«

»

Dec 09

Let them eat Concon

It was nauseating watching Speaker de Venecia, Zubiri, Teodoro and Villafuerte and company on TV trying to turn the tables on a public baying for their blood.

Last night Ellen Tordesillas gave the lowdown on what would happen today, and it happened. The President did an about-face, blinked, and pulled away from the House.Renato Constantino Jr. was kicked out of the press conference -old congressional habits die har, as Villafuerte’s bellowing at Constantino showed.

What the Speaker did was not quite throw in the towel or adopt a proposal for a Constitutional Convention completely. They’ve only provisionally done so (the House leadership). In truth, nothing has changed from their position from last Thursday: they said they’d give the Senate three days to participate or not, in a Constituent Assembly. Now, they’re trying to deflect attention by calling what the think is the Senate’s bluff, by saying Senate should now move on a Constitutional Convention. But -and this is how we see the House leadership’s true colors- if the Senate does not do what the House leadership wants, within the House’s deadline, then the House will go ahead and do what it wanted to do -go it alone.

This is a classic demonstration of the Five Stages of Grief but it’s up to you to decide which stage the House is in.

The political gamble here seems simple enough: deflect public outrage by trying to pin the problem created by the House, on the Senate; try to deflate gathering public opposition not just in Metro Manila but the provinces (I’ve just returned from Bacolod and was amazed by the ferocity of outrage over what the House has been doing); prevent the House being besieged by protesters on Monday or Tuesday and Luneta and public plazas in Visayas and Mindanao being filled with indignant people next Friday; divide public opinion by dangling a reformist statement while hoping no one notices they haven’t really changed their minds or intentions.

Just as the House has tried to flout every reasonable principle of parliamentary behavior and our legislative system, they’re doing it with their proposal. The House can never, ever, under any circumstances, impose a time limit on a co-equal branch; and an appeal for urgency in this regard, rings hollow when almost at the same breath, the appeal is combined with a threat.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

102 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. Red's Herring >> The Philippine beauty and the beast

    […] While de Venecia, his gang and their chameleonic Palace patroness are on a tactical flank maneuver – this time toward a constitutional convention scheme (instead of the now discredited constituent assembly) to attain their dubious ends – the jungle King, agitated, intently pries into their movements. (So do are the hyenas in some corporate or other cloak lying in wait and salivating for the nation’s patrimony that Charter change proponents seem eager to lay bare for exploitation by speculators, alien or otherwise, among other objectives that remain problematic.)

    The Multitude is therefore in admonitory groan, yet menacing enough to send chills up the spines of the schemers, momentarily halting the onslaught of the Charter change loco motive. The Great Power is likely to rise to the occasion, as in the past, if sufficiently provoked to protect the constitutional realm. But there are unpredictabilities involved.[…]

  2. Bafil

    Anna,
    I’m not so sure about the Gloria-Pinochet analogy. Sure, she would like you to believe that her rule – just like the dead general’s – helps prevent communists from taking over, but the reality I think is somewhat different. Despite her pompously announced campaign to wipe out the Reds (we have heard that about ASG before, didn’t we?) over the next few years, I would bet that the rebel movement will not be any weaker when she finally vacates the presidency. Her inability to either pursue a genuine peace-process or wage a focused military campaign (against the actual insurgents, not the civilian population) only helps to make people like Pinochet look good.

  3. Red's Herring >> The Philippine beauty and the beast

    […] While de Venecia, his gang and their chameleonic Palace patroness are on a tactical flank maneuver – this time toward a constitutional convention scheme (instead of the now discredited constituent assembly) to attain their dubious ends – the jungle King, agitated, intently pries into their movements. (So do are the hyenas in some corporate or other cloak lying in wait and salivating for the nation’s patrimony that Charter change proponents seem eager to lay bare for exploitation by speculators, alien or otherwise, among other objectives that remain problematic.)

    The Multitude is therefore in admonitory groan, yet menacing enough to send chills up the spines of the schemers, momentarily halting the onslaught of the Charter change loco motive. The Great Power is likely to rise to the occasion, as in the past, if sufficiently provoked to protect the constitutional realm. But there are unpredictabilities involved.[…]

  4. anna de brux

    Bafil,

    Re “Her inability to either pursue a genuine peace-process or wage a focused military campaign (against the actual insurgents, not the civilian population) only helps to make people like Pinochet look good.”

    Hahah! Sounds like a very plausible explanation to me.

  5. Parejo

    GMA and JdV are way past eating CONCON. They are now playing Little House on the Priarie.

  6. hvrds

    Does the Philippines have a local version of General Charles de Gaulle who insisted and got a directly elected Presidential system in France to balance the forces of the extreme left and right in the birth of the French Fifth Republic? The day of the jackal was not fiction. The extreme right wanted to maintain Algeria. The left (heavily influenced by Russia) was pushing him for a command economy. France chose the middle.

    The runoff presidential electoral system in a parliametray system wherein the president is more powerful than the parliamentary prime minister. He has to get the majority vote of the electorate.

    Is there a Filipino leader that understands the basic contradictions in society? “the human food chain” – the class system.

    History has taught us that markets are a necessity as they are the foundation of freedom and the struggle for control under either the social formats of feudalism or capitalism remain the root of all struggles.

    Point out a filipino leader after the era of a Recto, Diokno, Tanada. Point them out in todays present crop. Look at GMA, Gonzales, Defensor, de Venecia. Look at the opposition – Lacson, Vilanueva, Escudero, Cayetano.

    Where has the wisdom, the intellect of the Philippines gone to?

  7. jm

    Overseas.

  8. anna de brux

    Jm,

    Luis Teodoro will disagree with you, I suspect he might even froth at the mouth if he reads your comment.

  9. jm

    On May 2007 Elections
    Include Referendum: Do you want to cut short the terms of the President and the Vice President and set elections for Pres and VP on November 2007?

  10. jm

    Anna,

    Can you verify how cha-cha is being sold/fed to the soldiers? They must be subjected to a program of indocrtination — brainwashing — that could make them even fight for a devious cha-cha instead of defending the Constitution. Anna, i believe that a Martial Law scenario, as a contingency plan, could still turn up to be viable specially if the Military is brainwashed to be rabid enough to fight for it. From what I gather the red-scare indoctrination to keep the Soldiers from joining withdawal-of-support movements in the campss had been very effective.

  11. james

    from Atty. Jimeno:

    Most would rather believe the line of the senators and all those opposing any change—that ChaCha would not do us good and would only serve the interest of the present breed of politicians. But look now, who are opposing change? Aren’t they the politicians who benefit from the status quo? Aren’t they the rich elite who have monopolies in trade, and the leftists who are only too happy to see discontent and unrest grow? Would we rather consign ourselves to inaction than taking a chance on developments that constitutional reforms stand to bring?

    this is what these few noisy wise guys want- status quo. So afraid of change they can’t even offer an alternative.

  12. anna de brux

    Good idea JM, Will ask around…

    Meanwhile, speaking of martial law… funny that you mentioned it but it has occured to me that if the con-ass and the con-con scenari create a potentially destructive social mess, it could provide Gloria with an excuse to impose it and if the political situation becomes really volatile, even Uncle Sam might agree that it’s a viable option to prevent the powder keg from exploding.

    As we speak, I am convinced Gloria has already considered declaring martial law or emergency rule as a real option if and when things come to a head.

  13. anna de brux

    Re: “this is what these few noisy wise guys want- status quo. So afraid of change they can’t even offer an alternative.”

    James makes sense.

    The middle class is traditionally wary of change and is inclined to choose the status quo.

    Look at Chile. There’s strong mixed reaction over whether to give their former dictator a state burial, i.e., amidst strong opposition, the middle class appears to believe that Pinochet was good for the country and is considered by many (almost 50%) of the nation’s current middle class as a hero. Experts on Chili admit that Chili’s middle class does not want to change the status quo.

  14. Shaman of Malilipot

    Democracy is all about check and balance. The democratic ideal gained currency to counter the absolutist power of monarchs, dictators, and tyrants. Anything that reduces check and balance diminishes domocratic space. Unicameralism is a diminution of check and balance. If the only overriding reason for unicameralism is the desire to avoid gridlock, I find the price too high to pay. Legislative gridlock is not an intrinsic attribute of a bicameral system. It is a consequence of the legislators’ preoccupation with selfish vested interests rather than the nation’s welfare.

    Unicameralism does not automatically guarantee national prosperity. As the epiphany in the House last week has shown us, it is most likely that unicameralism will simply facilitate the thumping of the common good by narrow vested interests.

    No to unicameralism! Yes to bicameralism!

  15. thysz

    I am 19 years old and i am very near to being ashamed of this country. TO Mr. De Venecia and his cohorts: Please stop it. Just stop it.
    I will join any protest rally scheduled and shout to the top of my lungs how disgusted I am with the Congress.

  16. Shaman of Malilipot

    Bravo Thysz!!

    What I want to see now is for the House to make an act of contrition and pass a resolution asking the Filipino people for forgiveness for its attempt to rape the Motherland.

    The priority now is the clean-up of COMELEC and the holding of clean, honest and credible elections in May 2007. When and how to change the Charter should be left to the new Congress, but after GMA shall have been impeached.

  17. kimosabe27

    Hah! de Venecia doing a Leeroy Jenkins, can’t wait to see everything effing up coz of JDV’s mad dash to power…Leeeeeroy Jeeeeenkins!!!!

  18. cvj

    kimosabe27, had to watch the Leeroy Jenkins video again to refresh my memory, but i believe your analogy is spot on, especially in light of Jarius Bondoc’s and Atty. Jimeno’s columns that mlq3 links to in the next post.

    Charter Change as a lifeline to Gloria has to be put on hold for now. I think the admin’s priority would be to restore the previous balance between the pro’s, anti’s and undecideds. If GMA manages to cool things down, her next course of action may be to co-opt the Senate by fielding ‘fresh faces’ that will entice the undecided, something mlq3 mentioned in an earlier post.

  19. james

    thsz,
    don’t be carried away by the noise of imperial manila…this is not the true picture.
    but when you do join the rally look at the people around you..leftists of party lists, toothless erap crowd, the die- hards of mike velarde and bangon villanueva, familiar had-been politicians, convolution of vested interests.

  20. justice league

    From the opponents of Atty Jimeno’s proposed Constitutional Oligarchy (by which the Concom would provide for a ruling party in parliament which could serve its entire 5 year term even if unsupported by the people, and a Prime Minister who could retain the post by holding onto the loyalty of only a small portion of the ruling party).

    Some would rather believe the line of the members of the House of Representatives and all those proposing Charter Change—that ChaCha would not do us bad and would not serve the interest of the present breed of politicians. But look now, who are proposing change? Aren’t they the politicians who would benefit from the change?

  21. anna de brux

    James,

    Your description of rallyists is terribly simplistic if not outright surprising.

    Firstly, you will be surprised that there’s many among those rallyists ARE NOT in any way affiliated with any reds, leftists, party listed people, toothless erap crowd, nor are they religious die-hards, etc.

    Moreover, I know for a fact that some of the people who will be participating in some of the scheduled rallies are perfectly upper middle class people who wish to express their discontent with this regime; they just cannot stand the indecent acts being committed around them by the jose de venecia clique.

    Besides, I find it absolutely gobsmacking that you should denigrate the people you say will participate in the rallies against the cha-cha efforts of de venecia.

    So what if they are toothless? So what if they are leftists? So what if they are religious die hard followers of some religious group in the Philippines?

    Does being affiliated with any of the group on your list make them lesser human beings capable of feeling disgust for de venecia, his clique and Gloria?

    Does being affiliated with the toothless erap crowd disqualify them from exercising their right to dissent, to free speech?

  22. pinoy_gising

    To James, who said that:
    “Most would rather believe the line of the senators and all those opposing any change—that ChaCha would not do us good and would only serve the interest of the present breed of politicians. But look now, who are opposing change? Aren’t they the politicians who benefit from the status quo? Aren’t they the rich elite who have monopolies in trade, and the leftists who are only too happy to see discontent and unrest grow? Would we rather consign ourselves to inaction than taking a chance on developments that constitutional reforms stand to bring?

    this is what these few noisy wise guys want- status quo. So afraid of change they can’t even offer an alternative.”

    Actually it is a very broad spectrum that is opposing con-ass, not just a “few noisy wise guys.” Don’t be mentally dishonest. Who are pushing for cha-cha NOW? Aren’t they the politicians, specifically the administration officials and their allied congressmen, who will greatly benefit from the changes they wish to make? Like no more term limits, the abolition of the Senate which keeps standing up to them instead of just kowtowing, more power for themselves, less check and balance, etc?

    We don’t want changes? There are no alternatives? Various groups opposed to cha-cha now have been offering sound reform platforms. Again, don’t be mentally dishonest.
    http://www.onevoice.org.ph/index.php/?page_id=7

  23. MoRtReD

    ThE PeOpLe Do nOt NeEd TheIr ChA-ChA!!! WhAt tHeY nEeD iS DaT diS TrApoS ShOuLD UnDeRgO CHAracter CHAnge paRa UmUnlAd NaMaN Ang PilIpiNaS!!!x_X

  24. Bencard

    James: From the look of things, it seems the constitutional changes talked about for years and generally conceded as necessary would never get off the ground. It appears that the anti cha-cha forces would never ran out of excuses to shoot it down. I don’t believe its about GMA or JDV, or Lambino & other proponents. I think its all about preservation of the status quo, with all the evils plaguing it, for purposes you and I know.

    What pains me is that detractors of the effort frame their opposition as a fight between “them” and “us”, between “good” and “evil”. Hence, JDV’s move to call for a Con-Con, which they also reject, is called a “victory” for them and a defeat for GMA and JDV, etc. Meanwhile, the country suffers all the blows, the injury and resulting state of helplessness.

    Who cares who wins or loses the battle of ideas? Would it matter if our nation continues in its path to economic and political ruin, and ultimate decay?

    As a family lawyer who has handled a few contentious child custody issues, I see an analogy between the cha-cha controversy and the often- destructive contest between estranged parents trying to paint each other as heartless monsters, creating havoc on the child and possible permanent emotional damage to her. The one who gets the child is the “winner” but at what costs to the child?

  25. cvj

    bencard, i don’t really see JDV (or GMA) as some sort of parents. as far as analogies go, i prefer the one that compares them to rapists. serial ones at that.

  26. Bencard

    cvj, why am i not surprised. Obviously you don’t understand my analogy, nor do you know what you are talking about!

  27. pinoy_gising

    Bencard, what are the “constitutional changes talked about for years and generally conceded as necessary”? And talked about by whom? Generally conceded by whom?

  28. cvj

    bencard, i understand that you’re trying to paint a picture that is favorable to the proponents of the Charter Change initiative and unfavorable to those who are against it. That is the exact opposite of what i see. While attempts at Charter Change are themselves a distraction that keeps us from focusing on more important economic and political matters, opposition to such attempts has had the beneficial side effect of reinvigorating the public sphere (as pointed out by Doronila and others).

  29. Bencard

    pinoy-gising: Cha-cha has been publicly discussed since FVR’s incumbency; the various “civil society” (not including the leftists), CBCP, LGU’s, many sectors of the media and the academe, even most of the senators (except when abolishing the senate is mentioned),and many in the lower house opposition, have all gone on record and expressed the need for constitutional changes to rectify the gross miscalculations in the revolutionary 1987 Constitution, and most of all, to try to end the governmental gridlock.

  30. cvj

    Bencard, it is not the length of time, but the quality and thoroughness of deliberations that matter. So far, the initiative is being spoon fed by politicians and authentic deliberation on a large enough scale is yet to take place among members of the public. Included in the discussions should be whether or not our problems could be solved within the framework of the current Constitution.

    Also, you cannot separate the Charter Change initiative from the current political situation. As Randy David points out:

    Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the wrong person to start it. Her mandate is under question because of the widespread belief that she conspired to rig the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Her behavior as President of the country in the last five years has been marked by a total lack of respect for the most basic principles of ethical leadership. She is desperately fighting for survival. A constitution written under such auspices can only be a polluted document.

  31. watchful eye

    O sige, Bencard, if GMA is the mother of the nation, di ba dapat magpaubaya siya para hindi biyakin ni Solomon ang bata? Kung si GMA ang ina at ang kanyang mga kalaban sa politika ang ama, sa mga pangyayari ngayon mukhang ang ina ang tatuklasang nag-puta. Tinawagan ni GMA ang kanyang kaluguyong si Garci for a tryst. Natukalasan at hangang ngayon ayaw niyang aminin ang kanyang pamumuta. Sino ang dapat magsacripisyo, mr. abogado de la familia?

    Isa pa, please specify some gross miscalculations in the 1987 revolutionary constitution by talking like a lawyer at saka what specific reform agenda/s of GMA which are under gov’t gridlock bec. of the present system?

  32. watchful eye

    btw, ito ang sinabi Benny boy …

    As a family lawyer who has handled a few contentious child custody issues, I see an analogy between the cha-cha controversy and the often- destructive contest between estranged parents trying to paint each other as heartless monsters, creating havoc on the child and possible permanent emotional damage to her. The one who gets the child is the “winner” but at what costs to the child?

  33. edtal

    Mula noon hanggang ngayon politika pa rin problema, bakit hindi na lang mag concentrate sa trabaho para maraming matapos. JDV and company dapat magbalot balot na kayo.

  34. james

    bencard- totally agree with you. antichacha groups are but anti GMA. they are against anything initaited by the president right or wrong. As Austero’s angry letter mentioned, they want to burn the whole country down. by the way, that letter spread like wildfire only becuase that is the sentiment of the great majority of the people. did any of the entry in this blog gain national attention like bong’s letter? NONE!

    ana- i don’t have a problem with those crowd that you love. but you only love them because you people could use them. like vlearde and villanueva use them. how could you gather people in the name of the God and suddenly switch to antiGMA rally?

  35. anna de brux

    Hahahah! You are completely out of your depth, James…

    For your info, I am not remotely religious in the Philippine sense and don’t know a thing about velarde or villanueva!

    I am not remotely a commie either nor ever been a communist dogma
    believer, not by a long shot. Much too pragmatist for that sort of thing.

    Nor do I have any desire to use the crowd the way your mistress Gloria uses them for her self serving interest.

    So don’t throw those little rants of yours at me. I asked you simple questions that require simple answers. I genuinely feel that you are wrong to denigrate “the toothless crowd” because they happen to be poor or that they are pro-Erap or because they are alleged to be leftists and belong to the underprivileged class.

    They form part of the Filipino nation, they are your own countrymen who have as much right to dissent and free speech as you do. That is democracy.

    What gives you the right to say the things that you say while the others are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of society because they happen to be anti-Gloria? Are they not allowed to exercise the same rights that you have?

    How can you even begin to presume that love for the people you denigrate is in the equation when all that I advance here is
    BASIC DECENCY in the treatment of your fellowmen, to allow them the fundamental rights and democratic privileges that you accord to yourself?

    While there are people like you who believe that the toothless and the poor don’t have the right to oppose Gloria based on a personal conviction that Gloria and de Venecia are wrong, you can never aspire to rise above the heap of political dung which your favorite politicians inhabit at the moment. Worse, the Philippine would forever find itself in a rut, with you being part and parcel of that rut.

  36. pinoy_gising

    Bencard, you didn’t quite answer the question. Again I ask you, what exactly are the “constitutional changes talked about for years and generally conceded as necessary”? (quoted text is from your statement)

    Can you cite specific provisions that need to be amended? And why they have to be done now? What great benefits would result from these amendments?

    Your reply, “Cha-cha has been publicly discussed since FVR’s incumbency; the various “civil society” (not including the leftists), CBCP, LGU’s, many sectors of the media and the academe, even most of the senators (except when abolishing the senate is mentioned),and many in the lower house opposition, have all gone on record and expressed the need for constitutional changes to rectify the gross miscalculations in the revolutionary 1987 Constitution, and most of all, to try to end the governmental gridlock.” didn’t really cite anything specific or concrete.

    Also, what are the “gross miscalculations in the revolutionary 1987 Constitution”?

  37. watchful eye

    pinoy_gising, dalawa na tayo. Nagising na kaya watchful eye, aay.

  38. justice league

    Austero’s letter created quite a stir because certain people choose to concentrate on his message of sacrificing rights to move the country forward.

    THose same people don’t care to see how much of a FRAUD the sentiment Austero really wanted to state. (Though Austero made no bones of what he meant in the letter itself)

    When he considered himself a part of the “WE”, he was all for sacrificing the rights of the “WE” yet he quickly turned around and implied how selfish he would be when the issue was now HIS rights!

    So when he assumed that his own rights that he didn’t want to sacrifice were being transgressed when he was being stopped in checkpoints; he nearly went AMOK in his blog against it!!!

  39. anna de brux

    Justice League,

    To sum up Bong Austero’s style, he’s very AUSTERE when it comes to criticizing Gloria failings as a leader but very vociferous when it comes to criticizing those who criticize Gloria.

  40. Bencard

    pinoy gising: use your head. I’m not your “uto-uto”. Learn to think for yourself since you are trying to sound like a smart ___s. If you cannot do it, just wallow in ignorance.

  41. Bencard

    that goes for you too, watchful eye. Gees, you and pinoy gising have the same style, which is also the same as someone I’m familiar with in this blog.

  42. watchful eye

    ‘Torney Benny, I move to strike ur answer for being unresponsive.

  43. pinoy_gising

    Bencard, aren’t we trying to have a mature discussion here? Aren’t we after an honet-to-goodness exchange of ideas, and not pitiful name-calling? Ad hominems are the refuge of those of are losing the debate. I’m sure you can do better than that.

    One last time, in case you want to redeem yourself:

    What exactly are the “constitutional changes talked about for years and generally conceded as necessary”? (quoted text is from your statement)

    Can you cite specific provisions that need to be urgently amended? What great benefits would result from these amendments?

    Also, what are the “gross miscalculations in the revolutionary 1987 Constitution”? (again, quoted text is from your statement)

  44. Bencard

    pinoy_gising: I’m sorry, I’m just reacting to your friend’s “name-calling”. Hs/she sure got a rise out of me.

    Seriously, in answer to your questions, please refer to my posts in the latest thread – and that of james (with your permission, james). If you have problems with them, so be it.

  45. james

    oh dear anna

    you talk about democracy but its obvious that you use it only to conveniently suit your needs. if you people truly believe in democratic process then maybe it won’t be sooo noisy now.

    but the opposition just make angal and angal but can’t even offer alternative not even change in the constitution so that system can at least lessen polictical gridlock. so as you will predict we will forever be in a rut because of your unwarranted, pointless destabilizing noise.

    my favorite politicians? but look at the politicians you are with? can you wipe them out of the surface of this planet? for so long as we have eukaryotes with us we will never get rid of them. so, its the system. in fact almost everone agrees that there is a need to change the constitution. Not in ramos’ time, not in Erap’s time not in Gma’s time? who are we waitng?
    Bishop lagdameo? dinky? carandang? trillanes?why not bishop Tobias. so you’re telling me we will never get off this rut? listen to your unnecessary rantings!

  46. pinoy_gising

    Apology accepted Bencard, but please refrain from making personal attacks and childish name-calling next time, especially since I did no such thing to you.

    Pardon me if I’m wrong, but in your other comments, the only constitutional change that you seem to be advocating is a shift to a unicameral parliamentary system. If that’s the main contention, then I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s hardly “generally conceded” that such a shift is necessary, or even beneficial. Presidential vs parliamentary systems both have their advantages and disadvantages. That goes the same for unicameral vs bicameral. (Since a parliamentary system does not necessarily mean having a unicameral legislature.)

    Solita Monsod discussed presidential vs parliamentary in the links below, I think they are worthwhile reads.
    http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=77911&col=62
    http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=77140&col=62

    Many believe that a parliamentary unicameral system isn’t the right one for our country, especially at this time. I for one agree with this, especially with the current crop of politicians that we have. I’m in agreement with many sectors that cha-cha isn’t the answer to our nation’s problems. Certainly there is no urgency to it. There are more pressing concerns. Reforming the COMELEC for one. Coming up with a systematic disaster mitigating measures. Social reforms. Putting a stop to the horrendous political killings. And many many more, all of which can be accomplished within the framework of the present Constitution.

    Either presidential or parliamentary, if you have the same rotten officials, you’ll get the same rotten government.

  47. Bokyo

    As if you are saying that people are just making noise or opposing here and there without any reason. We should really work together to make democratic process work. We cannot just impose on others what we believe is the better way to go. I am very glad regarding this latest noise and group of people forming themselves to oppose something that is unacceptable, which means that there’s a lot of hope coz we as a people can still recognize when it is too much.

  48. anna de brux

    No, James, I wasn’t simply telling you that you WOULDN’t get out of this rut – there was a caveat, so do read it again:

    “While there are people like you who believe that the toothless and the poor don’t have the right to oppose Gloria based on a personal conviction that Gloria and de Venecia are wrong, you can never aspire to rise above the heap of political dung which your favorite politicians inhabit at the moment. Worse, the Philippine would forever find itself in a rut, with you being part and parcel of that rut.”

    That’s not ranting.

  49. Bencard

    pinoy-gising, don’t flatter yourself, please. I’m not apologizing to you for calling you names for I did no such thing to you. I’m saying sorry for not responding to your question as a reacttion to somebody else’s name-calling. Got it?

    I don’t have to redeem myself to you or anyone. What I believe, I believe and I don’t care what you people think about it. To me, who cares who wins an argument. I care for my country and people, not applause from you or the likes of you.

  50. pinoy_gising

    Bencard, you keep showing your true colors. It seems that everytime someone tries to engage you in an honest-to-goodness discussion and asks you valid questions, you respond by attacking the person and grandstanding. Those who express their disagreement with you or throw questions at you simply “don’t know what they’re talking about” (your response to cvj above) and should just “wallow in their ignorance” (your response to me when I first asked you some legitimate questions in good faith.)

    Well it’s apparent that you’re not here to participate in “good faith” discussions, but rather you just want drop your rants here in a “hit and run” manner, evading issues-oriented questions posed at you regarding your statements. What for, right? Since “what you believe, you believe and you don’t care what other people think about it.”

    And it seems that you believe that you have the monopoloy on truth and the correct solutions. Only you (and those who agree with you) “care for the country and people” while those who hold different opinions are simply preoccupied with “virulent criticism, personal calumny and expressions of distrust against the proponent.” Well, aren’t you the one guilty of that?

    Your utter arrogance here is clearly showing.

Fetch more comments

Leave a Reply