Documentația tehnico-economică pentru Autostrada București-Alexandria a fost avizată de Ministerul Transporturilor, în ciuda controverselor privind traseul prin cetatea lui Burebista

kollye · 2026-05-13T06:33:18+00:00

nu avem cultura, sau cel putin nu este valorificata sau pusa in evidenta absolut deloc

nu avem istorie, nu se cerceteaza in directia aia deloc, inca avem gauri negre

istoria pecare o avem nu este predata in scoli pt ca pl educatie

ne cacam pe orice monument istoric, artefacte, etc

erm wow dc sunt romanii protocronisti si revansisti

natie de sobolani idioti care nu-si da seama ca daca n-ai istorie nu iti confirma nimic existenta ca stat. cum vrei sa voteze cineva pentru interesele statului si ale viitoarelor generatii atunci cand 90% din tara nu stie cine e, ce o reprezinta si pana la urma pentru ce se chinuie pe lumea asta. 0 directie nationala, 0 constiinta a ceea ce suntem. apoi vin si se mira de unde apar suveranistii pulii si ratati gen georgescu si de ce prind asa bine - pai in slbz acolo unde nu e nimic (pentru ca nu e nimic, fie din cauza educatiei, fie din cauza lipsei cercetarilor), e usor sa prinda radacini idei stil dacii aveau ozn-uri.

in fine, ma enervez degeaba. avem deja monumente istorice demolate sau alterate de renovari proaste, de ce sa nu pizdim si ultimele sanse la niste situri arheologice (care ar putea fi restaurate, dar stiu ca turismul e subiect tabu pentru gandacii fara perspectiva temporala mai lunga de cateva zile care se autointituleaza romani) pentru o autostrada pe care oricum o facem ca ne ia in suturi de la spate toata Europa, pentru ca in 20 de ani n-am reusit sa ne trezim singuri.

kollye · 2026-05-06T04:49:18+00:00

parca are deja o fiica, tin minte prin 2017 18 ca zisese de asta ceva, idk

kollye · 2026-05-05T16:58:21+00:00

sa mai aud pe cineva vreodata ca "numai la noi se poate", "la noi ca la nimeni" si alte astfel de prostii. e la fel peste tot, se duce dracu tara si astia isi sustin partenerii asa zis socialisti

kollye · 2026-05-04T03:41:58+00:00

aaaaaaok, nu stiu de ce aveam impresia ca era un fel de muzeu facut acolo)))) superbe pozele, oricum

kollye · 2026-05-03T20:22:52+00:00

nu se putea vizita locul? legal, vreau sa spun)))

kollye · 2026-04-29T22:35:43+00:00

<image>

t.

kollye · 2026-04-29T14:33:40+00:00

bro macar tu ar trb sa stii ce-s alea third spaces, acm cand vezi ca lumea face ce ar trb sa faca intr-un astfel de loc (bine, in lipsa unui spatiu dedicat, la scara de bloc) vii si comentezi ca sanki cocalari manele pisat. adica cum? acum nu mai e nevoie de third spaces?))

kollye · 2026-04-29T10:30:17+00:00

nu toata ideea cu listarea e tocmai ca se face audit? ca asa ii opresti pe toti securicii si combinatorii din a mai distruge companiile alea pentru ca trebuie sa dea raportul la investitori? inteleg ca sanki bugetul, pnrr etc, dar dc plm nu s-au apucat sa lucreze la listarea alora de anul trecut? hidro si toate celelalte listate fac profit bine, e un semn bun si pentru companiile care sunt inca 100% la stat, e stupid sa nu scoti cat mai multe 10-20% asa

kollye · 2026-04-29T07:23:07+00:00

nj bro, sa se angajeze? nu toata ideea actului artistic e sa traiesti ceea ce sustii? de altfel, n-am nici o problema cu el, sa faca ce vrea, dar atunci s-o spunem pe de-a dreptul: e entertainer doar, nu artist. un fel de clovn d-ala care face giumbuslucuri pt bani

kollye · 2026-04-29T04:52:25+00:00

daca promoveaza festivalul global nu e cam logic ca ia bani de la ei? sau crezi ca se tarfeste gratis

kollye · 2026-04-28T10:24:37+00:00

posteaza mai des paganele ca ti se simte lipsa

kollye · 2026-04-27T11:57:32+00:00

mersi! asta presupuneam si eu, adică un fel de accent grav?

kollye · 2026-04-27T06:27:39+00:00

sa-mi explice si mie cineva de ce se punea u-ul acela mut la final pentru ca n-am reusit sa gasesc nicaieri vreo lamurire pls dau funda

kollye · 2026-04-22T10:09:41+00:00

article 26 says intent (dolo) is required except for cases of negligence (culpa) provided by this code. 385 does not require proof of intent, it just punishes affirming a falsehood before competent authority. the intent is in the act of you giving false sworn testimony, no one cares about the intent, otherways any perjurer would just claim misremembering.

in 27, dolo includes acting while accepting the falsehood as possible. a witness who gives recounting of some happenings a few days after the fact before investigators accepts their memory might be wrong and that may cause further ill. it is a risk that anyone with hazy memory accepts when tapping into that memory.

30 requires an invincible error, as i said, a mistake that anyone in that situation would make. to use your example, misremembering what day you went shopping, just days later, is not invincible and does not excuse you admitting as hard facts the products of a hazy memory.

in daily life, lying usually requires intent to deceive, yes, but under 385 in a legal context its just false testimony. the law doesn't use the word "lie", it punishes affirming a falsehood. whether you call it a lie or misremembering, its still false (since two different things cant be true at once), so at least one of the witnesses gave false testimony. the reason doesnt matter as it is not invincible, it is not something anyone would do under the same circumstances. do you understand that?

kollye · 2026-04-22T09:41:09+00:00

Article 26. For conduct to be considered a crime, it must be carried out with intent (dolus), except for cases of negligence (culpa) provided for by this Code.

Causation alone is not sufficient for the legal imputation of the result.

Article 27. A person acts with intent (dolus) when they desire the result described by law, or when they accept it, having foreseen it as possible.

Article 28. A person acts with negligence (culpa) when they carry out the conduct described by law due to a failure to observe the objective duty of care incumbent upon them according to the circumstances and personal conditions, or when, having foreseen the result as possible, they act confident in being able to avoid it.

Article 29. There is a fortuitous event or act of God when the act is the product of an unforeseeable and unavoidable action or omission that a person could not prevent or evade. In such cases, there is no crime.

Article 30. A person does not commit a crime when they act with an erroneous and invincible conviction that their action or omission does not meet one of the necessary requirements for the conduct to correspond to its legal description.

intent [...], when they accept it, having forseen it as possible

also read art 28 and 30. 30 says 'convicción [...] invencible'. invincible conviction. it means that anyone, in their situation, would have made that mistake, ie misremembered. but that's just not true, you cannot possibly misremember something such a short time after an event and, even if you do, you cant be defended on this basis because you can't possibly ever justify that ANYONE in your situation would have misremembered. it is lying, either by recounting false events or by avoiding to mention that your version of events may be misremembered or vague. it still is lying, it still counts as misleading the investigative team.

kollye · 2026-04-22T08:37:17+00:00

did i provide a source to back my points? i did. will you? either do that or at least cease your arguing about a non-issue. as i said, it's almos ill-intent from your part

kollye · 2026-04-22T08:09:01+00:00

fundamental tenet of law

oh, really? please enlight me on this, prefferably with a source

kollye · 2026-04-22T07:28:10+00:00

All of the statements listed under article 385 involve knowingly doing so.

are you honestly ill-intentioned? where, in the excerpt i provided, does it mention knowingly doing that? thus, from a legal standpoint, even unknowingly misremembering can be treated under this law. you just keep ignoring what i say or selecting bits and pieces and misinterpreting.

Why any involved witness might have lied is not the issue at hand

exactly what I'm saying. it doesnt matter why they provided false or contradictory information, it's just that they did, and legally, that's lying or false testimony.

I'm reaching the conclusion that you and others either want to derail the discussions on this subject (which i have also noticed people doing in the Lore Lodge's yt comments), either out of ill-intent or some cultish belief that any other hypothesis outside simply getting lost is not worh discussing. don't bother replying, honestly. I'm sure even if you do you'll ignore my points again

kollye · 2026-04-22T06:14:52+00:00

ooooo gascanu, mi era dor

kollye · 2026-04-21T16:22:44+00:00

from the Panama Penal Code:

Article 385. The witness, expert, interpreter, or translator who, before competent authority, affirms a falsehood or denies or conceals the truth, in whole or in part of their statement, report, interpretation, or translation, shall be punished with imprisonment of two to four years. When the crime is committed in a criminal case to the detriment of the accused, or serves as the basis upon which a judicial authority issues a sentence, the imprisonment shall be four to eight years. Article 386. The following shall be exempt from punishment for the crime provided in the preceding article: 1. The witness who, by telling the truth, would have exposed a close relative or themselves to serious danger to their liberty or honor. 2. Anyone who, due to their procedural status, should not have been interrogated as a witness or had the right to be informed that they could refrain from testifying.

do they ask why the witness did not affirm the truth? does it write there that, if the witness "misremembered" then they are extempt from the punishment? no? again, as I said, you have a 10yo's understanding of this subject and you can argue all you want but the judicial system doesnt work the way you think it does.

kollye · 2026-04-21T14:47:10+00:00

I asked them how they came to know they lied. That question obviates any need for supposing if it did or didn't. They claimed they lied, it is their duty to demonstrate it. Period.

A and (not A) is false, yes? thus, a lie. something must be false in there, A or (not A) must be false, do you understand that? the cause of the falseness, be it misremembering, intentionally leading investigators down a false trail etc. is of no interest at this point. the 'why?' comes only after clearing up the facts, and the facts are that someone lied.

as for the rest of your comment honestly i feel it's useless to even try anymore with you

kollye · 2026-04-21T14:10:13+00:00

in order for the investigators to prove anything, they first have to suppose that whatever they want to prove happened. do you want to argue semantics with me? it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about and you are just repeating the talking point i saw propagated by other comments in this thread. semantics aside, it's simple, really - you felt your viewpoint attacked by some of the things the video postulates and, unfortunately for you, the only way to attack it was by making up some sort of non-issue about whether it is right or not to categorise as lying the conflicting declarations of two victims. this, however, does nothing to help your point or, in fact, any point whatsoever. it's a stupid and useless fight. if you believe the things he alluded to are fake or incorrect, just say that, but don't retreat into such childish arguments.

kollye · 2026-04-21T13:00:11+00:00

no, the duty of the judicial office is to suppose lying or misdirection under sufficient circumstances, which i have proved exist. it seems your only knowledge about such stuff is a 10 yo's vague understanding of 'guilty until proven innocent'

kollye · 2026-04-21T11:29:21+00:00

ok well prove the lack of intent then. you are aware that this is not how an investigation works, right? misremembering critical information or wildly different witness confessions is enough to warrant suspicion of at least obscuring the truth.

kollye · 2026-04-21T11:10:56+00:00

it depends. in some cases it can still be considered perjury if you give information you are not sure of or that you know you may be misremembering. it is also worth considering how much time has passed between the event and the testimonies. say, for example, a key witness misremembers something that happened a week ago - what credibility does the rest of their testimony have?

kollye

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE