Current Events Tidbits Et Al

[will robie]

Trying to avoid a legitimate question only raises suspicion that you don't know the answer.

 

Sino ang nagsabing hearsay yun? Confession na nga eh. Na sworn statement.

 

Drug trafficker ba si Espinosa or not? Simple question. Yes or no lang.

 

Answer my question then I will answer yours. Hearsay because there is no corroborating evidence which brings us back to my question which you refuse to answer. Really? Do you have a scteenshot of his sworn statement or did you mean verbal confession? Don’t conflate the two. Magkaiba yun.

[tk421]

Answer my question then I will answer yours. Hearsay because there is no corroborating evidence which brings us back to my question which you refuse to answer. Really? Do you have a scteenshot of his sworn statement or did you mean verbal confession? Don’t conflate the two. Magkaiba yun.

 

If there's a facepalm-worthy moment, you previous few replies would be it.

 

Mukhang hindi mo talaga ma gets na ang hearing sa senate ay official statement.

 

O sya. Gusto mo hindi verbal? Eto:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/332398283/Kerwin-Espinosa-Affidavit

 

Ngayon. Pakisagot na ang tanong ko.

[will robie]

 

If there's a facepalm-worthy moment, you previous few replies would be it.

 

Mukhang hindi mo talaga ma gets na ang hearing sa senate ay official statement.

 

O sya. Gusto mo hindi verbal? Eto:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/332398283/Kerwin-Espinosa-Affidavit

Bravo! You found a sworn statement. Again, a sworn statement and a verbal confession are different. You answer my question first then I will answer yours. He can say anything he wants but as long as there is no hard evidence, it's hearsay.

[tk421]

I don’t know where you spent your life on, but in the real world, a cnfession is evidence.

 

Because if you think a confession is not even considered an evidence, then your case that de Lima is guilty just became weaker.

 

Inaantay ko pa din ang sagot mo at yun definition mo ng hard evidence...

[will robie]

So if I confessed I am Batman and I did that in a sworn statement, maniniwala ka?

[tk421]

Sworn statement ba kamo? Then I will accept that statement.

 

O, ikaw ano na sagot mo sa tanong ko? Drug trafficker ba sya o hindi?

[will robie]

Based from hearsay, he is a drug trafficker. But they did not catch him red-handed. It's easy to paint someone as a drug trafficker, a plunderer, a thief, etc. but until you catch him red-handed, then all you have are allegations.

 

Kung maniniwala ka na ako si Batman sa sworn statement, then that makes you gullible. We all know that Batman is fictional.

Edited March 17, 2018 by will robie

[darksoulriver]

suspended nga lang. LOL

 

 

suspended doesn't mean your opinion on the issue is not relevant..

[will robie]

Robie, you made a sworn statement.

 

Sworn statement ang ginawa mo. Process na tinatanggap ng mga sangay ng gobyerno. Will that make him gullible? Hindi, nag sworn statement ka eh. Sa ginawa mo na yan, in question na ngayon ang katinuan ng utak mo. At kung matino ka naman sa pag iisip. Hindi ba perjury un? Once you made a sworn statement, it is expected na nagsasabi ka ng totoo di ba? Kung sinadya mo na magsinungaling. Kamalian mo yon.

I am talking in the context of my making a sworn statement that I am Batman. Everyone knows that Batman is fictional. You really should understand what you are quoting before quoting. The poster formerly called StrawKaPwe has resorted to another pathetic ad hominem. You really can't debunk what I said intelligently and have to resort to an idiotic ad hominem.

Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

I am talking in the context of my making a sworn statement that I am Batman. Everyone knows that Batman is fictional. You really should understand what you are quoting before quoting. The poster formerly called StrawKaPwe has resorted to another pathetic ad hominem. You really can't debunk what I said intelligently and have to resort to an idiotic ad hominem.

 

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

 

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

 

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

[tk421]

Based from hearsay, he is a drug trafficker. But they did not catch him red-handed. It's easy to paint someone as a drug trafficker, a plunderer, a thief, etc. but until you catch him red-handed, then all you have are allegations.

 

Kung maniniwala ka na ako si Batman sa sworn statement, then that makes you gullible. We all know that Batman is fictional.

 

So using that logic kay de Lima. Ano ang ‘red-handed’ eveidence against her na hindi ‘hearsay’? Hindi ba lahat ng charges sa kanya, based on your interpretation of evidences, ay allegations lang?

 

You see, by defending Espinosa’s case, you’re actually losing your case against de Lima.

[rooster69ph]

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

then ano ang credibility niya sa mga pinagsasabi niya laban kay de lima?

[will robie]

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

I will have to repeat what I said. Understand what is quoted before you quote. If you really understood what I posted, I highlighted the statement in bold.

[tk421]

then ano ang credibility niya sa mga pinagsasabi niya laban kay de lima?

Yun nga ang sinasabi ko sa kanya at ewan ko bakit pinagpipilitan nyang i defend na hindi totoong drug trafficker si Espinosa. By saying he can lie under oath, ibig sabihin lahat ng bintang nya kay de Lima ay mapapa walang bisa.

 

Tapos hard evidence daw yun laban kay de Lima eh eto sinisira nya mismo ang isa sa evidence. Ano ngayon yan? Soft evidence na lang ba? LOL.

[will robie]

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

I was quoting in the context of making a sworn statement that I am Batman. I asked a question and you said that if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman, you will accept it when it is a well-known fact that Batman is a work of fiction. Whether I committed perjury or not when I make a sworn statement that I am Batman is irrelevant. I was asking you a question and you said you would accept that sworn statement that I am Batman even if it is a known fact that Batman is a fictional character. Focus on the question and not on what would happen after because that was just an example. I was testing your gullibility.

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

Hasn't anyone lied under oath?

Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie