Never was this more apparent with a president like GMA, an evil leader who was able to control congress. Thanks to the senate, there was a neutralizing force to what could have been potential dictator.

I don’t know if this was intended by the framers of the 1935 constitution, but in the end it benefited the Philippines, which is why I’m all for keeping the senate despite some negatives.

You said:

“Forget what the founding fathers of either nation on both sides of the pacific intended, the outcome eventually is that the voters on each country are being fucked in the ass! Philippine senators only serve their family and friends their family and friends’ business interests and US senators are serving the interests of the corporate lobby machine (there’s one lobbyists for every senator congressman per industry) who feeds them millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the detriment of the voter who gets the consolation of a LETTER FROM SENATOR PR MACHINE! (WOOHOO! I GOT A LETTER REPLY FROM DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN SENATOR JO SCHMO!).”
**

Hmmm?

Were you saying that you actually like the Senate?

Let’s face it loser, whatever the Senate does – if it is taken away – can be reassigned to the House.

I mean, how else do countries with Unicameral legislatures do it? They let their only house DO ALL LEGISLATION, including treaties, impeachment, etc.

Think, SoP, THINK!

I happen to find the senate useful-for reviewing international treaties, impeaching presidents (never was this more apparent during Erap’s impeachment-let’s see a 200 person congress chamber impeach a president with relative order that the senate did) and do find value in senate inquiries in aid of legislation (what you call useless, attention-grabbing, grandstanding).

tl;dr The way I hate some aspects of senate was misread by reading-comprehension challenged Jr.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but our views are identical in the sense that:

1. You don’t like the Philippine Senate.
2. I don’t like the Philippine Senate.

and

1. You don’t think we need a Senate
2. I don’t think we need a Senate

and

1. You don’t agree with Manolo that the Philippines needs the Senate as a training ground for future presidents.

2. I don’t agree with Manolo that the Philippines needs the Senate as a training ground for future presidents. (that’s understood because I don’t think the Philippines needs a senate)

* * * *

I think you’re stupid and I don’t want to be your friend. I’m a genius. You’re fucking stupid asshole.

And your whole tirade about the “senatorial training ground” is moot and academic because – as I said – I don’t think we need s Senate (esp. one that does not have constituencies for each Senator). You wasted space trying to make whatever ideas you had different from mine.

Come on, idiot, there will always be instances where people who don’t like each other end up having the same views. This is one of them. And you can’t deny that are views are identical (if not similar) in holding that the Philippine Senate is unneeded and should be abolished.

You have to agree that sometimes, our views are going to be the same.

Example.

I think that fresh human shit stinks.

SoP, are you going to try to pretend to me that you disagree with me? ‘Coz let’s face it, fresh human shit ALWAYS STINKS.

So just because you “don’t want to be my friend” (hey, I don’t give a shit), you’re going to disagree with me on that? So what now, you’re going to say that “fresh human shit DOES NOT stink?”

Now don’t be an idiot, SoP.

What exactly is your whole point about trying to pretend that your views and my views aren’t “on the same side” anyway?

Fucking waste of time. Typical asshole idiot Filipino pa-intellectual bullshit, huh? Totally fucked-up.

* * *

Hate to break it to you, stupid, but our views are identical.

If you don’t think that the Philippine Senate serves a real purpose AND I also don’t think that the Philippine Senate serves a real purpose, then voila, our views are the same.

For you to have been so stupid to LASH OUT against my views (against the Philippine Senate) which are identical to your views (against the Philippine Senate), is the height of idiocy.

Nah, SoP, go suck your own cock.

your genius mentor whose views on the Phil. Senate are the same as yours,

Dr. José Rizal II

Re: senatorial training ground. Another graduate of the senatorial training university, Erap; I seem to remember him acting like a small time mayor during the first year of his term. Remember the whole fracas about hosting the World Expo in the Philippines? Erap was opposed to it, on grounds that it’s bad for the deficit position (he famously thought we were bankrupt, even thought he plundered our country later on), conveniently ignorant of the flow on effect it will have on the economy. He wanted the business community to pay for it. Isn’t this something that a leader ought to have learned in senate university?

tl;dr senate didn’t teach Erap leadership skills. Junior still wants to be friends with me (ewwww!)

When you implied that Noynoy is an economist by practice, what do you exactly mean by that? He can’t even compare to GMA with regard to being an economist.

There’s no frienship implied when I don’t even know who the fakk you are. But what is undeniable is that my views on the Philippine Senate (about wanting to get rid of it) are identical to yours.

By foolishly contradicting my views which are the same as yours, didn’t you realize that you were contradicting your own views?

That’s all I meant by Friendly-Fire. Not so much that you hit your “friend”, but that in the end – militarily, that is – you were attacking YOUR OWN position. (Friendly fire most often means a particular side in the battle hits ITS OWN group.)

It’s not friendly-fire because we’re friends – ‘coz we’re not. It’s “friendly-fire” because my position is completely identical to yours (as far as the uselessness of the Philippine Senate is concerned) and you took potshots at my views which are identical to yours. Now isn’t that stupid?

Obviously, if you’ve calmed down from that ultra-emotionalism you expressed with your “Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong” bullshit, you’d realize that you actually WERE EXTREMELY STUPID when you did just that.

* * *

Re: A Good President. Well, the idea really is about delivering positive results. In the current situation, the real priority in fixing up the economy and simultaneously fixing the peace-and-order situation of the country.

The good thing about a Parliamentary System is that at the very least, the only people who can emerge as Prime Minister are people who rise up to the top by working competently within the ranks to emerge as Party Leader, and then the only real question now is getting the party to gain control of the Parliament through a parliamentary majority.

Furthermore, a non-performing Prime Minister can more easily be removed and replaced, and the incentive for doing so is when the majority party sees that the Prime Minister (leader of the majority bloc) is ineffectual, and thus threatens the party’s or bloc’s chances at maintaining said majority when the next election comes.

Within the framework of the current Presidential System which is bicameral with a nationally-elected Senate, you end up with a Senate whose members are more likely to try to attract attention not by real work, but rather by gaining media exposure by any means possible including conducting Inquiries on Celebrity Sex Scandals.

Not a very good use of time, don’t you think?

your genius mentor,

Dr. José Rizal II

Er, you told me to stop friendly-fire, implying friendship. Now let’s not contradict ourselves, it makes us look like idiots.

Re: your theory that Manolo wants to run for president. I don’t buy it for one minute that he has intentions to run. He probably has realized already that his “unwinnable”, given his sexual orientation and admitted use of metamphetamines in the past, which will be used as attack fodder in case he runs for president. He probably emphasizes it, despite being academic, because he’s a big idol of his adoptive grandparent Manuel Quezon, who’s a 3 term senator before being elected president.

Re: training ground, there’s difficulty in testing this theory, given that what constitutes a good president is subjective. I could say thought that, using the criteria of forming a national coalition, Marcos and GMA didn’t seem to have used their “training” in the senate during their presidency. Marcos placed a lot of Ilocanos in positions of power and GMA is courting her bailiwick in the lead up to a planned extended stay in power. This is the opposite of what the framers of the 1930′s constitution intended, and something that we and Manolo might want to investigate.

Unfortunately, you too are exposing yourself as another person who doesn’t understand the Parliamentary System or the Bicameralism issue…

Let me explain.

There are 3 aspects here and all DEMOCRATIC countries are usually in one form for each of the 3 aspects:

Form of Government: Presidential versus Parliamentary
Number of chambers: Unicameral (1) versus Bicameral (2)
Geographic administration: Unitary versus Federal

* * *

You can mix-and-match them so that you find countries like:

Czech Republic: Presidential, Bicameral, Unitary
Philippines: Presidential, Bicameral, Unitary
Singapore: Parliamentary, Unicameral, Unitary
Australia: Parliamentary, Bicamerial, Federal
Malaysia: Parliamentary, Bicameral, Federal
US of A: Presidential, Bicameral, Federal
France: Presidential, Bicameral, Unitary
Japan: Parliamentary, Bicameral, Unitary

Now, do you understand where you made a mistake, Ka Ryan?

Ganito yan eh: You said “Parliamentary System versus Bicameralism”, and obviously those two are not the kinds of things that GO AGAINST EACH OTHER.

What you should have said were: “Parliamentary versus Presidential” and “Bicamericalism versus Unicameralism.”

Gets na?

Anong “Manolo wins” ka dyan, e wala ngang sinabi si “Explainer” eh. In other words, OLATS siya.

your genius friend,

Dr. José Rizal II