Walkout

[niwde11]

i am also not proGMA but masyadong OA ang mga luminaries sa impeachment. you should have seen the interview of Rep. T. Locsin on ANC by D.Celdran and K. constantino. Rep. Locsin comment on this one is very much correct. he thinks that the walkout groups timing is not right.

[mbt]

BoyFerrari,

before I answer, I'd like to know what you think about the following. Just answer briefly, one word, phrase or sentence will do.

1. Do you believe in God (or a god or gods)?
2. Is life happy, or is it sad?
3. Do you believe that FPJ would have made a better president than GMA, or a worse one?
4. Do you believe that the opposition politicians are a nuisance to the national interest?
5. Do you believe that a parliamentary form of government will be beneficial to the country as a whole?

[oldblue]

BoyFerrari,

before I answer, I'd like to know what you think about the following. Just answer briefly, one word, phrase or sentence will do.

1. Do you believe in God (or a god or gods)?
2. Is life happy, or is it sad?
3. Do you believe that FPJ would have made a better president than GMA, or a worse one?
4. Do you believe that the opposition politicians are a nuisance to the national interest?
5. Do you believe that a parliamentary form of government will be beneficial to the country as a whole?

uy survey, puwede ako makisagot.

1. i believe in god

2. life is both happy and sad. without sadness, you wouldn't feel happiness.
without war or turmoil, you wouldn't appreciate peace or inner peace.

3. same difference lang FPJ or GMA presidency, the problem is the people,
the pinoy culture that is eating into our system

4. opposition politicians are a nuisance if all they want to do is to blame this or to blame that. find loopholes on this or that.

* if you ask opposition politicians regarding oil crisis, and they answer that the solution is to remove the incumbent & ovethrow the present govt.

* and if you ask admin politicians regarding oil crisis, and they answer with
semi-solutions, other energy alternatives, legislation to support these alternatives.

san ka? sino ba may direct solution?


5. parliamentary form will reduce our national budget. nde na bicameral system of govt., less taxes spent on senators & congressmen. unicam na lang. also, no more costly nationwide elections. that alone suggests that
this cash-strapped govt. can save more. of course, the next question will
be, what about the long term? as a whole? etc. etc.. who cares! we
filipinos always think/worry about the long term solutions and up until now, we cant even solve/surpass short term problems.

[BoyFerrari]

BoyFerrari,

before I answer, I'd like to know what you think about the following. Just answer briefly, one word, phrase or sentence will do.

1. Do you believe in God (or a god or gods)?

Yes, I do. But we have the laws of Man; And we have the laws of God. Not everyone who is in prison today is guilty of a crime. Justice on earth is fallible, but we have to abide by it. When God's time comes, the Lord said, "no stone will be left unturned". But until then, we need 79 votes to impeach to uncover the truth.

2. Is life happy, or is it sad?

Depends on our priorities in life. But our lives could have been worse.

3. Do you believe that FPJ would have made a better president than GMA, or a worse one?

Napasubo lang si FPJ sa pulitika, he decided to run for president at the last minute. I pity him. In the world of politics, any president who comes unprepared for the job will be manipulated by vultures around him.

I voted for Bro. Eddie.

4. Do you believe that the opposition politicians are a nuisance to the national interest?

The opposition politicians are not a nuisance. But their antics and theatrics are. Just go by the numbers and follow the rule of law - there's no need to walkout really. That's one of the nuisance parts.

5. Do you believe that a parliamentary form of government will be beneficial to the country as a whole?

I haven't fully contemplated the merits of a parliamentary system as applied to the Philippines. So I have no comment on this at this time.

[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.

[mrpink]

opposition should do a better a job .. i expect the admin to stonewall the impeachment .. i expected the opposition to at least come up with something other than theatrics .. they already knew the admin would push the lozano complaint .. and yet they weren't able to figure out kung ano yung pwede nilang pa-ngontra doon .. babata kasi .. feeling nila indestructable .. natawa ako kay jaworski .. threaten ba naman si datumanong ng rebellion .. sabi ni datumanong .. daily fare niya ang rebellion sa magindanao .. bala hindi bola yung gamit nila doon .. atras si jawo .. hahaha

[mbt]

it's a frickin' circus aargh.

bakit kaya hindi maawa yung diyos sa atin at patamaan ng kidlat yung batasan at senado at malacanang haha

[mrpink]

i wonder why the opposition can't muster up 79 sigs? .. it's just 1/3 of congress .. sa lagay niyan .. puros ex-admin solons na nga yung na-fe-feature sa mga nasa-pro-impeach bloc .. ganoon ba karami yung admin bloc sa congress? .. or at least .. ganoon karami yung ina-accuse ng opposition na "against-the-truth" or binabayaran ng admin .. i think while the opposition is accusing the admin of wrong doing .. they should also look into themselves of what they're doing wrong and admit to their shortcomings .. hindi yung lahat ng batikos sa kanila eh blame lang nila sa admin .. they should own up to at least some part of the failure to bring the impeachment process forward ..

[BoyFerrari]

i wonder why the opposition can't muster up 79 sigs? .. it's just 1/3 of congress .. sa lagay niyan .. puros ex-admin solons na nga yung na-fe-feature sa mga nasa-pro-impeach bloc .. ganoon ba karami yung admin bloc sa congress? .. or at least .. ganoon karami yung ina-accuse ng opposition na "against-the-truth" or binabayaran ng admin ..

That's EXACTLY the point. Sabi nga dun sa headline ng Inquirer: "Just 6 votes shy to impeach".

That's the point mbt, just 6 votes shy .... and the entire circus ends here. Comply with the requirement, and the circus ends. Let the impeachment begin. There is always haggling of votes in Congress, it's partisan politics, you cannot simply ignore it while you are "seeking for the truth".

Allegations, bribing, intimidation, arm-wrenching, what-have-you.... these are noises that will NEVER go away.... there is only one fact that remains: COME UP WITH 79 SIGNATURES AND THE DRAMA ENDS. IMPEACHMENT BEGINS. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

[KALAMPAG]

I just hope "they" are still doing what the people have elected them hope they should be doing. Baka naman lahat sila e tutok na tutok sa impeachment, kinalimutan na trabaho nila. :-( sad.