That's the problem. People who want to believe they have enough intelligence kept arguing for his case. ("How do you explain the similarity of the signatures? Coincidence?" :rolleyes: Madame, if you were using half your brain and 1/4th your eyesight, you'd notice the signatures are not similar at all.) Sheesh.

One look at Mahusay and I knew he was conning everybody. First, he was caught stealing office supplies. Second, he has a grudge against Arroyo because he was caught.

Now, why would I believe the word of a person caught stealing and holding a grudge?

From a random thought, it's now a rant...

GMA has recently gone back on her word to "Not run in 2004". She is now "Open to the idea". The asinine biash (Deliberate misspelling.) really thinks she can win by eating her own words and acting as though she didn't have any testi... oh, right. She doesn't have any, but I don't see that as an excuse...

On another rant, I have this so-called friend who really thinks he's such a shiznit. He owes me 600 bucks (Pesos. That's around $12, which is big money to a student like me.), then says that "we're like family" (Because my mom and his parents are friends.), so he can pay me in DECEMBER. He owed me since March this year, or even earlier. He borrows my cards for RAW Deal, and I highly suspect he's *ahem* appropriating some as his own. I'm not sitting down here and letting this bastich rob (PERFECT word. His name's ROBert.) me blind.

For instance, when I finally got my title belts (Worth around $30 or so each.), he said, "Hey! WE have belts now!"

I replied, "Yep. [B]I[I] have belts now."

He also has that uber-annoying aura that is second to none. I thought I can really annoy people without having to do a thing, but he's the AUTHORITY on that. I don't even know how I managed to tolerate him all this time. Utilitarian purposes, perhaps? (We have a deal that if he makes money on the tourney I run, I get 1/3 of it. At this point, to Hades with that, he can keep the money but I KEEP MY CARDS FROM HIS GRUBBY PAWS.)

By proximity, I'm already his closest friend. By MY proximity, he's not even a friend, period.

well, isn't that the tradition of the politicians in PI? they deny running then little by little give hints that they are running until few days or months before the registration they will declare running for the whatever position.

febble rant (whoah, i guess i'm improving, at least its just feeble. :biggrin: :

i got intimidated by my professor last night. well, intimidated in a good way. i think that class would be draining. haaay. and he made me really really anxious to the point i'm considering dropping one of my subjects. oh well. let's see what will happen. and yeah, he made me think when somebody brought a topic about language. although i'm fluent in english i have to admit that my first language in still filipino. and he said that that's one barrier of being a clinician. better to practice on your first language. oh well, i'll cross the bridge when i get there.

(i told you its feeble :biggrin: )

I've got mixed feelings over this. On one hand, I'd like to see a politician be true to her word FOR the country, not FOR her campaign financiers.

On the other hand, is there really anybody else? Heaven forbid Lacson or FPJ will run on 2004. I've already dissed by nationality and tried to forget I'm Filipino after Erap won.

Iraqi oil and the right to pump it has become the exclusive right of American based multinational corporations as a result of the new "development plan". In fact even the "oil for food" program has been syphoned into this development program. Also "to speed the redevelopment of Iraqs economy" these corporations have had all liability for any crimes thier employees commit removed.

In laymans terms this basically means instead of Iraqi oil being used to pay for the welfare of the Iraqi people it is used to further enrich American oil tycoons. Well instead of money being used to pay for Saddams palaces the Iraqi people now have to pay for some oil tycoons Mansions instead...

Oh yeah and I have to go to my 8th new school tommorow! Yes, 8th! People who go to the same place and see the same people every day don't know how lucky they are. Can you imagine having to re-invent yourself and make a completely new set of friends eight times?

GEE, oil trade doesn't foster millions of new jobs, spur economic development, lend to billions in U.S. foreign aid, and promote free trade, does it?

You're right, there's no sense in Iraq entering in to a deal to sell oil exclusively to the nation that BUYS THE MOST of it at the HIGHEST PRICE! :rolleyes: :tongue:

You're missing the point. These "millions of jobs" are going to be lowly paid and also you forgot the part about the human rights voilations. Furthermore they are not selling the oil to the U.S. What I said was that the rights to pump the fairly worthless crude oil is being sold to the multinational companies by the Iraqi people for a pittance which they have been forced to pay now America is occupying thier country. The processed oil is the valuable stuff which is what the american based multinational corporations are selling back to america. Its not Iraq that is recieving the money or the Iraqi people its the corporations.

Once you understand capitalism its easy to see how silly it is. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear the first time but really was the sarcasm necessary?

P.S. Promoting free trade is not a good thing, it is an extremely bad thing. It basically means that the rich control the poor because they are free to set the prices at whatever level they want. "Free trade" means you can do whatever you like and the corporations will exploit as many people as they can to save money because they are free to do it.

*Steps off of soapbox*

Ok I think I've proved my point, now onto my main rant...

*We interrupt your regularly scheduled dose of JonTheMans insane politically driven rage because he can't risk alienating anymore non-socialists without the possibility of actually offending someone. We will try and tone down his incessant hatred of capitalism in future :biggrin: *

P.P.S. I can understand you are a patriotic American however I'm not attacking your country I am attacking the governments selfish decisions. Can you really defend George Bush snatching food from the mouths of starving children? I rest my case.

Actually, Jon, free trade is good.

Unfortunately, it's IDEALLY good, and we all know we're far from the ideal.

Unfortunately as well, I, for the life of me, cannot think of a better alternative for the time being. Free trade is indeed advantageous to 1st world countries, but without free trade, can we expect uber-cheap AIDS cocktails for African countries? Dumping is a byproduct of free trade, and so long as the dumping is done on countries that NEED it (Of course, NEED is such a grey area.), then there is no harm in that.

Don't you just hate fence-sitters like me, who don't want to go and side with or against free trade? :buck:

You're right, communism worked much better in Germany... no, wait...

The USSR? No...

Um... China! No...

North Korea!! Wait, no...

So tell me... if the only political systems which work ANYWHERE are capitalistic republics (like America) and capitalistic socialisms (like Japan), what would you like to replace capitalism with? Seriously, I'm curious as to your idea to one-up five thousand years of social development.

Idealism is all well and good. But there's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning that these people are going to be paid slave wages. Slave wages to who? A dollar/pound goes a HELL of a lot further in under-developed nations.

Human rights violations? You're kidding me, right...? How many people did Saddam slaughter each year again? America wouldn't even be IN Iraq to 'occupy' the nation as you so bluntly put it if the regime in power hadn't been developing weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists, killing it's own people, bullying defenseless nations...

Your view on free trade is unrealistic. Lets look at an example. Acme Cola decides, by gosh, let's charge people from Mexico $1.50 for a bottle of soda pop! Free trade means they're free to do that, but it also means their arch-rival Fizzy Cola can swoop in and sell soda for $1.25. Acme is forced to undercut this and sell their product for $1.10, and so on, so forth. 99% of the time, free trade benefits consumers.

Now let's take a look at a system where a service is regulated. Sparky Power Co. is the only power company allowed to supply Mexico. They decide to hike their rates. There is NOBODY who can compete with them due to regulation.

This illustrates the superiority of the free trade system.

Yes, it sucks that people in China work long hours for a dollar a day or whatever. But why don't they go get another job? Oh waaaaiiiit... China isn't a capitalistic nation!

And it comes full circle.

And yes... I do realize I tend to be overly sarcastic during political 'discussion', but that's primarily because sarcasm is a tool that allows me to make a point in plainer speak, and fewer words.

While I see the benefits of free trade, Status, allow me to point some problems with free trade:

- The Philippines and other 3rd world countries simply choke with absolute free trade. The WTO is an organization that is settled in rounds, and not via consensus, the last round being the Uruguay round which ended around 1995. This meant that countries with more muscle can easily dominate the rounds and overshadow the interests of lesser countries.

- There are benefits to free trade, but this is more realized by 1st world countries, since they can produce more efficiently than others. Countries like the Philippines, while they no doubt want to compete, simply cannot. There's a whole gap of technology and finances that has to be bridged first, and as Intellectual Property aid is being given VERY reluctantly by other 1st world nations, the lower rungs of the world are in need of being force-fed to be able to compete, but further enriching the higher-up countries in the process.

- In the event that trade is abused by, say, the United Kingdom, there are no safeguards for a country like, say, the Philippines, to be able to counteract this. This is because the WTO CANNOT enforce any trade sanctions. It can only give the Philippines the right to give a unilateral (Term used loosely.) trade sanction to the UK. Big deal to the UK. That's just one country that's hurting them, eh?

HOWEVER, to continue my being a fence-sitter, I have a very simple argument at this point:

- Are we supposed to drop free trade altogether just because it's not working? So it's not 100% great. Tell me: what political or economic system in the world is 100% great? If it's just a choice of lesser evils, then we may as well go for free trade.

That's my rant on the problems of free trade. But then, let's face it: between free trade and shutting my own country up from the rest of the world by embargoing everyone else, I'd gladly choose the former.

my stuff:
[*]the main flaw for communism is simply that it disregards equity. it's all about equality. meaning, if you work harder than comrade fuchingrate even if he slacks off from 3 to 5 pm, you both still receive $10 each.
[*]communism rilly doesn't work for china, simply because the chinese are one of the best merchants in the world. they thrived by being the oldest civilization by it. they scattered chinese blood all over the world through it. back then, the only trade restrictions were these things called uhh... pirates. :wink: but i betcha, they beat the spanish galleons in no time. (and those spanish have been at it for many years, stealing credit for discovering trade routes from the portugese who were the original best maritime travellers.)
[*]capitalism works. it rilly does. i mean... where the heck can you sell intangible goods that dun produce no direct satisfaction to its consumers except by hailing the 'concept' of the idea and make millionaires of intangible products in things called... stocks? bill gates certainly thrived in that. :cheesy:

thing is... money is actually an intangible thing. call it otherwise and i'll lead you to centuries where we had the barter system. :rofl: money is an idea. a concept that your central bank owes you this much weight in gold when what you actually have is a fancy I.O.U.

to communism, money has to be tangible. you have to feed comrade some bread even when the head honchos actually have the best lives since imperalism. money has to be counted and divided straight into what they think is the dividing line. and yet power is concentrated into the hands of the view... the ones who do the division.

communism has got to be the BIGGEST utopia of all. worse than the matrix. it's damn full of ironies and loopholes that tries to dismiss the idea before it's even created. and most of all, communism allows very little room for change. i could go on and on but bottomline is... i think the forerunners of communism are way too drunk. :rolleyes:

[*]i think free trade is good, but there should be a level playing ground. for now, the WTO in the philippines works against us not for us. it works for the foreigners, not for the filipinos.

it kills our SMEs because of the competition that's too intense. i mean, for a country who's still using water buffalos to irrigate crops must mean our production even for agricultural products (which we are known for) will be pretty low.

i think there should be some MORE restrictions for countries like us. more favors perhaps. less taxes. something like that. currency is low against the dollar.

This post is partly a statement of political theory but a great deal of it is a response to Status' last post.

Hmm so just because I hate the fact America is exploiting the world that automatically makes me a communist right?

No, my friends it most certainly doesn't. People are individuals and don't deserve to be labeled things without any objective evidence. I never said instantly phasing out Free Trade instantly was a good idea either. I'm a gradualist. People should start evolving free trade and capitalism rather than making the divides between rich and poor even greater.

Furthermore Japans goverment is in no way socialist. It has no state welfare system and it tramples on the proleteriat just as much as any other capitalist nation. So if Japan is a socialist nation that means you've been agreeing with me all this time and contradicting yourself?

Free trade can sometimes benefit consumers in first world countries. The emphasis on sometimes. However you seem to be forgetting that to lower those prices they need money. Do you know where that money comes from? It comes from forcing third world labourers to work longer hours for less pay. Don't try using the argument that consumers are benefited in those countries either. For example these "Acme Cola" and "Fizzy Pop" companies will try and undercut eachother to a certain extent they are hardly going to lower thier prices to something an average Third world consumer can afford are they? As I said they'll use those peoples desperation to ergo lower prices to the first world consumer.

So MY argument comes full circle. If you take a look at the facts I think you'll find its hardly "unrealistic"

So just because Saddam Hussien commited human rights voilations means its ok for Americans to do it for some unknown reason? Sorry but I'm not following you...

Another thing while you assume that the only alternative to capitalism is communism on the far left which is flawed but occasionally does work. How about we check out the far right instead? Facism? That didn't work at all did it?

How about instead of you being sarcastic towards me, Status by automatically assuming I utterly support every decision a communist leader ever made. How about I assume you completely support Hitler, Mussolini and Oswald Mosley? I won't because thats not my style. Just Assuming things about other people you don't know and using sarcasm to boot under the facade of civilized debate is your style not mine.

Bottom line is: The key is moderation. While we should encourage personal freedom and allow people incentive to work we should also slowly drop the maximum income and lessen the power of the rich. This should be done slowly but it should start soon. My original point was that capitalism is rowing this boat in the opposite direction and we need a REAL Socialist-type democracy to put us back on track. For example I think giving people the incentive to earn the maximum of say, three hundred grand a year is good enough for incentive. I don't think our current system in which someone can own three hundred cars in thier own private warehouses which they never use while only a couple miles away people are suffering from extreme poverty and hunger is ok (True story)

I'm tired now though, I think I'll lay off social hot-spots for a while in case I have to explain this all AGAIN...
Since I'm talking about moderation here well done to Voldemort on pointing out both sides of the argument rather than being extremist

Until next time... "Farewell, comrades and long live ze proleteriat!" :tongue:

Damn it, I always notice these kind of threads when I'm not in a fit state to answer! Just wait until I sober up. The wrath of a liberal social elitist is a sight to behold :biggrin:

But seriously, I look forward to holding inteligent political discusion.

Jon, no disrespect to you as a sparing partner, but I'm bowing out of this now. You simply remind me too much of someone else I used to debate for me to be comfortable with any kind of continued discussion. :sweatface:

I'm a bit insulted that you would rattle about how sarcastic and assumptuous I am, but made several sarcastic and condecending jabs at me yourself in light of what were solid and genuine debate points on my part. These types of conversations tend to lead to everyone just rephrasing the same post eight or nine times anyway, so I just have a couple of things to say on my way out...

Firstly, you begin your post by saying how wrong I am to describe your slant as Communistic, and you end your post by saying we should distribute wealth, and impose earning caps - both KEY attributes of the communist ideal. Uhhh... :buck:

Secondly, your $300,000 salary cap would destroy the economy of every major industry. With nobody to finance business, there will be no jobs, no services, no goods, nothing. So then the Government is forced to finance EVERYTHING, leading to every type of corruption you can imagine. Don't believe me? Study Russia from 1920 - 1980. Or North Korea up to the present day. Or...

Communism leads only to Tyranny.

Impose a wage cap on a developed nation of your choice. You'll have a broken-down shell of a country within a decade. the late 1900s and the fall of Communism PROVED this to be the case.

Lastly,

I believe "Emerging nation" would be more politically correct than "Third world", but I digress.

Coincidentally, the Philippines are considered 'Emerging' - or as you bluntly put it, "Third World"... and 90% of the board is Filipino! So... with no spin on anyone's part, I can debunk your argument with one question if someone will indulge me.

To the Asian board members: With the greatest respect intended... are soft drinks so outrageously expensive in the Phils that you couldn't afford a soda?

Case rested. :biggrin:

I got this from the mail. I know the man (I think I've exchanged letters with him once and he had my letter printed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer), but I won't divulge his name...


Here's the content:

I nearly had dinner with Panfilo Lacson once.

He invited me. In the world I inhabit, it is always better to oblige the invitations of men like him.

That was during a curious time. Joseph Estrada was president. Panfilo Lacson was chief of the national police.

A strange report emanated from some strange source listing a number of media personalities as being part of a "destabilization plot". At the top of that list was Bubby Dacer, an influential public relations practitioner. Dacer, we will recall, subsequently disappeared nearly without trace.

I wanted to know, from anyone willing to tell, why my name is on such a list. To be sure, I am capable of harsh commentary when that is deserved. But I am too much of a lone wolf, a solitary mind too flagrant and transparent to be a useful part of any conspiracy.

I wanted to ask Lacson why such a list exists. It was a brilliant list that included some of the media commentators I most respect for their courage. The report was suspiciously sourced and suspiciously released. It was obviously intended to intimidate people who bask too joyously in the freedom of the press we theoretically enjoy.

Too bad, for some reason, Lacson did not make it to the agreed time and place. He did not even bother to call in and explain or apologize. And so I spent the evening in the company of Lacson aide Cesar Mancao, talking about nothing in particular and glancing at my watch every now and then.

It was not an unpleasant evening, I must say. If one ignores all the derogatory things they say about what Mancao does, he turned out to be a rather polite and attentive fellow. I suppose he is a nice guy if you are not on his bad side.

At that time, I knew very little about Lacson beyond what one reads in the news. But that night, I arrived at the conclusion that Lacson was the sort of character who has very little respect for others.

I did not mention this to Mancao. Prudence dictates that one keeps unflattering insights to one's self, especially if it is about men who bear arms.

When Dacer disappeared subsequently, I valued my prudence even more.

Since then, I kept an eye out for Lacson. After declaring he would never enter politics, he ran for the Senate. By the volume of paraphernalia he unleashed during the campaign, it is arguable he outspent every other candidate in the field.

The stories about him are indeed colorful, to put it politely. He is an intriguing character, to be sure, one who tends to burn every bridge he crosses.

I have always wondered why people he once associated with, the Berroyas, the Matillanos, the Tulfos and the Rosebuds of this world, hate him with a passion. This has to be a question of character.

This man, I am sure, is feared. But is he loved?

He was a policeman. That we know. But does he also personify the police state, one that treats the population not as citizens but as suspects?

He does seem inclined to see the dark side of everything. He rummages through the stuff of others, invades their privacy, and puts everyone's integrity in question. He makes reckless, intimidating accusations and seems to think little about ruining the reputations of others.

Last week, I found my name on yet another derogatory list. This time it emanates directly and explicitly from Lacson, by way of a shrill but seriously disjointed (not to mention horribly crafted) Senate privilege speech.

As in the first list during Estrada's time, I find myself in the company of people I hardly know. We are all accused by the senator of the grand crime of frequenting the very public office of Mike Arroyo.

There is no specific offense that Lacson charges me, a specific offense that will allow me to defend my honor. There is only insinuation and innuendo, therefore dis-abling an honorable defense. Since the speech was made under the cover of parliamentary immunity, an ordinary citizen like myself could libeled liberally. We are defenseless against senatorial slander.

The burden of responsibility should be on Lacson, since he made that accusatory speech. But then, that too is a question of character.

I am not sure how good Lacson's command of the English language is and what he could possibly mean by frequenting. For the record, let me say I have been to Mike Arroyo's office twice in my entire life. At both instances, at his behest, I helped out in brainstorming the messages he would bring to overseas Filipino communities. This was during that brief period when it was considered that he be deployed as some sort of special envoy to the OCWs.

Since that assignment was reconsidered, our work went to naught. At any rate, I was compensated for my labors with a bunch of golf balls emblazoned with the presidential seal. I value those balls highly and refuse to use them. With the quality of my golf swing, I have a propensity for losing balls to water hazards.

I did not, understandably, suspect that those two working visits would entrap me in Lacson's surveillance of the First Gentleman. I did not expect that those visits would drag me into some wild story peddled by the senator about Mike Arroyo's nondescript building, its occupants and the things they do.

His speech last week supports my first conclusion about this man.

I do feel seriously violated by Lacson's speech. But that is not important.


What is more important is that Lacson, by his lonesome, has now poisoned the air and set the tone for a bitter and destructive electoral contest in the run-up to May 2004. This will be a hysterical contest of character assassination and irresponsible mudslinging. With Lacson there, this cannot be a politics of issues and visions; only of intimidation and insinuation.

I pray that through all the imperfections and confusions of our tenuous democracy, those who are too free to be intimidated outnumber those too timid to be free.


----------------


I hope BPI and other banks sue Lacson's ass. He needs some major ass-whipping right now.

While I do not question the fact that there's a huge credibility gap on Lacson's side, what I must wonder is...

Why is Mike Arroyo's brother using the name Jose Pidal? What's wrong with using his real name?

And... why can't these swindlers use a different code name without JOSE somewhere in the name?

I am not going to respond to the whole comment because Status conveyed my basic opinion on this topic very well but I would like to see a source on the comment above. As far as I know there are some lax safety regulations currently in Iraq but I have heard nothing about this. I welcome you to educate me :biggrin:.

Businessmen do it all the time. My ex's dad has so many "business names" when we look for her dad in hotels, this is what happens:

Ex: "What room is Mr. ____ in?"
Receptionist: "Err...we don't have that name here."
Ex: ...enumerates all the other names she could remember her father has...


The problem with banks is that you can only insure for up to PhP100,000. What most people do (Ichi and I actually do this too) is that they deposit in different accounts and different names. Some of my money I convert into dollars, too. So there are different accounts for peso and dollar earnings.

With reguards to the jon/status bout, I have to agree with Status about comunistic leanings. Even as a man of centre left (ish) politcal views, I realise that a salary cap would cause no end of trouble. A better solution to the problem of the rich poor divide would be to enforce more stringently the tax laws. As it stands, a significant proportion of the worlds money is tied up in off shore accounts, or in switzerland etc. This means that no tax is payed on that money and the rich give nothing back to society. Having a more progressive tax system which was actually implemented would provide a workable solution.

On the wider front of left/right politics. I believe that the only tenable answer is to be central. I myself follow the traditional European standpoint of rightish on economics and leftish on social policy. Unfortunately, here in Europe with have a massive population of countries that hate each other. Couple that with a European government that makes ridiculous laws because it knows that no-one will follow them..... except England due to our national nature of conformity.

The left right issue is not the major consideration for myself however. I find it much more important to be a liberal. I am very disturbed by the recent rise of the neo-cons in the US and I know that exporting the American version of democracy will not work. These people need to realise that imposing democracy is futile. It needs to be incouraged.

Anyway, I realise I actually haven't made a point but I feel a rant about Israel coming on so I'll continue later.

But I will say before I go that democracy doesn't really work and I believe there may be a better way. It's kind of hard to explain though so I'd better have a think first.

this is what i love about OB. i don't have to rummage on PDI (Philippine Daily INquirer) just to learn new things about my country.

one thing that frustrates me the most about our country is that people tend to abuse power. i guess this does not only happen to PHilippines but in other countries as well. But in the Philippines its too blatant but noone is doing anything to stop this. well i guess there are some people doing something but their vioce is not loud enough or they are six feet under by now. so everybody specially the politicians dances with the same rythm. and you could see this the most during election time.

sometimes i wonder if two-party system is better in our country. (i bet a lot will argue) i just thought about this when i see how chaotic the election here in california is. we are having a recall election anytime soon. i guess a lot of people were dissatisfied with the current governor. during election recall anyone could run for governor like in the Philippines. and mind you, all the slashing and slandering is also happening although there's a little more class to it. and same with the philippines, actors run for office too. yes, arnold schwarzeneger (stupid name i can't spell :rolleyes: ) is running for governor. also a bar owner and regular people (well the mere fact they're running kinda tells you their not so regular after all :rolleyes: ) are running for office. so now it becomes chaotic. although there are major people running for office and out of i think 36 people running only 6 are being focused on the rest are just nuisance candidates.

think about it though, from all these nuisance candidates there are people bound to vote them and with the low voting turnout here in US its not gonna do any good for california.

my point is, i saw the difference between two-party system and multi-party system. although you don't have much choice between two candidates its less chaotic and they will focus more on outdoing each other hopefully for the better of the country.

i know i digress a lot about the political systems just to take the discussion in another route. its heating up too much. :biggrin: and besides you guys have made your point. no need reiterating it right? :wink:

For the record, I didn't say "salary cap" I just said it should be enough incentive for anyone. My opinion is that there should not be a salary cap as I explained before I said I am a gradualist and believe that there should be a moderate alteration between the rich and poor divide over time rather then an instant and radical change to an established system. I said "maximum" because I thought that was the most anyone would really need to make themselves happy. Try and understand the difference between me and a Communist rather then stating your point about how communism doesn't work for the third time.

Furthermore, Status I think its odd you say I was insulting you when the first time I ever heard you refer to me it was a sarcastic comment insulting my intellegence. I tried to be civil in my post responding to that by saying I understood your views but there was no need for sarcasm. You responded in a hostile manner so I am afraid any rudeness (which was toned down from what I would liked to have said) was just self-defence.

Phillipines? Where the hell did I mention anything about the Phillipines?! I would like to remain civil with you, Status and stay polite but I am starting to get very annoyed.

I am dissapointed that it had to come to that but you must understand some people are more sensetive then others and what may be "kindly jabs" to you may be considered "vicious insults" to me.

I would just like to say in case there has been misunderstanding... I AM NOT A COMMUNIST I AM A LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST GRADUALIST WHICH DOES NOT MEAN COMMUNISM!!! ITS CENTER LEFT NOT FAR LEFT!!!

I will now also bow out of this discussion as I am getting extremely frustrated and I am on the brink of saying something I may regret.

Still as much anger as I have I still believe in love and peace. Until next time "thank you and good night". I hope me and Status can get along with eachother in time. Don't reply to this post just continue talking about something else I want this to just end.

okeh... let's not tread on the personal stuff here... albeit, political talks always get personal because it's part of who we are.
debates are okeh. they're bound to happen. let's keep it all healthy... happily disagreeing.

but please watch your tone from now on, si'l vous plait? let's not point fingers at who's rude or not. raise it to an admin or mod (or another mod). we're the ones who are supposed to do that.

okeh? :)

In the Philippines? Heck, we can afford everything. Expensive software, expensive games, and just about everyone--including the jologs (trans: the uneducated "miscreants of society")--is playing Ragnarok Online (where you have to pay a monthly fee just to log into). :biggrin:

No, seriously, we used to have these local cola brands but Coke and Pepsi squashed them. Why? Because the multinational companies pay higher salaries and have better benefits for their employees. In our country, much as I hate to admit it, we put more importance on our individual selves than the nation.

That's why we'd probably ALWAYS be a third world country. Our politicians are too busy politicking and slinging mud at each other, trying to outwit one another at the expense of our international image. I'm afraid, we will never really emerge... Or if we do, I won't live to see it. :(

But going back to your question, yes, we can afford cola. :sweatface:




What can I say? If you're looking for international intelligence, you'll find it here in OB. He he.

Yes, niknok, I agree with you that it's better for us to have a two-party system. If we had that to begin with, Erap wouldn't have won for president back in '98. If you notice, all the votes were scattered onto different parties because there were so many intellectual candidates but ONLY 1 JOLOGS (and that's Erap) that the uneducated moviegoers love.



As for the communism debate here... I don't agree with communism. But in the case of my country, I'd rather have martial law. But please, educate the people. What's most irritating about this country is that EVERYONE knows how to speak/read English but that's all we're mostly good at. And they say we have a 98% literacy rate? Pleeeeeeaaase...

I don't think the Philippines is ready for democracy. But if we do retain democracy, I'd rather have a president who's as stiff as Singapore's.

Everytime I say this people look at me like I'm crazy. Nice to know I'm not alone.

Didn't I just previously say you're my male version... only you're more evil than I am. :rofl:

But you know, you're not alone. Even my parents agree with me on this (and you know I'm always quarreling with my parents)...

You two are crazy! lol.

Anyway, we wouldn't know what works best without trying all possiblities, but is the possible solution worth the price of changing the system when we're not keeping afloat? ...that's not for me to answer, but I don't like having a centralized government. :laugh:

I definitely agree with sky and snakecharmer. Given with a good president, I also prefer Philippines under martial law. :D Just look at the Marcos administration, the country experienced less crimes, no (or less ) rallies, and the people are more diciplined. There was peace :D (accdg. to my parents coz I wasn't born yet :sweatface: ) But history books gave Marcos a bad name...

Human rights were being violated. That's why.

But not all martial law systems have to be that way. I think that it looked good on paper, but really plain failed on execution for Marcos.

And please, Marcos was good for his first term. That's it.

(In case I sound a bit miffed, my grand uncle happens to be someone named Ninoy Aquino. It's bad enough his progeny and siblings are discrediting his name. Let's stop at that.)

Actually, the history books before were burned by the Marcoses. Some of my great aunts, who were schoolteachers, tried to save those books by hiding them.

Marcos wanted history to begin with him.

Glad that didn't happen.

I think the person who should rule in martial law shouldn't be married. LOL! I mean, anyone would fall if they were married to Imelda. If it's not shoes, it's some other fetish the country's money would fall into.

Then again, most of our history is pretty warped. We can't even decide on whether it was "The Cry of Pugad Lawin" or "The Cry of Balintawak" since they're two different places. Plus the dates are just as screwed.

World War II destroyed almost everything for the Philippines and when everyone was trying to start anew, schoolteachers from everywhere were called to write history books. The problem is, they relied on word-of-mouth and put in stories from their barrios that were not even true. So in the end, there emerged what we now know as "Philippine History."

OT: Oh yeah, I was in SM Makati and Imelda Marcos passed by me with maids and bodyguards around her, and she was dressed in fuschia. :buck: Not to mention taht she was acting like she was still the First Lady.

i agree with sky on martial law. i'm actually for marcos (sorry voldee, we're still firends right?) i think he was one of the best presidents but the worst in the case of human rights. filipinos have to be disciplined. its one of the things that's killing our nation (first are the politicians)

someone not married, hmmn, good idea... Vote niknok for president!!! :laugh:

Hmm just thought I'd ask...

What's the first thing that comes to mind whenever you're asked what you're most proud of as a citizen of your country? :wave:

i'd say my language. :biggrin: and the diverse ethnicity of my country , your country too! :biggrin:

oh yeah, and the talents that we bring out, singers and workforce. even the love-bug virus guy. :laugh:

You're right on saying Marcos was one of the best. For his first term, that is. Martial law had its nice points, but it was beginning to send the economy to a downward spiral, being continually rebuffed by Imelda's attempt at a Golden Age of art.

But then, the human rights violations was too huge a problem to overlook. Where else can you see a word like "salvage" suddenly connoting its very opposite meaning to an entire coutnry?

What I'm proud about is that a lot of our people are intelligent enough to get ourselves out of sticky situations...as individuals.

The problem is, a lot of us are so smart we try to outwit each other and we're so damn proud when we were able to cheat on some people.

Going back to political talks...

Actually, Imelda did bring the Golden Age of the Arts. That's one thing I'm thankful for. But I really hate it when she out and out lies on TV about being concerned for the Filipinos. BS.

Would you say GMA's move of telling the U.S. Supreme Court off for meddling in the Marcos affair was a good one?

Yes, it does enforce the Philippine sovereignty, but we still have to fight for those accounts now...

Rock on Dark_Stalker for the George Bush post

Do you know what a pentagon general did recently when a journalist asked him about the Bush administrations human rights voilations in Iraq? He called him a communist and when the reporter continued another general simply told him to 'stop the camera'.

This man was not a Communist and he had the right to know about the motives behind the goverments actions.

Really this isn't a condescending dig just a simple summing up of how liberals and socialists like me get accused of blocking free speech by accusing the Bush administration of imperialism when all we're doing is trying to defend freedom.

No, Status I don't want to argue. Peace man :sweatface:

It was violating board rules, JontheMan. and Status didn't delete the topic, everyone's still free to view it, and it's not like he was taking Dark_Stalker's rights away. How can you think Status did the wrong thing?



I hate how the political arena in the Philippines works. The non-ruling parties blatantly and obviously try to take the administration a peg or two down with their schemes and spin doctors. Agh! and it's not like the parties have radically different platforms either! Every politician is talking about making the Philippines great again, but why not work together? The senate is investigating everyone and anyone but their own! Ping Lacson was scheduled to be investigated before he unleashed his accusations on the First Gentleman through his priviledge speeches (and his presentations are designed to target the public rather than his colleagues). After that, everyone seems to have forgotten about investigating Lacson, even though other investigations are ongoing. :rant:

I didn't say he was doing the wrong thing. In fact I edited my post in case it ended up sounding like that.

If he was breaking the rules thats fine, let the topic be locked. I wasn't bothered about Status DOING it. I was bothered that the rules were structured so he HAD to do it.

And what about the crass human right abuses committed by Saddam and his dysfunctional family? IMO displacing native populations by draining the marshland they call home; gassing and waging genocide on part of your population; jailing, torturing, and killing political opponents; and misusing funds intended to pay for food to build palaces and buy weapons and other stuff seems to be a little bit more worrisome than the occasional civillian casaulty through combat.

Even though I'm moderate by nature and a registered Republican, I'm not particularly fond of the Bush administration for many reasons. However I'm a little disturbed about how the political and ideological left seems to be labeling Bush as the antichrist or the next Hitler. For a lack of a better way of putting it, they're being a bigger bunch of ignorant, self-interested, dolts than parts of the Bush administration.

I'm not really sure how the left is really trying to preserve the freedom in this country. They want to limit civil liberties to their own perverse definitions. As well they have certainly done a wonderful job creating a culture of dependence in inner cities by turning the education system there into a major FUBAR over the course of a few decades. The environmentalist left certainly want to create an open business climate by throwing around frivolous and half-ass environmental claims that cost companies millions to defend in court. Is freedom really sought by creating more government programs and the government taking over parts of the private sector?

I don't want to have to reiterate my "starving children" posts again so just reference back to them.

Anyway the British left has done so much good since the second world war-

The NHS, a free healthcare system
Much higher minimum wages
A revitalized economy since the disaster that was the Margaret Thatcher years

Now look at what the British right has managed to do

Start the Poll tax(nuff' said)
Induce Britain into a Reccession
Made the train systems vastly ineffecient
Made thousands of coal miners unemployed and eventually homeless over a grudge

I think this shows that the left will almost always be a better economical choice as well as a humanitarian one. When the consumer gets richer it creates more demand for industry. When industry expands the economy grows. How do you think Roosevelt got America out of the post stock market crash? By creating public works and enabling the masses of unemployed to buy things again.

As I've said before just because Saddam led a brutal government doesn't mean that its ok for America to do the same. It's not just a few civilian casualities y'know. Its a whole lot of downtrodden and poverty-stricken populace who are getting badly treated by the same policemen that Saddam used.

Self-interested dolts? The left? "The left" is a huge huge demographic that you can't just generalize over it, please be more specific before saying stuff like that. Whats your motivation anyway? Criticizing George Bush doesn't automatically make you a self-interested dolt.

Anyway the original Socialist credo is: Each to his ability. To each his need.

Ideological yes but if we all live our lives well and with a regard for our fellow men and women I hope we can one day achieve it." You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Pherhaps someday you will join us and the world will live as one". Another great Socialist, God rest his soul.

Anyway I really am surprised by the ammount of right-wing opposition I've faced here. I assumed everyone would generally agree with me. I find it very difficult to write so many long posts while making time for fun and work. So I ask that from now on you adress any questions or arguments you would have for me to this site as I really would like to retire in this topic and return to daily non-political life. I promise to stop this time but politics are so addictive and you can't stop talking about them until you realize you've talked about them far more than is healthy for a teenage boy

http://www.socialistinternational.org/main.html
:biggrin:

British politics ain't my thing, but I do know the much vaunted healthcare system is a gigantic mess where the best option is to pay for a private hospital. Free Healthcare systems have a horrible track record.

Thatcher seemed to be a good leader...

---

Yes, Roosevelt did help to jump start an economy that would have eventually recovered, but the resulting beuracracy was not much to get crazy about.

---

What are your sources on the alleged US human rights abuses? You do know the US is trying to build up a country whose infrastructure was seriously screwed over by its last leader. The majority of the poor you speak about are from last regime btw. Such problems cannot be solved over the course of a few months.

---

That's ignorant, self-interested dolts, but you are right... not all the left are so... just the majority of pundits who are living in some fantasy land where the political right happen to be percieved as the greatest evil in the world and Bush is the evil dark overlord. Name calling aside I would not consider myself in that category because I'm patiently waiting for a good moderate canidate for the Presidency instead of going chicken little and venomous like a lot of critics are.

---

Sure the credo isn't "How can government can hold your hand today?" :biggrin:

---

I'll never become a socialist because that ideology is an inherent failure that goes against human nature.

this is by no means an attempt to side with any nationality, race, etc. just an objective little thing i wish to add.

the US did have human rights abuses -- cases documented in the philippines. during the so-called "40 years of hollywood" before they made this country a commonwealth, some historians agree that they committed war atrocities in the same way as japan. one american general even told his soldiers, when raiding a filipino village, "the more filipinos you kill, the more you will please me."

there are many reasons why they are not at par with japan in terms of pre-WWII atrocities, thanks to good governor generals like william howard taft. and of course, there's douglas macarthur who came and took the philippines off from the japanese.

that was history. in the last decade, there were a dozen reports of american soldiers shooting aetas (filipino negroid ethnic tribe) who stayed a little over the US bases that were here. the argument was mistaken identity, the right to defend themselves... except the shootings had been more frequent. and also, the aetas are a very friendly tribe, not at all interested in joining any rebel groups. they are content to live in the forests and until now remain as hunter-gatherers. they still use "primitive" bows and arrows to hunt wild boars.

also, they helped the americans a lot when they set up their bases here. it was these aetas who helped them navigate the lush rainforests in this country and they also taught them how to survive in there -- using bamboo shoots to build fire, etc. i thought it was actually reminiscent of how native americans taught the first pilgrims when they build jamestown and other colonies. that's why i'm pretty surprised that there were documented shootings of people from this tribe. it's hard to think it's a case of mistaken identity or guards thinking they're rebels.

(Just some random political ramblings here. Recent events have irked me and I started babbling this stuff into my LJ. Also thought to share my thoughts here for discussion.)

As a general rule, I tend to shy away from anything political in nature. I disliked being forced to campaign as an SC candidate in high school, but relented only because there were *few* of us in high school (there were 16 in our 4th year batch. That's the entire class right there, but I digress...).

During college, I kept a *shrug*-"Eh." attitude towards anything SC-related. It didn't help that I thought there was a *lot* of bickering between the various SC groups and the two political parties in school.

****

With government or real-life politics, I kept my eye on the news, but mostly did nothing about it. It took me four years to finally register as a voter. Now that I am one, I'm wondering whether I should vote at all in the upcoming elections.

****

See, I don't really expect much from politicians. But one thing I'd like to see in a politician is political will and a word of honor. The past president probably didn't even know what the latter meant, but I had hopes for the present one.

****

I don't care if our present president is a woman and has the "privilege to change her mind". I care that she would put it on record that she won't run for reelection and she recently just announced that she *will* run.

I hate the impression this makes. How could we trust what she says in the future when she doesn't give us reason to believe what she said in the past? If she came to people and promised to give them jobs, it'll sound like another hollow campaign promise...

****

...yet the common people feed on hollow campaign promises. How often did the Pinoy masses place their faith in someone based on their onscreen or TV persona and get a non-performing public servant? How often do we vote a guy because he's popular and because of the idea that "our vote would wasted because the guy won't win anyway, so vote for someone else who's popular."

For Christ's sakes, we have a mayor that spends more time on TV doing stupid gags in a sitcom than he probably spends in his office. The only time we see results are six months before the elections, where I see it all as an excuse to have his name printed in large letters on posters announcing the project.

****

Switching to the Parliamentary system won't change that. If anything, the same people in Congress will be able to get themselves elected as Parliament members. They know how to win votes, whether by hook or by crook.

And if the same Old Boy's Club gets elected, it'll be easier for some of them to get the Prime Minister position merely by keeping his fellows and compadres happy, the people be damned.

****

A Parliamentary system works in other countries where the people have learned that they should be conscientious about who they vote into office. They know that if they vote the wrong people into power, they'd end up with nothing to show for it. Parliaments in the UK, Canada, and Japan were built as a form of check and balance against oppressive rulers. With them, the People got the power.

****

But in our case, that's not the way this country works. We don't vote critically and about issues. Personalities win elections. Frankly speaking, the rich don't really give a damn who wins... they know that they can just leave the country if business goes bad. The poor have lived all their lives distrusting politicians, so they just vote for whoever's projecting the "Protector of the Masses" campaign line, even if such is not true.

The middle class is where I think the change in mindset should begin. They alternate between the idea of the rich ("Bail out when things go bad.") or the poor ("Don't waste your votes on someone who's not going to win.").

Don't know if this is accurate, but I seem to remember that in all of history significant changes are always bought by the middle-class. Well, except for the Socialist revolution, but they still had to be financed there, right?

****

The argument about not using your votes on someone who is "not going to win anyway" is stupid... and self-fulfilling. It's like your vote is a bet ticket at a race track. And the more people subscribe to this idea, the more votes will be removed from deserving candidates and given to popular ones.

So what if your candidate didn't win. You voted according to *your* principles and belief. And you *didn't* vote for someone you wouldn't want in the position.

I don't think that's a wasted vote.

****

Meh. With all the crap I'm babbling out, I'd better cast my vote on the next election. Walk your talk, as the saying goes.

I think you missed their point. and your analogy is seriously flawed because horses/dogs don't win because of votes.

I think of it as choosing the lesser evil. Against "greater evil": Mr. Evil Spin Doctor, do I vote for "good": the unpopular dream candidate who has no chance of winning, or "lesser evil": the popular better-than-the-greater-evil-candidate? For me, there's no contest. I'd vote for the popular dood because I sure as hell don't want Mr. Evil Spin Doctor, whom the united opposition fielded as a single standard bearer to win. Why do that? Because if I voted for the dream candidate, Mr. Evil Spin Doctor will surely win. If I voted for the lesser evil, he may have a chance to beat the wildly popular greater evil. It's strategic voting. In this light, the wasted vote would be the vote placed on the unpopular dream candidate who has no chance of winning, and the price would be six long years of office for someone you strongly disapproved of.

She doesn't have the "privilege to change her mind" because she's a woman. :sweatface: She does, because at the time she said that, she didn't have the popularity she enjoys now. It also could've been a white lie because the country certainly benefitted from it for some months, and that's ok with me.

I can still trust her. The promise is like this one: Would I begrudge them a second comeback show? Hell no. They were good at it, and there'd be no reason why they'd suck the second time around. GMA, many will say, did a good job, even those who thought it was very wrong for her to run again said so in their interviews.

I might even vote for her if even if Roco runs. why? because continuity is a factor in effectivity. Major policy changes, changes in dept. heads, (etc.) disrupt the flow of things. Even if president GMA won't do a better job than Roco, all things being equal, things aren't equal - GMA will probably have done better by the end of the six year term because she had a headstart, and more importantly, experience in the office. This is why I want Roco as the vice president.

Like I said at the beginning of my post, I'm not politically savvy enough since I tend to keep myself away from politics. It's just that recent events made me think of stuff. :)

However, I don't think my analogy about votes and race track bets is flawed because that's how I interpret the message I always get: "Sayang ang boto mo kung siya ang boboto mo. Hindi naman iyan mananalo eh." (Don't waste your vote on him, he's not going to win anyway.) It's like you're a fool for voting on what you believe is right rather than what other people are predicting.

I'd be nice if it's a choice of the lesser evil, like you described. But sometimes, I feel that *a lot* of people also got duped by the Lesser Evil's Spin Doctors as well.

(If I remember right, who was the Greater Evil and Lesser Evil between De Venecia and Estrada anyway? :sweatface: I'd rather vote for someone else than say I supported one of them.)

I won't, however, debate on your stand with GMA because, well, I'd rather agree to disagree on that issue. While I won't begrudge your point that continuity would be best for the country, I still think her political maneuverings are going to be disadvantageous and not condusive to a united, productive government in the long run.

But then, what *would* unite the government with all the petty bickering within it, ne? :rolleyes:

you would know the lesser evil by the events that followed. clearly you can see how estrada was the greater evil. not just the greater evil, man... estrada was the most stupid, most corrupt, most incompetent president in the history of the philippines.

now, if you can't see that before he was even elected, i'd say that would prolly be because of too much idealism, idolism or apathy. i mean, it's very very obvious that estrada would be that kind of president! too obvious in fact that i'm pretty sure the influencers of this country -- the business groups and civil society -- know that they would have to launch a revolution later on. dun let those people in EDSA II tell you they didn't know.

i voted for de venecia for the sole purpose of not allowing estrada to win. not a noble cause but i sure am proud i did not vote for estrada.



every politician does their own maneuvering. i dun see how that's going to affect a united government. (er... what united government? :cheesy: )

Like I said, it's a personal choice with me. I don't know if I could have voted for De Venecia in those circumstances (mind you, I was not yet eligible to vote then and was admittedly apathetic of the whole election thing, except for rolling my eyes everytime I see the campaign gimmicks of both De Venecia and Estrada). Maybe it's just that I'm just too optimistic that I think all those "lesser evil" votes given to the right candidate would make a difference...

I know that Estrada had more votes than probably a third of the other candidates combined (don't have the figures right now). Still, this is looking into the future, and I hope enough of the old Estrada supporters have learned something by now...



Yep. That was why I was rolling my eyes at my own statement. I'm optimistic, but not *that* optimistic. :sweatface:

It's an ideal, though... and something I wish this country would have. :sweatface:

regarding the president changing her mind: it has been a tradition in the country not to announce they are running not the campaign starts or near the campaign season. although i'm not saying we should always uphold the tradition but i don't think changing her mind about running for the upcoming election would affect her performance as a president.

about shoosing the lesser evil: i think in any thrid world country where corruption is a given thing (heck even here in california its like that) you just have to do that. choose the lesser evil. because all of them has their own vested interest. imagine how expensive it is to run for office and how little the salary is. so you know that money is coming from somewhere else. but if they still do good to the country why not vote them. compared to a guy whose vested interest is known to the public and his liasons are known to the public and the country's economy is still plummeting, no assurance of a better future. i'd go for the first one.

on a lesser note: i might not be living in my country but i can vote, throuhg absentee voting. ^_^ but i think the registration is done and over with :sweatface: