Walkout

[mbt]

okay thanks oldblue and boyferrari.

the reason i ask is simply to try to illustrate my point that truth is relative. what you may believe in is hardly absolute fact.

now i am not judging your answers to the questions i asked okay, but just for the sake of argument, when you say you believe in God (and of course, that God exists), it is not an absolute fact. it is an allegation... you are alleging that God exists.

when you say you think that the opposition lawmakers are acting and dramatizing, it is not an absolute fact. it is an allegation... you are alleging that they are acting and dramatizing.

when you say that you think FPJ ran at the lat minute, it is not an absolute fact. it is an allegation... you are alleging that "napasubo lang si FPJ".

i can easily say that if you "believe these and keep on repeating them to yourself", then "they become truths". and really, there's nothing wrong with that, since truth is our belief, the end process of how our cognition has received and evaluated the loads of information available to our senses.

so with that in mind...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbt
the opposition walking out (theatrics, drama, incompetence, throwing in the towel, whatever you want to call it) does not change the following facts and premises:

1. a GMA ALLY submitted a weak complaint.

This is just an "allegation" that nobody has proven yet. However, you mentioned it here as if Lozano was already proven to be a GMA ALLY. If you keep repeating this in this manner, then this becomes the truth in other people's minds, especially those who are clueless on who Lozano is.

It is an allegation that I believe in. the Lozano complaint was endorsed by an administration congressman, that much is fact. If Dinky Soliman is to be believed (you may argue that her information is hearsay, but she was there, we weren't), GMA WANTED lozano's complaint endorsed. and to wit, GMA is the respondent in this case. when you say that whether the lozano complaint is weak is not yet proven... how can it be proven? "weak" is an adjective, it is subjective. there is no fact in subjective description. no, whether it is weak or not is not absolute fact, but I believe it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbt
2. GMA wanted that weak complaint filed (most probably to bar further, more credible impeachment complaints)

This is a political maneuver and strategy that is a common practice in any trial law cases. Lawyers will always look for ways to win their case. You should not look so surprised. Again, using the word "GMA" makes it appear that it is GMA alone who is dictating the legal maneuvers. Remember, more often than not, GMA takes advice from her battery of lawyers just like any client would. This is a team effort between her attorneys and her party-mates. However, your invoking the name "GMA" alone, instead of "the administration", shows that you want to emphasize it for the people to really hate GMA herself.

sources close to the president have alleged that GMA herself wanted things done a certain way (hearsay perhaps, but again, they were there, we weren't). you admit (by saying that political maneuvering is common in litigation) that GMA and the administration is indeed maneuvering and scheming... and that it should be expected. Lwayers always seek to win their cases... by hook or by crook huh? Even if it means subverting due process, hiding, covering up, delaying, railroading, silencing, putting the last letter of the law onto a Procrustean bed to suit their ends, heck even raiding opposition safe houses? All those things... justified, just because lawyers are out to win the case. To heck with the public interest, lawyers shouldn't lose their cases. too bad for the people and nation, i take it?

I dunno, but that sounds despicable. And that is the heart of the matter. GMA and her administration is acting despicably.

why follow the last letter of the law to the last micron of ink and disregard the whole spirit of it? in biblical terms, man wasn't made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man.

i single out GMA because she is at the center of this whole controversy. she knew as much when she declared before that "she will not run because doing so will cause deep divisiveness in the nation". she should therefore, of course, be held accountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbt
3. GMA herself is arm-twisting, probably even bribing congressmen

This is another allegation, that if you keep repeating it, it becomes the truth. This is politics, the "dirty dealings" have not changed since Manuel Quezon's Commonwealth. Why do you expect it to change now? You don't have to act so surprised as if bribing in congress has never happened before. Again, all the bribing issues that came up related to this impeachment have remained allegations up to this day. Where are the evidences of bribing? Anyway, we are all entitled to believe what we want to believe, right?

you contradict yourself. you say that i am making an allegation, yet in the same breath, you declare as a given, as truth, that such dirty dealings have been endemic to our political culture for a long time. if that is so, then i have no reason to doubt that bribing has indeed taken place in the last few days in the tainted halls of Congress.

Regarding proving bribing, again i have to ask, how do you propose to prove this? Perhaps we should wait for GMA or the congressmen she allegedly bribed to come forward and publicly declare that they have committed an unsavory act? From what i hear and read, i believe i have no reason to doubt that it's happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbt
4. GMA declared a government holiday in suspicious circumstances

Again, another insinuation to fuel the conspiracy theories. It has been a government policy to declare Monday as non-working holiday if the actual holiday falls on a Sunday. You know that this is a government standard practice. Why do you think it is suspicious now? This year, National Heroes Day fell on a Sunday. So what gives?

Yup, it's an allegation. What should I do otherwise, wait for GMA to declare on TV that yes, indeed, she declared a holiday to try to throw a monkey wrench into impeachment proceedings or whatever? That'd be an awfully long wait, no thank you.

It has NOT been a government practice to flip-flop three times hours before the actual holiday about details of the holiday. And the circumstances... there's an impending debate and possible resolution to the impeachment hulabaloo in Congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbt
5. GMA declared many times that she looked forward to an impeachment and will answer to a proper forum... yet she does all these things

Again, you are making it appear that GMA is blocking the impeachment herself. The requirement for impeachment is simple: gather 79 votes to impeach the president. Now where are the 79 votes ????? We cannot wait forever to try and convince everyone to sign up. There must be a time limit for signing-up. And that time is up!

And you sincerely believe that GMA is not trying to? Turning off the opposition lawmakers' microphones, cutting them off mid-speech, giving them absolutely no quarter, railroading the proceedings, "persuading" those who've signed to withdraw... what's that? If she's nothing to hide, then why not hear her critics out and get it over with? If you think the impeachment trial is expensive and a waste of taxpayer money, there will be a greater cost in dragging this drama out when it could end here. And if you think it's the opposition dragging it out, I think it's the administration. To say "shut up" to the pro-impeachment people is to say that, no i refuse to investigate whether GMA is anomalous, no i don't care if she committed a wrong or not, no i don't care if she's not the rightful president or not.

None of the 5 items you mentioned above are really facts. They are all premises. We want to know the truth, but there are legal procedures to follow in order to find the truth. We have to follow them and not walk-out or throw papers in the air for theatrics.

Keeping in mind the preface I put at the beginning of this post, they don't have to be facts. If you say that "she bribed" is not factual and therefore, unaccpetable, then I say that "she did not bribe" is equally unfactual and therefore, equally unacceptable. About premises, truth is always based on premises. No premise, no truth. Premises may be incorrect, but they open the way to possibly finding the truth.

There are legal procedures to finding truth yes. Walking out and throwing papers in the air are not part of these, perhaps,.... but then again, so are railroading, bribing, silencing, covering-up, etc. not part of these too.

It works both ways.