Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[McHrozni]

it would be relevant in order to know how it also can be done, i dont know from what country you come from, maybe you got a good system that would be good for Venezuela.

You really should read the recommendations. It's all there already.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

You seem to think that what one man in FARC knew, all FARC knew. Sure, the people who operated these computers, the ones who were present during the raid, possibly captured or killed, might have known the serial numbers and the content of the computers. The problem is not all are able to communicate with FARC right now. Prove the FARC high command knew all of this information.

Don't try it too hard, by the way. The task is indeed impossible.

Secondly, I didn't mention that before, but it's way more relevant: providing the evidence to the public outside of a trial would compromise all judges or juries in the world and make it impossible to use the evidence in a trial. Why would they show the evidence, if that would mean they couldn't use it in a trial?

McHrozni

i have sayd several times, we have to wait until a court has used it, and does indeed establish it as evidence.

i thought Uribe wanted to go to the International court in Den Haag. is that still the case? that would be a court i almost trust blindly.

 

[DC]

You really should read the recommendations. It's all there already.

McHrozni

well i am interested if your country does already what the report recommend, i have read all the recommendations to Chapter III and IV.

my country for example doesnt.
also here the critique is missing transparency and especially the party you belong to is important in this nomination process.

so actually pretty similar problem they have in Venezuela.

 

[McHrozni]

i have sayd several times, we have to wait until a court has used it, and does indeed establish it as evidence.

You like some things about Chavez that don't have any court-confirmed evidence to support them, don't you?

well i am interested if your country does already what the report recommend, i have read all the recommendations to Chapter III and IV.

If you did you'd know most of it is not exactly widely applicable, these are fairly specific recommendations regarding Venezuela and their situation. I count 7 as specific to Venezuela and another 4 that are only applicable to their situation and 3 that call to appropriately upholding existing legislation. Only those 3 could be universally applied to another country.

You either didn't read it at all, or can't comprehend what it's saying, which is, in effect, the same thing.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

You like some things about Chavez that don't have any court-confirmed evidence to support them, don't you?



If you did you'd know most of it is not exactly widely applicable, these are fairly specific recommendations regarding Venezuela and their situation. I count 7 as specific to Venezuela and another 4 that are only applicable to their situation and 3 that call to appropriately upholding existing legislation. Only those 3 could be universally applied to another country.

You either didn't read it at all, or can't comprehend what it's saying, which is, in effect, the same thing.

McHrozni

ROFLMAO.....

you have court confirmed evidence about people in public you like and you dislike?

what a pile of nonsence are you now bringing up?

 

[DC]

and how would your country react to recommendations from outside to change parts of the constitution? especially when its a constitution the people were able to vote for or against?

 

[McHrozni]

you have court confirmed evidence about people in public you like and you dislike?

what a pile of nonsence are you now bringing up?

Reading comprehension is your friend. You should work towards it.

Here, what you quoted again:
You like some things about Chavez that don't have any court-confirmed evidence to support them, don't you?

Would you please explain to me how did you get from that to me having the said evidence? However unless you have such evidence, you're being hypocritical.

and how would your country react to recommendations from outside to change parts of the constitution? especially when its a constitution the people were able to vote for or against?

I'd take a look at it and see if it's saying anything useful. Just because a foreigner came up with it doesn't mean it's any worse than anything coming from within the borders.
The country as a whole would do pretty much the same. Some fringe lunatics would reject it outright, a few more would accept it outright, and the overwhelming majority would decide based on the content. It's been done before in other fields, several times, most recently with university graduate studies and the Bologna reform.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Reading comprehension is your friend. You should work towards it.

Here, what you quoted again:
You like some things about Chavez that don't have any court-confirmed evidence to support them, don't you?

Would you please explain to me how did you get from that to me having the said evidence? However unless you have such evidence, you're being hypocritical.



I'd take a look at it and see if it's saying anything useful. Just because a foreigner came up with it doesn't mean it's any worse than anything coming from within the borders.
The country as a whole would do pretty much the same. Some fringe lunatics would reject it outright, a few more would accept it outright, and the overwhelming majority would decide based on the content. It's been done before in other fields, several times, most recently with university graduate studies and the Bologna reform.

McHrozni

lol that makes no sence at all.

i merely stated i like some things about Chavez, and now you want me to provide court evidence for it?


what the heck do you expect from me now?

 

[McHrozni]

lol that makes no sence at all.

i merely stated i like some things about Chavez, and now you want me to provide court evidence for it?

Well obviously. You claimed multiple times only evidence that goes through court is real evidence and that you only believe evidence and not claims. I really don't think it is too much to ask of you to show me evidence of something Chavez did that was good, that came through a court.

If you can't then admit that you have a lower standard of evidence for anything that favors Chavez over anything that doesn't

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Well obviously. You claimed multiple times only evidence that goes through court is real evidence and that you only believe evidence and not claims. I really don't think it is too much to ask of you to show me evidence of something Chavez did that was good, that came through a court.

If you can't then admit that you have a lower standard of evidence for anything that favors Chavez over anything that doesn't

McHrozni

if you like something or not, is not based on evidence......

this makes no sence at all.

and why is nobody reporting OT now? what has it to do with freedom of press?

im sure when we now debate about it for 2 pages, i will be blamed for derail......

 

[DC]

and i never claimed i only accept evidence that went true a court.

FdF brought up details about the candenas. it contains date, time and even description of content.

i accept it as evidence, while actually it isnt evidence for me. i have no way to check if the claimed date and time etc are correct. i just must trust those that compiled the raport.

but actually that is good enough for me atm. i accept it. and it never went true a court.

 

[McHrozni]

if you like something or not, is not based on evidence......

this makes no sence at all.

I agree with you here, your stance makes no sense at all.

and why is nobody reporting OT now? what has it to do with freedom of press?

It has to do plenty - you have continuously demanded an unreasonably high standard of evidence to demonstrate Chavez indeed is a threat to freedom of speech or supporting terrorists. If you cannot do the same for parts of his actions that you do support, then your 'arguments' can easily be dismissed on that basis alone.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

I agree with you here, your stance makes no sense at all.



It has to do plenty - you have continuously demanded an unreasonably high standard of evidence to demonstrate Chavez indeed is a threat to freedom of speech or supporting terrorists. If you cannot do the same for parts of his actions that you do support, then your 'arguments' can easily be dismissed on that basis alone.

McHrozni

oh kiddy, stopp the nonsence please.

 

[McHrozni]

and i never claimed i only accept evidence that went true a court.

i accept it as evidence, while actually it isnt evidence for me. i have no way to check if the claimed date and time etc are correct. i just must trust those that compiled the raport.

but actually that is good enough for me atm. i accept it. and it never went true a court.

i have sayd several times, we have to wait until a court has used it, and does indeed establish it as evidence.

I guess you radically changed your opinion, then? That's fine as well

McHrozni

 

[DC]

I guess you radically changed your opinion, then? That's fine as well

McHrozni

oh dear, you just dont get the difference eh.

you claim im stupid, but its you.

this is really too stupid.

this is my last post to you, bye bye.

 

[McHrozni]

oh dear, you just dont get the difference eh.

Nope, I don't. What's the difference?

McHrozni

 

[funk de fino]

when the claims have been trown into this topc from Wildcat, nobody cried OT.
after i showed that this is not evidence at all. then you guys start report OT.

very telling.

I have reported it and tried to get it back OT a few times. It matters nothing to me who is derailing it. I cn see why you wanted the derail to continue though.

 

[funk de fino]

and i never claimed i only accept evidence that went true a court.

FdF brought up details about the candenas. it contains date, time and even description of content.

i accept it as evidence, while actually it isnt evidence for me. i have no way to check if the claimed date and time etc are correct. i just must trust those that compiled the raport.

but actually that is good enough for me atm. i accept it. and it never went true a court.

This is hypocritical and ridiculous.

 

[DC]

This is hypocritical and ridiculous.

what is hypocritical?

 

[funk de fino]

what is hypocritical?

You provide nowhere near that standard of evidence for any of your claims.
Remember when you were a truther and I sent you scans of my documents from the Military because you wanted evidence? You said they were not good enough. While you post links to venezuelaanalysis.com and think that is enough even though they are deliberately bias and their sponsors admit as much. You even linked the CIA documents but completely misread what they contained and made false statements about them. There are posts where you accuse RCTV of encouraging people to violence and telling them to to go support the coup, yet you supply nothing to back this up.

Nothing is good enough for you when it goes against what you want. And remember you are the guy who couldnt find an English version of the Constitution.