Master Class by Ronan . . . let's say Charandaas Persaud

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

Original Post
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

This is an abject nonsensical false equivalence.  The nations are vastly different. No one in government  would even think it viable to murder another on account of a "yes" vote. In In Guyana that threat was hurled from the halls of parliament.

If the fellow said "what if I was bribed" it demands an answer not some far reach  to elicit the conclusion on the back hand side that he was actually bribed.  If he was bribed the state needs to begin by proving it. 

 Public opinion means you are looking for social intelligence ie habit and practice deemed acceptable and the contravention of which is looked down upon. I suggest the public opinion is that all Guyanese at home and abroad are Guyanese. The state believed it also having endorsed the practice of dual citizens across more than one generation

This is the notion LFSB took to to the limit to facilitate the theft of office and in which tenure his government fabricated this constitution you hold with a vice grip as the rule of law. 

I hope I am on topic.

D2 posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

This is an abject nonsensical false equivalence.  The nations are vastly different. No one in government  would even think it viable to murder another on account of a "yes" vote. In In Guyana that threat was hurled from the halls of parliament.

If the fellow said "what if I was bribed" it demands an answer not on some far reach ought to elicit the conclusion he was bribed. Yes, what if he was bribed you need to begin by proving it. 

 Public opinion means you are looking for social intelligence ie habit and practice deemed acceptable and the contravention of which is looked down upon. I suggest the public opinion that all Guyanese at home and abroad are Guyanese.

This is the notion LFSB took to to the limit to facilitate the theft of office and in which tenure his government fabricated this constitution you hold with a vice grip as the rule of law. 

I hope I am on topic.

your "false equivalence" straw man attempt is noted

now, go bandage your ego elsewhere

ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point. I don't expect those of you clutching at straws to comprehend this type of argument. You and the pnc took the "what if I was bribed" and turned it into "I was bribed", reaching as usual. 

ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

This is an abject nonsensical false equivalence.  The nations are vastly different. No one in government  would even think it viable to murder another on account of a "yes" vote. In In Guyana that threat was hurled from the halls of parliament.

If the fellow said "what if I was bribed" it demands an answer not on some far reach ought to elicit the conclusion he was bribed. Yes, what if he was bribed you need to begin by proving it. 

 Public opinion means you are looking for social intelligence ie habit and practice deemed acceptable and the contravention of which is looked down upon. I suggest the public opinion that all Guyanese at home and abroad are Guyanese.

This is the notion LFSB took to to the limit to facilitate the theft of office and in which tenure his government fabricated this constitution you hold with a vice grip as the rule of law. 

I hope I am on topic.

yaaaawwn . . . go bandage your ego elsewhere

You gotta teach me here. I seem to be a mummy with so many bandages neatly organized to conceal that gargantuan ego. As the indian boys will say. I am just a bramcharya at this compared to you the guru

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point.

what exactly was his "broader point"?

thanks

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point. I don't expect those of you clutching at straws to comprehend this type of argument. You and the pnc took the "what if I was bribed" and turned it into "I was bribed", reaching as usual. 

Oh boy, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Hypotheticals are mirrors; imaginary worlds matching the a real world with one circumstance out of place; the one that lazes in on the reason for the comparison.  

D2 posted:
Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point. I don't expect those of you clutching at straws to comprehend this type of argument. You and the pnc took the "what if I was bribed" and turned it into "I was bribed", reaching as usual. 

Oh boy, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Hypotheticals are mirrors; imaginary worlds matching the a real world with one circumstance out of place; the one that lazes in on the reason for the comparison.  

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

D2 posted:

No one in government would even think it viable to murder another on account of a "yes" vote. In In Guyana that threat was hurled from the halls of parliament.

"viable to murder"? surely you can bring argument more seriously than that

in fact, that you hang your hat on the rubbish that the Gov't planned to murder Charandaas based on some cuss (yes, cuss not "threat") hurled at him in parliament is hilarious

especially since we know his theatrical exit that night was meticulously planned waaaay in advance

i suppose he no longer 'friken' dem PNC . . . the latest Charandaas bulletin informs that his return is iminent

uh huh

ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

no response(s) yet regarding paras 3 and 4

everybady PPP in hiding

uh huh

D2 posted:

Oh boy, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Hypotheticals are mirrors; imaginary worlds matching the a real world with one circumstance out of place; the one that lazes in on the reason for the comparison.  

It is pretty common for people to use "even if" "what if" in arguments to make a point that even in the worse case scenario, the outcome would still be justified. Only those with hidden agenda will take a "what if" and turn it into a "I did". 

ronan posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

no response(s) yet regarding paras 3 and 4

everybady PPP in hiding

uh huh

Bannas like you missed that discussion already. Half the parliament from both sides have dual citizenship. What is your point and why fixate on one man?  You need to first address the broader issue of parliamentarians not being allowed to have dual citizenship. 

ronan posted:

what exactly was his "broader point"?

thanks

That even in the worse case scenario, he was well within his rights to vote "yes".  Strange that you missed this inference from the video. You normally have the uncanny ability to extrapolate the extraordinary from any article, yet you missed this point from Charrandas.  

ronan posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

no response(s) yet regarding paras 3 and 4

everybady PPP in hiding

uh huh

Everyone should ignore your nonsense race baiting. Ain't nobady gat time fuh you nansense.

skeldon_man posted:
ronan posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

no response(s) yet regarding paras 3 and 4

everybady PPP in hiding

uh huh

Everyone should ignore your nonsense race baiting. Ain't nobady gat time fuh you nansense.

curious that you 'see' "race baiting" in all this

poor you

but still afraid, eh?

ronan posted:
Drugb posted:

. . . the outcome would still be justified.

but isn't that exactly the point damning Charandaas?

No, a hypothetical with the same outcome is normally used to strengthen a point. You must have missed this literary technique in school, or maybe you didn't go too far.

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

what exactly was his "broader point"?

thanks

That even in the worse case scenario, he was well within his rights to vote "yes". 

the "worse case scenario" is taking a bribe!

if you want to hang your hat on THAT (a bribe taking) being "well within his rights" . . . be my guest

skeldon_man posted:
D2 posted:
Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point. I don't expect those of you clutching at straws to comprehend this type of argument. You and the pnc took the "what if I was bribed" and turned it into "I was bribed", reaching as usual. 

Oh boy, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Hypotheticals are mirrors; imaginary worlds matching the a real world with one circumstance out of place; the one that lazes in on the reason for the comparison.  

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

No tell me.

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

no response(s) yet regarding paras 3 and 4

everybady PPP in hiding

uh huh

Bannas like you missed that discussion already.

where?

D2 posted:
skeldon_man posted:
D2 posted:
Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

was a (Canadian) dual-citizen US Senator illegally occupying that seat who cast the deciding vote to impeach a hypothetical sitting US president

then promptly requests Canadian Consular assistance as he rushes to the airport, leaves the country using his Canadian passport, and hunkers down in Toronto telling all who would listen "so what if i was bribed?"

how do y'all think the Supreme Court would rule?

and i ain't even gon go there as far as public opinion and the free press is concerned

thanks

It is a hypothetical , a "what if" scenario to make a broader point. I don't expect those of you clutching at straws to comprehend this type of argument. You and the pnc took the "what if I was bribed" and turned it into "I was bribed", reaching as usual. 

Oh boy, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Hypotheticals are mirrors; imaginary worlds matching the a real world with one circumstance out of place; the one that lazes in on the reason for the comparison.  

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

No tell me.

Then you lied.

skeldon_man posted:
 

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

No tell me.

Then you lied.

Then I suggest you  re assess your understanding of if statements.

D2 posted:
skeldon_man posted:
 

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

No tell me.

Then you lied.

Then I suggest you  re assess your understanding of if statements.

I don't have to do anything more. I am done with programming. You need to revisit it and just don't use test data that gives a positive. Try testing for false positives too and what else fails.

skeldon_man posted:
D2 posted:
skeldon_man posted:
 

As you claimed to be a programmer, have you coded "IF" statements in your modules? Do you realize what the "IF" statements are capable of doing?

No tell me.

Then you lied.

Then I suggest you  re assess your understanding of if statements.

I don't have to do anything more. I am done with programming. You need to revisit it and just don't use test data that gives a positive. Try testing for false positives too and what else fails.

explain the if statement above and where I went wrong...not asking you much. You affirmed that I made a mistake. 

So did we get the proof that Charrandas received a bribe for his yes vote or are we still desperately and pathetically clutching at straws?

Secondly, are the PPP now running the Foreign Ministry which is picking a fight with Canada. Weren't they supposed to wait until they win the elections in March before they can start running the Foreign Ministry again?

ksazma posted:

So did we get the proof that Charrandas received a bribe for his yes vote or are we still desperately and pathetically clutching at straws?

Secondly, are the PPP now running the Foreign Ministry which is picking a fight with Canada. Weren't they supposed to wait until they win the elections in March before they can start running the Foreign Ministry again?

as far as i know, no one has "proof" that Charandaas took a bribe, and i have NOT claimed anything like that . . . silly man

the "vote of conscience" fraud traveling on a Canadian passport simply overtalked and exposed his bare moral behind . . . that's all

you should ask him why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

now, as far as the GY "Foreign Ministry [] picking a fight with Canada" is concerned . . . alyuh shakeabatty efforts at magicking wan up are, thus far, mediocre

ronan posted:
ksazma posted:

So did we get the proof that Charrandas received a bribe for his yes vote or are we still desperately and pathetically clutching at straws?

Secondly, are the PPP now running the Foreign Ministry which is picking a fight with Canada. Weren't they supposed to wait until they win the elections in March before they can start running the Foreign Ministry again?

as far as i know, no one has "proof" that Charandaas took a bribe, and i have NOT claimed anything like that . . . silly man

the "vote of conscience" fraud traveling on a Canadian passport simply overtalked and exposed his bare moral behind . . . that's all

you should ask him why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

now, as far as the GY "Foreign Ministry [] picking a fight with Canada" is concerned . . . alyuh shakeabatty efforts at magicking wan up are, thus far, mediocre

Another truck load of SHIT by Bubble Head.

ksazma posted:

So did we get the proof that Charrandas received a bribe for his yes vote or are we still desperately and pathetically clutching at straws?

Secondly, are the PPP now running the Foreign Ministry which is picking a fight with Canada. Weren't they supposed to wait until they win the elections in March before they can start running the Foreign Ministry again?

as far as i know, no one has "proof" that Charandaas took a bribe, and i have NOT claimed anything like that . . . silly man

the "vote of conscience" fraud traveling on a Canadian passport simply overtalked and exposed his bare [im]moral behind . . . that's all

you should ask him why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

now, as far as the GY "Foreign Ministry [] picking a fight with Canada" is concerned . . . alyuh shakeabatty efforts at magicking wan up are, thus far, mediocre

ronan posted:
Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

what exactly was his "broader point"?

thanks

That even in the worse case scenario, he was well within his rights to vote "yes". 

the "worse case scenario" is taking a bribe!

if you want to hang your hat on THAT (a bribe taking) being "well within his rights" . . . be my guest

He clearly stated that he didn't take a bribe, but for emphasis to the numbskulls, even if he did his vote still matters in the end.  

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:
Drugb posted:
ronan posted:

what exactly was his "broader point"?

thanks

That even in the worse case scenario, he was well within his rights to vote "yes". 

the "worse case scenario" is taking a bribe!

if you want to hang your hat on THAT (a bribe taking) being "well within his rights" . . . be my guest

He clearly stated that he didn't take a bribe, but for emphasis to the numbskulls, even if he did his vote still matters in the end

uh huh

now go ask the illegally-voting Guyana MP . . . yess, the same banna with his morals tucked safely away far up his bt why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

oh btw, the other part of your response is a non sequitur

ronan posted:
uh huh

now go ask the illegally-voting Guyana MP . . . yess, the same banna with his morals tucked safely away far up his bt why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

oh btw, the other part of your response is a non sequitur

If you were well versed in literary jargon you will be familiar with "reductio ad absurdum". Now hurry off to google before responding, 

Drugb posted:
ronan posted:
uh huh

now go ask the illegally-voting Guyana MP . . . yess, the same banna with his morals tucked safely away far up his bt why he thinks that taking a bribe is OK

oh btw, the other part of your response is a non sequitur

If you were well versed in literary jargon you will be familiar with "reductio ad absurdum".

you are misusing the Latin term (it's actually not "literary" jargon)

but that's OK . . . your education is lacking

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×
×