Dr Rowley blackmailed?

[De Dragon]

Dragon, since you talk about reasoning lemme ask a few questions:

Since when have you and others accepted the Express and a reliable newspaper? I thought it was a PNM rag not credible at all suddenly it's story is taken a gospel?

Where did the PM ever slander/malign/ discredit or make any utterance about Reshmi? Apparently you read the story interpreted how you wanted and ran with it (again from the Express???) The story quotes a "source" and also states that the PM suggested/instructed a change of service providers to Cabinet based on the advice of the Special Branch. So why are you accusing the PM of things he didn't say?

What is the issue with him instructing a change, that's his privilege and right, afaik you don't work Special Branch so how do you know the innocence or guilt of Reshmi? How do you know what information or intelligence they have to make the suggestions they did? Again the PM never made any public utterances he spoke allegedly to Cabinet and this was leaked by a "source" so why are you attacking him on an unfounded allegation?

Wait are you serious?

So when the Express talking about Kamla shoes it's a credible news source but all of a sudden we need to question it because Rowley get 'ketch'?

Up to now they haven't denied that the PM said that so it can be assumed that it's true.

Whether Special Branch or Sherlock Holmes give them the intelligence the PM made the decision. Had he not had an axe to grind for Reshmi he would have ignored it.

Sad that supposedly intelligent people supporting the hounding down and attacking a citizen of T&T who is unable to respond in kind.

Can't wait to see the backs of these blight to T&T.

Double standards and hypocrisy are the hallmark of these blind PNM followers. They never seriously question anything especially anything that the Maximum Leader does or says. In fact they try to defend it with all their might. Special Branch ordered him to switch because of one female who made stupid, fraudulent decisions years ago? I don't know what's worse, that kind of judge jury and executioner tactic, or the dummy who took the advice
Also Red Plastic Bag and elite suddenly can suddenly see how people's communication and data can be compromised, despite denying it to the fullest when it did not suit them in the FATCA discussion

[Redman]

Redman you are politically biased and will see no reason. I accept that there is no reasoning with you on any topic critical of the PNM and its leadership clique.

Uhm We discussing FATCA.
The UNC committed TnT to This.
The bill was passed
As a country we have little choice...so again this isnt politics-its just Fact.

You (dragon) made a claim that Fatca is not just for US citizens....one that you singularly are unable to substantiate.
Fully qualifying yourself for your own KANTISH label.(shreds of evidence etc)
You need to reason that out yourself .

You however prefer to muddy the water hiding behind name calling and broad political categorization like above.

It OK though-this isnt new.

We were discussing Rowley's kantish statements with respect to Reshmi which you pathetically try to ape, when YOU threw in FATCA. If you cannot process multiple opinions, which I gave in that post that you're referring to btw, then I can't help you. Matters not who committed what, there are openings for abuse, plain and simple. If you cannot at least acknowledge that then you are being either willingly blind to match your obvious political affiliation or you're genuinely naïve. I still haven't heard you or your cheerleading squad, which conveniently shows up, to condemn the smearing of an INNOCENT woman's name by a thoughtless, arrogant and kantish bully. Instead its "deal with it" and "k"
A kantish "leader" talking sheit while we go to hell in a handbasket.

So it's my political disposition that prevents you from substantiating your statement.
Got it.

It's Rowleys fault that you like to talk out of your arse.
That PNM education wins again.

But humans were involved in banking transactions for a while now.
And Fatca simply pushes (onto the local banks)the responsibility for the info on US obligated accounts to be sent to the IRS.

So your point on humans sending info...is crap. FATCA doesnt create any new risks.

People that are supposed to be reporting their accounts to the IRS are the only ones that have anything new to do....and it is only their info that is pushed on.

[Redman]

Dragon you saying on one hand Reshmi -a woman who demonstrated her willingness for personal gain,with political support-is now innocent

smearing of an INNOCENT woman's name

but on the other hand the PEOPLE(unnamed,and thus far actually innocent) responsible for passing information under FATCA cant be trusted.Despite it being the SAME people that have been handling sensitive info all this time.

Also Red Plastic Bag and elite suddenly can suddenly see how people's communication and data can be compromised

Carry on there fella-you doing well.

[De Dragon]

Redman you are politically biased and will see no reason. I accept that there is no reasoning with you on any topic critical of the PNM and its leadership clique.

Uhm We discussing FATCA.
The UNC committed TnT to This.
The bill was passed
As a country we have little choice...so again this isnt politics-its just Fact.

You (dragon) made a claim that Fatca is not just for US citizens....one that you singularly are unable to substantiate.
Fully qualifying yourself for your own KANTISH label.(shreds of evidence etc)
You need to reason that out yourself .

You however prefer to muddy the water hiding behind name calling and broad political categorization like above.

It OK though-this isnt new.

We were discussing Rowley's kantish statements with respect to Reshmi which you pathetically try to ape, when YOU threw in FATCA. If you cannot process multiple opinions, which I gave in that post that you're referring to btw, then I can't help you. Matters not who committed what, there are openings for abuse, plain and simple. If you cannot at least acknowledge that then you are being either willingly blind to match your obvious political affiliation or you're genuinely naïve. I still haven't heard you or your cheerleading squad, which conveniently shows up, to condemn the smearing of an INNOCENT woman's name by a thoughtless, arrogant and kantish bully. Instead its "deal with it" and "k"
A kantish "leader" talking sheit while we go to hell in a handbasket.

So it's my political disposition that prevents you from substantiating your statement.
Got it.

It's Rowleys fault that you like to talk out of your arse.
That PNM education wins again.

But humans were involved in banking transactions for a while now.
And Fatca simply pushes the responsibility for the info on US obligated accounts to be sent to the IRS.

So your point on humans send info...is crap.

People that are supposed to be reporting their accounts to the IRS are the only ones that have anything new to do....and it is only their info that is pushed on.

You're more blinded by Scarfy's "halo" than I thought. Carry on believing in your PNM utopia where corruption and such bad things do not exist except when the PNM is in Opposition. Dotishly you used a banking analogy in your latest long winded, short of information and facts reply, but couldn't say how Camille's bank account info was hacked. There is legislation that allows people to go in and access people's information, and you're seriously gonna sit there and pretend that the possibility of improper access and use will never arise. Then again with your PNM conditioned brain, that could only happen under another administration

[eliteauto]

Considering I am not a part of the FATCA discussion I'll chalk this up to tabanca talk from De Dragon. Furthermore I haven't even discussed the compromising of data, I've kept my responses to the actual article not the interpretive hyperbole of some

[Redman]

You're more blinded by Scarfy's "halo" than I thought. Carry on believing in your PNM utopia where corruption and such bad things do not exist except when the PNM is in Opposition. Dotishly you used a banking analogy in your latest long winded, short of information and facts reply, but couldn't say how Camille's bank account info was hacked. There is legislation that allows people to go in and access people's information, and you're seriously gonna sit there and pretend that the possibility of improper access and use will never arise. Then again with your PNM conditioned brain, that could only happen under another administration

Yes I admit its pretty dotish for me to use a banking analogy in any discussion on FATCA,

What is pretty dotish is discussing this with you and expecting anything more than pubescent jabs.

I dont remember saying anything on the possibility of improper access. Until the last 2 posts i think

Like I say carry on.

[toyota2nr]

So based on comments from Redman and eliteauto the people who would be handling the personal info of others under FATCA can't be compromised because PNM but an account manager at Digicel can access secure info. Wow that balisier logic....

[Chimera]

Why is there a comparison between reshmi and fatca? Dragon you would trust reshmi enough to hire her into a company of yours? Where she could access confidential information? Considering her past?

[K74T]

"Dan check how dem beating dat bobolee on 2NR nah."

[De Dragon]

Why is there a comparison between reshmi and fatca? Dragon you would trust reshmi enough to hire her into a company of yours? Where she could access confidential information? Considering her past?

She should never get within 100 miles of any national security agency that I think would be obvious I can't speak to Digicel's rationale in hiring her, maybe strings, maybe altruistic. What I do know is that if PNM stooges last the last three posters here had their way, then she wouldn't even be allowed to wrap doubles, lest she use the shadowy Bara Intelligence Agency links to poison Scarfy aloo pie. It seems like rehabilitation, or the very least being allowed to quietly go about your way to try to survive is impossible once you were associated with the UNC.

[Redman]

So based on comments from Redman and eliteauto the people who would be handling the personal info of others under FATCA can't be compromised because PNM but an account manager at Digicel can access secure info. Wow that balisier logic....

Now that you have demonstrated the extent of your comprehension skills,dismally layered with the deductive insight of a potato I hope you can rest easy.

[De Dragon]

So based on comments from Redman and eliteauto the people who would be handling the personal info of others under FATCA can't be compromised because PNM but an account manager at Digicel can access secure info. Wow that balisier logic....

Now that you have demonstrated the extent of your comprehension skills,dismally layered with the deductive insight of a potato I hope you can rest easy.

That is basically what you said you know In fact in the FATCA example you even refused to entertain the mere possibility of impropriety. Also you are hypocritical by your name calling, but decrying me for it.

[Redman]

That is basically what you said you know In fact in the FATCA example you even refused to entertain the mere possibility of impropriety.

where ?
Dragon quote my post where I said ANYThing along the lines of 'people cant be compromised'


I simply connected your willingness to 'presume Reshmi (the proven corrupt liar of a UNC lacky that she is) innocent while in the same discussion pointing to (actual public servants who handle the information already) people as a weak point in the FATCA legislation....must be the UNC definition of innocent that you using


Humans have been part of the process for a long time(I ACTUALLY posted that)

FATCA has not added to it.
So as posted before no new risk.

You still cannot substantiate your posts-but again its normal.

Also you are hypocritical by your name calling, but decrying me for it.

I just described his deductive prowess as being that of a potato.

why the butt hurt....???

[De Dragon]

That is basically what you said you know In fact in the FATCA example you even refused to entertain the mere possibility of impropriety.

where ?
Dragon quote my post where I said ANYThing along the lines of 'people cant be compromised'


I simply connected your willingness to 'presume Reshmi (the proven corrupt liar of a UNC lacky that she is) innocent while in the same discussion pointing to (actual public servants who handle the information already) people as a weak point in the FATCA legislation....must be the UNC definition of innocent that you using


Humans have been part of the process for a long time(I ACTUALLY posted that)

FATCA has not added to it.
So as posted before no new risk.

You still cannot substantiate your posts-but again its normal.

Also you are hypocritical by your name calling, but decrying me for it.

I just described his deductive prowess as being that of a potato.

why the butt hurt....???

I abhor blatant hypocrisy like the type you demonstrate on a very regular basis now. So once you've transgressed, you can never be trusted with anything again in life? How simplistic and one dimensional. Therefore by your logic ALL prisoners should never be allowed back into society when they pay their due to society? Why should I care to "substantiate" anything for you? You have repeatedly proven to be immune to reason, alternate ideas or any other possibility other than what Rowley says. Therefore I have decided that you will never take off your PNM blinds, and see any other point, even to agree that it is possible.Once Rowley says something, then to you that is gospel and cannot, or should not be questioned or challenged. Therefore you will forgive me if I lack the time or energy or really don't care to "substantiate" a damn thing for you.

[Redman]

but yuh have time to type all of that sheit?

yuh lie.

[De Dragon]

but yuh have time to type all of that sheit?

yuh lie.

Sheit? I think you were reading one of your own posts chief, they're nothing but.

[Redman]

Ok so you cant back up another of your claims.

Lets go back to an earlier one-you said FATCA is not for US citizens only...upon what are you basing this?

And let ignore the human intervention here-cuz that pre existed FATCA.

[De Dragon]

Ok so you cant back up another of your claims.

Lets go back to an earlier one-you said FATCA is not for US citizens only...upon what are you basing this?

And let ignore the human intervention here-cuz that pre existed FATCA.

I said that there is an avenue for someone, who may not be a US citizen, having their banking information shared/leaked/used for criminal acts. Ignore the human intervention? Again is a robot going to compromise someone's info? Once there is human input WITHOUT oversight, which you defended to death btw, there can be misuse of the Act and its provisions. Do you know that someone is capable of murdering someone tomorrow? Do you need that knowledge beforehand to determine that there will likely be murders in our future? Once humans are capable of something, then it is likely to happen. You seem to assume that the banks are bastions of secrecy and information protection, when that is furthest from the truth.

[toyota2nr]

So based on comments from Redman and eliteauto the people who would be handling the personal info of others under FATCA can't be compromised because PNM but an account manager at Digicel can access secure info. Wow that balisier logic....

Now that you have demonstrated the extent of your comprehension skills,dismally layered with the deductive insight of a potato I hope you can rest easy.

Yet you couldn't give an intelligent reply. Make sure and stir that balisier real good when you boiling it. Inadequate preparation does lead to unintelligent comments.

[Numb3r4]

Reshme is smarter than I had previously thought.

[Redman]

Ok so you cant back up another of your claims.

Lets go back to an earlier one-you said FATCA is not for US citizens only...upon what are you basing this?

And let ignore the human intervention here-cuz that pre existed FATCA.

I said that there is an avenue for someone, who may not be a US citizen, having their banking information shared/leaked/used for criminal acts. Ignore the human intervention? Again is a robot going to compromise someone's info? Once there is human input WITHOUT oversight, which you defended to death btw, there can be misuse of the Act and its provisions. Do you know that someone is capable of murdering someone tomorrow? Do you need that knowledge beforehand to determine that there will likely be murders in our future? Once humans are capable of something, then it is likely to happen. You seem to assume that the banks are bastions of secrecy and information protection, when that is furthest from the truth.

But none of the human interactions that FATCA requires are new, or exist BECAUSE of FATCA....its the same system.
Ive repeatedly said human input pre existed FATCA-and repeatedly you ignore that...restating the same point as if its new.

Ignore it because its already been discussed.

[De Dragon]

Ok so you cant back up another of your claims.

Lets go back to an earlier one-you said FATCA is not for US citizens only...upon what are you basing this?

And let ignore the human intervention here-cuz that pre existed FATCA.

I said that there is an avenue for someone, who may not be a US citizen, having their banking information shared/leaked/used for criminal acts. Ignore the human intervention? Again is a robot going to compromise someone's info? Once there is human input WITHOUT oversight, which you defended to death btw, there can be misuse of the Act and its provisions. Do you know that someone is capable of murdering someone tomorrow? Do you need that knowledge beforehand to determine that there will likely be murders in our future? Once humans are capable of something, then it is likely to happen. You seem to assume that the banks are bastions of secrecy and information protection, when that is furthest from the truth.

But none of the human interactions that FATCA requires are new, or exist BECAUSE of FATCA....its the same system.
Ive repeatedly said human input pre existed FATCA-and repeatedly you ignore that...restating the same point as if its new.

Ignore it because its already been discussed.

Did I say that it was new? What has been created is another avenue to potentially get and disseminate people's information under the guise of a lawful act, by someone so inclined, and for whatever nefarious means. It has happened, and will continue to happen, as long as people who are so inclined are part of the system.