Tweet
So if I show you cases where the individual did not resign. would that prove my case ??
-
-
Grabbing at straws. Clinton was accused of lying about a blow job not involvement in murder etc. Gwan like you intelligent no man?Comment
-
Mi lose count ah what dem did accuse him of... yuh tink di Republican easy ?
Suh yuh ah draw a line now ?
Mout mek fi talk anyting...
Eiddah yuh have a principle or you don't...
Comment
-
Di police soon dun dem investigation..
Suppose di man drap dead ?
JR can return from him 'vacation' ?
Comment
-
Some countries would draw the line at accusations of murder especially any involvement directly or indirectly in that of someone's mother. Where do you guys draw yours?Comment
-
-
But bossman, mi nuh just tell you that in places with common law you are innocent until proven guilty? What happen? You nuh understan' dat?Originally posted by Maudib View Post
Plus, I could ask you how you know for sure that Robertson is innocent......hope you not involved wid him to the point where you can vouch for him every move because dat would mean seh either you ARE Robertson or he's your slave and you keep tabs on him 24/7. In no normal relationship, not even someone's twin sibling, is a person able to know for sure what someone else does all the time.
Well since I was kind enuff to post some examples of other ministers resigning before even being proven guilty (and up to now not one of the stories actually said any of them were proven guilty....) then perhaps you could provide some info on these other instances when Robertson's character was attackedStop talking hypothetically.. yuh tink is di fuss time dis breddah character has been attacked..? It prevent him from him wuk ?
Yup this being one. But the original point was that in serious democracies, the minister would have resigned. So sidestep all you want. Unfortunately Jamaica don't even qualify to be on par with violence-prone Kenya to rhatid.For every case you bring when people resign or step down yuh can find a case where no such ting happened..
He did NOT have sexual intercouse with THAT woman (just an encounter as well as services renderedYuh know a breddah called Bill Clinton ??
). He had intercourse (of the sexual kind) with plenty other women, but with Lewinsky di poor man nevah even get to go all di way and just soil she dress. Why else you think di man did look so irritated about the whole affair? 
Comment
-
In serious democracies you have actions on either side of that line...
that is a fact that you have to find a way to deal with...
Comment
-
What case is that? Initially you were questioning Rudi's assertion that in some democracies ministers would resign over accusations. Thus to prove your case (which by implication is that Rudi was incorrect) then you would need to provide proof that ministers never resigned over mere accusations instead of convictions. So if you've changed your case then feel free, but good luck proving that all those ministers who did resign before being found guilty were either fictitious or didn't actually resign.Originally posted by Maudib View PostComment
-
Ah, changed your case I see.
That certainly wasn't what you were implying first time.Comment
-
What line? Line draw in Jamaica?
Comment
-
Changed my case ?
No I have not.. you were the one that tried to paint a picture of action being based on the seriousness of the democracy..
America has probably the most serious democracy on the Planet.. yuh nah guh find nuh Senator a commit Sepuku juss suh.. yuh on di wrong tack..Comment
-
ask Rudi.. look like him ah one draftsman..
Comment
-
LOL. No response necessary.Comment
-
bredrin.. yuh new tuh dis site ?
Mi look cayliss tuh yuh.. yuh need to read wheh di man post again.
Dis is di Thinking Man's program.
Di fuss requirement is to understand what yuh arguing bout. After yuh unnastan wheh di man post.. come back.
Look fi di post dat start off wid: "In any other serious.."Comment
Comment