnigma wrote:
Interesting.

The exchanges are now getting a little more intense -- with both sides dwelling on 'technicalities' (validity of their arguments).

Looks like the end is not near, and neither side will face the final curtain... :lol:


I wouldn't call this argument "exchanges" because only one is in touch with reality. The other is a google analyst whose only concrete source is a distant in law.


Help a friend - was Corona forced to resign , did he actually resign or was he impeached? You're welcome to use google if you're not sure.


Corona was impeached for the main reason that during his term as chief justice Hacienda Luisita was finally decided to be distributed to farmers.

With the pressure of the vindictive penoy who has a stake at Luisita, Corona was actually forced to resign but did not do so. He wanted to answer and defend himself against the allegations thrown at him. But then Corona was impeached by the majority vote in the Senate for a mere erroneous entry on his SALN which according to law, can be corrected. The very best lawyers of the senate at that time Miriam and Joker voted against it.

This thread is about how great Pacman and Duterte. Why in the hell ghosts of penoy's incompetence is all over the place?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:56 pm
Posts: 2255
Dito muna ako, people here is too serious, matindi balitaktakan dito...... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:36 pm
Posts: 7125
Parang si dr lang yang si emmanuel. Pinahahaba ng husto ang post, papaikutikutin ang topic tapos gagawa ng sariling konklusyon na wala sa hulog. Kapag sinuri mo naman ng mabuti ampaw ang laman. Pansinin niyo na hindi na niya binitawan yang Corona impeachment na yan samantalang marami pang pwede pagusapan. Hindi naman gaano kalaki ang importansya ni Corona sa pinaguusapan nila sa umpisa. dr na dr ang banat. Sabagay kapag nagtagal pa dito yan, mauuwi na lang din sa one liner mga post niyan. :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
"Huwag ninyo galawin ang mga maliit na tao, kasi sila ang nangangailangan ng gobyerno."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 27677
Location: JARO,Iloilo
Tama nga naman si rudge..ampaw itong si Emm53 pababalik nang post at madalas e point out ang pagkakamali na kalaban niya. at pabalik balik pa. ganito ang mga dilawan dito. lalo na yung mga bayot. kahit dalawang taon na nag nakalipas..ganito ang style nang mga Dilawan.
kahit apo na ni Marcos kasalanan pa rin nila, gustong mang uto sa mga new generation :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:42 am
Posts: 10542
dan44 wrote:
Tama nga naman si rudge..ampaw itong si Emm53 pababalik nang post at madalas e point out ang pagkakamali na kalaban niya. at pabalik balik pa. ganito ang mga dilawan dito. lalo na yung mga bayot. kahit dalawang taon na nag nakalipas..ganito ang style nang mga Dilawan.
kahit apo na ni Marcos kasalanan pa rin nila, gustong mang uto sa mga new generation :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ilang percent ka nauto ni bobong marcos? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 25267
nag agreehan ang dalawa...

di nila alam panahon ni pnoy yung topic...

baka ho nakakalimutan nyo...

magkaiba kayo ng paninidigan nung panahon na yan...

ahihihihihihi


Last edited by bugoyparin on Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 27677
Location: JARO,Iloilo
Kiezerkent tinatanong ka ni Bayot :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 ... 76  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 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