All About Current Admin of Duterte

[BoyasBabis]

---

I Love Duterte

[firestarter]

If the point was to avoid or evade taxes, then why bother to be classified under BIR's Large Taxpayers?

Anyway, it's moot already. The die is cast. The fat lady has sung. The curtain has come down. Just like what Duterte said to the military about the four soldiers killed in Jolo, it goes something like "if you want revenge, I won't stop you. But ask yourselves: Is the country better off or worse off from your actions?" I think the same can be asked here, don't you think?

Personally, I don't like ABS CBN. I think they've been guilty of bias for a long time. To quote from the book "Friends of Voltaire": "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," But if the demise of ABS CBN is due to something else and not due to their disagreeable speech, then life must go on.

So basically you agreed to the move of the Lower House not to grant the Franchise?

The Courts and Supreme Court decide which speech is allowed. So, will you acknowledge that there is no free speech (in the truest sense of the word) in the Philippines? I think we can both agree on this point.

Ha?? Free Speech ?? I thought I've already said that before nga ang Free Speech is not without it's limits?

Free Speech just like any other Right stops, where someone else's Rights begins.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say

So, will you acknowledge that there is no free speech (in the truest sense of the word) in the Philippines? I think we can both agree on this point.

And I won't agree with you because I don't know which to agree on. I however, will agree what the law says about the Limits of Free Speech, just like any other Right.

This is actually what you said on your previous post:

I don't know about you. If everything should be praise and glory to your political idols, do you know where that's headed? North Korea.

and now you are saying this:

I believe I said "But we could be on the way IF we're not careful."

You were saying we are headed towards North Korea, I figure you were talking about Communism and Dictatorship.
And now you are talking about Messiah, the first was is Political the other one is Religion, they are separated in our laws though, so.

Time will tell if we're headed in the right direction, i.e. if we know where we're supposed to go in the first place: Is it toward more freedom or less freedom? Or is freedom too dangerous? Is the idea of accepting responsibility for our choices in life too hard?

Yeah, you're right. We're not that great as a people. We might as well be ruled by a messianic dictator who can promise to take care of us and lead us to the promised land.

I'm curious about how why you think we were headed towards North Korea though, in fact I'm curious about these stand out points.

1. Philippines heading towards North Korea
2. Dictatorship
3. Messianic Dictator
4. Lastly, the Promised Land

Why did you bring up these words?

[firestarter]

i'm still not taking sides up to now regardless ug unsa pay ipangyawit sa both parties. some are just too toxic and i don't want to deal with it. pero wa ko kasabot ni duterte nganong lenient cya towards sa issue nilang sinas, duque, pimintel etc. if ako ang naas lugar nya, ug gusto ko dli madaot akong imahe, paphaon nako ang mka.guba sa akong dungog. are his advisors relaying a different narrative sa iyaha which explains his response towards these issues?


as for online activism, i don't really care much about it ky kutob ra pagarpar btaw. way proactive solution. as if pud motuhop na sa ilang mga gitirahan nga baga mag nawng ang mga politiko nato dri. hahaha. ug mabugnaw na ang isyu, move on nang mga taw. paet. manrabaho nlng tag taman kaysa mag apil2 sa drama sa socmed ky dli gyd cya mkabayad sa bills btaw. hahahha

Murag mag lisod si Duterte anang Pimentel for one, he is an ally in the Senate where 1 senator can overturn a decision towards laws, ika duha, he is a Senator. They are somewhat immune from suit, however I don't know if the Bayanihan Law is one of them that could dent his immunity. Also, he is a member of the Senate which is a separate pillar of our government, I think it should be Senator Sotto and the Senate who should take action when it comes to this. I think there is already an on-going investigation by the DOJ and some other complaints filed against Pimentel. At the end of the day, what Duterte could do to a member of the Senate is just to file a complaint. Kung lahi pani nga Senator labi nag yellow unya gi investigate kunuhay sa DOJ, mo ingon na dayon ning fould unya tawag ug Constitutional Crisis, kay gi investigate sa Executive and Legislative.

Kani hinuon silang Sinas, ug Duque, ambot lang gyud aning mga tawhana, nganong unsa ka grabi ang kapit ani.

Sa ako lang huna-huna, basin maayo kaayo ni mo bulatik nis Duque, basin gara kaayo ni basta naa duol sa President. Labi na tingale karon nga almost everyday ni sila mag kita kay sigeg update sa COVID, maayo tingale kaayo ni mo sulsol ni Duterte. Suffice it to say, somebody is feeding Duterte news pabor ni Duque. Probably mere incompetence doesn't irate Duterte too much, but corruption thus. Siguro ug naay maka ingon nga corrupt nis Duque tangtang ni dayon. Basin maayo kaayo ni motago.

Kani pud si Sinas porbida tawhana. Ambot ug unsa pud ni ka lawm ang kapit ani. Then again, basin tungod ni kay dili corruption ang case ni Sinas, instead violation lang sa Bayanihan. Time will tell, I however, recall Sinas murag mao ning gikan sa Cebu nga Police Chief, panahon sa grabi nga campaing sa drugs, mao guro ning naay gamay nga pabor ni Duterte.

[hitch22]

So basically you agreed to the move of the Lower House not to grant the Franchise?

Well, as a believer in free speech, I'd rather have the marketplace of ideas determine the fate of ABS CBN than a government body.

Ha?? Free Speech ?? I thought I've already said that before nga ang Free Speech is not without it's limits?

Free Speech just like any other Right stops, where someone else's Rights begins.

For me, free speech should not have any limits...BUT this is only recommended for highly mature, highly intelligent societies.

You were saying we are headed towards North Korea, I figure you were talking about Communism and Dictatorship. And now you are talking about Messiah, the first was is Political the other one is Religion, they are separated in our laws though, so.

I'm curious about how why you think we were headed towards North Korea though, in fact I'm curious about these stand out points.

1. Philippines heading towards North Korea
2. Dictatorship
3. Messianic Dictator
4. Lastly, the Promised Land

Why did you bring up these words?

My whole point is about the climate of fanaticism, which I think should be tamed in order to allow healthy critical thinking.

In North Korea, the leader is treated like a god. Myths and legends are created to exalt the status of their dear leader. There is excessive praise and demonstrations of loyalty towards their dear leader. No one dares criticize the leader. I'm not saying we're there. I just hope we don't end up like that.

The point about "promised land". Every election, candidates promise a "brighter future" and masses believe in it. It seems as though if the right leader comes along, he sees himself getting richer. I think you're smart enough to know that waiting for the right one to come along is not a good strategy in life.

I think Duterte is a great leader, but what we hope he accomplishes is different. All I wish from Duterte is to put the Philippines in the top 20 of the Index of Economic Freedom ranking and encourage more large foreign investors to set up shop here. And one more thing: what happened to the promise of Federalism? Is this still on the agenda?

[firestarter]

Well, as a believer in free speech, I'd rather have the marketplace of ideas determine the fate of ABS CBN than a government body.

Who is this "the marketplace of ideas" of yours?

I really want to know because this "person" is the one whom you think should determine the fate of ABS CBN.

For me, free speech should not have any limits...BUT this is only recommended for highly mature, highly intelligent societies.

Just like any law or Right, it has to have limits, even the US or Canada puts a limit to any law or Right where we base our Constitution and Laws put limits to every law.

I couldn't put it in any better words and thereby quote it from the comments of the US Constitution:

"
The First Amendment allows us to speak our mind and stand up for what we believe in. However, the limits on free speech are rooted in the principle that we're not allowed to harm others to get what we want. That's why we're not allowed to use to speech for force, fraud, or defamation. "

https://www.policyed.org/intellectio...r%20defamation.

I'd like to know where this "highly mature, highly intelligent societies" you are saying though.

My whole point is about the climate of fanaticism, which I think should be tamed in order to allow healthy critical thinking.

In North Korea, the leader is treated like a god. Myths and legends are created to exalt the status of their dear leader. There is excessive praise and demonstrations of loyalty towards their dear leader. No one dares criticize the leader. I'm not saying we're there. I just hope we don't end up like that.

For one, I don't see any "excessive praise and demonstrations of loyalty towards" Duterte though. What I can see from CNN, ABSCBN, Inquirer, Philippine Star, Rappler, even pro admin News outlet and even from Senators like Lacson, De Lima, Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, Drilon, etc., are all criticizing the President or this administrations action. With this, I don't see where the excessive praise and loyalty demonstrations you are saying.

In fact, if you search in Google the word "Duterte", I'm betting the first 10 results are criticisms against Duterte and not what excessive praise and demonstrations.

And I'm also betting, out of 100 demonstrations or rallies in the streets, majority if not 90% of these demonstrations are anti Duterte.
Free Speech couldn't be more freer than that. Some of these demonstrations are even violent, to the point that they are vandalizing our government properties, and even private properties. In some other countries, doing those could land you in jail. Check Singapore for example. Some of our laws are even violated with those rallies, and this President is so lenient on these that he neither lay a finger on them demonstrators.

If you ask me, Free Speech in this country is excessive to the point of being derogatory to private citizens and to people in authority.
If you have seen rallies or demonstrations in Japan and South Korea you would know what I mean, even demonstrations in Hong Kong if not for some violent protesters, are relatively peaceful compared to our rallies or demonstrations in this country.

The point about "promised land". Every election, candidates promise a "brighter future" and masses believe in it. It seems as though if the right leader comes along, he sees himself getting richer. I think you're smart enough to know that waiting for the right one to come along is not a good strategy in life.

I think Duterte is a great leader, but what we hope he accomplishes is different. All I wish from Duterte is to put the Philippines in the top 20 of the Index of Economic Freedom ranking and encourage more large foreign investors to set up shop here. And one more thing: what happened to the promise of Federalism? Is this still on the agenda?

Compared to previous leaders, I think this one is a stand out. The others were lackluster. If you happen to go fishing, you will be surprised to know that you can't catch all the fishes in the Ocean.

Federalism is one of those elusive ones.

[DEMONOCIETY]

wa ny ayo dtete! DILI ka protecta sa atong soverenya! ihatag na lang jud diay niya ang spratly island sa intsik! TRAYDOR!

wa malooy sa atong ultimong mangingisda dha sa palawan na mao ra jud source nila ang spratly banggaan pa ug dagkong chinese vessel kasab-an pa niya ang mga mangingisda nato paboran ang tsikwa na nakabangga?! pagka amaw niyaaaa.

[gibra'al]

though ksabot ko sa realistic nga punto ni duterte towards sa china nga wla gyud tay bawt ug mgka.gyera ta against them, i just hoped he stood firm nga protektaran ang sovereignty sa pinas just like how other countries approach it. pero murag talaw mn c manoy. and yet he seems complacent mn towards china sab. we can't just dismiss pro-LP's sentiments ani nga butang kay naa mn say kamatuoran ilang gi.raise nga concerns. i hope people would get past the mindset of needing to take either sides (both of which has their own flaws sab) and instead be more objective and rational sa ilang decisions.

pero i think it would be unfair to put all the blame kang duterte ky katong panahon ni pnoy wa sd toy ayo ang pgdala. just like what's happening sa philhealth nga fiasco nga pila na diay to ka tuig ang pagpangurakot.

[hitch22]

Who is this "the marketplace of ideas" of yours? I really want to know because this "person" is the one whom you think should determine the fate of ABS CBN.

Marketplace of ideas is not a who? Marketplace of ideas is the platform where ideas are allowed to compete and the market (i.e. the people) gets to choose which ideas to accept and reject. In the case of the fate of ABS CBN, if in the final reckoning the public decides to tune them out, then they'll lose viewership and run out of business.

Just like any law or Right, it has to have limits, even the US or Canada puts a limit to any law or Right where we base our Constitution and Laws put limits to every law.

I couldn't put it in any better words and thereby quote it from the COMMENTS of the US Constitution:

"The First Amendment allows us to speak our mind and stand up for what we believe in. However, the limits on free speech are rooted in the principle that we're not allowed to harm others to get what we want. That's why we're not allowed to use to speech for force, fraud, or defamation. "

I'd like to know where this "highly mature, highly intelligent societies" you are saying though.

First, I'd like to point out that that's not what the First Amendment says. You're just quoting a comment on the First Amendment. Here's what the First Amendment really states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

People introduce the concept of "harm" to put limits around that freedom, where "harm" can be interpreted in so many different ways that free speech no longer has any meaning. The "harm" of defamation, for example, is so overrated. Think how Erap was vilified when he got ousted two years into his presidency, only to find himself still popular with the masses. You can name many other politicians who've been alleged to have been involved in corruption and is still winning elections. Where's this so-called defamation? Truth is people have short-term memories and they usually move on with their lives. Only people with overblown self-importance are paranoid about what people think of them.

Where are these "highly mature, highly intelligent societies"? Well, take a look at the index on press freedom and see which countries are tops on the list.

For one, I don't see any "excessive praise and demonstrations of loyalty towards" Duterte though. What I can see from CNN, ABSCBN, Inquirer, Philippine Star, Rappler, even pro admin News outlet and even from Senators like Lacson, De Lima, Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, Drilon, etc., are all criticizing the President or this administrations action. With this, I don't see where the excessive praise and loyalty demonstrations you are saying.

In fact, if you search in Google the word "Duterte", I'm betting the first 10 results are criticisms against Duterte and not what excessive praise and demonstrations.

And I'm also betting, out of 100 demonstrations or rallies in the streets, majority if not 90% of these demonstrations are anti Duterte.
Free Speech couldn't be more freer than that. Some of these demonstrations are even violent, to the point that they are vandalizing our government properties, and even private properties. In some other countries, doing those could land you in jail. Check Singapore for example. Some of our laws are even violated with those rallies, and this President is so lenient on these that he neither lay a finger on them demonstrators.

If you ask me, Free Speech in this country is excessive to the point of being derogatory to private citizens and to people in authority.

To chime in on that last sentence: In our country, people kill each other merely for exchanging unpleasant words. And that is why I said that free speech is only recommended for highly mature, intelligent societies.

Relax. I'm not saying Duterte is the same as Kim Jong Un. I'm just noticing a great degree of fanaticism in cyberspace and this is not good for intelligent discussion. I agree with most of what you've said. Political rallies usually have dubious origins, especially in the Philippines. There are people who've made a business/profession out of protesting and this is symptomatic of a less mature society. In the case of Hong Kong, they are indeed facing existential threat from the CCP. Big difference. They're not protesting for nothing.

Compared to previous leaders, I think this one is a stand out. The others were lackluster. If you happen to go fishing, you will be surprised to know that you can't catch all the fishes in the Ocean.

Federalism is one of those elusive ones.

But the elusive one (Federalism) will reverberate throughout our history. People will remember this turning point.

Every leader wants to be known for "achievements" and then they kick the debt problem to future administrations who will have their hands tied because debt-servicing will have eaten up the budget. Guess where the pogi points go to? And can you blame that future president for not being able to achieve much?

How's the future going to look like in your crystal ball, my friend? I certainly need a good dose of optimism right now.

[firestarter]

Marketplace of ideas is not a who? Marketplace of ideas is the platform where ideas are allowed to compete and the market (i.e. the people) gets to choose which ideas to accept and reject. In the case of the fate of ABS CBN, if in the final reckoning the public decides to tune them out, then they'll lose viewership and run out of business.

So the idea is to leave ABS CBN's franchise renewal and approval of said "franchise law" to their viewership?
Because if we were to follow this logic, as long as they have viewers their franchise should be renewed and no other law should limit ABSCBN's right over said frequencies.


So hypothetically, even when ABSCBN committed unlawful acts against other entities or other people and/ or didn't follow the requirements or violated stated requirements in their franchise where they agreed to in the first place, we the " entire public" still have to leave their franchise renewal to their viewership, as long as they have viewers and as long as they are making money? Making-money, because they won't be operating the business if they were losing money in the first place.


Really, if we were to follow this kind interpretation of "marketplace of ideas", ABSCBN should air in Youtube, or over the internet and stay away from the strict requirements of the government's free-to-air limited frequencies. Doing away with their current "ABSCBN franchise".


Please also, consider when I say "ABSCBN franchise", this is/was a law promulgated by Congress, drafted in the Lower House, and approved by the executive. Just like any law, you still have to follow such procedures, because a "franchise" is a law. And we only have these branches ( Congress, Executive and Judiciary), to promulgate, approve, and interpret such laws. lest, you have a people's revolution or a military government, where this power to create laws are bestowed upon the people or military.


If they want to by-pass or do away with Congress, and Executive strict requirements ,they can always go to Youtube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Facebook Watch, and other providers over the internet where they won't need government resources "limited frequencies" to operate.

First, I'd like to point out that that's not what the First Amendment says. You're just quoting a comment on the First Amendment. Here's what the First Amendment really states:

That's actually what I said, comments of the First Amendment. Such, comments at least gives the idea why we need "limits" to every law. Contrary to what others are saying that Freedom of Speech should be unlimited.

People introduce the concept of "harm" to put limits around that freedom, where "harm" can be interpreted in so many different ways that free speech no longer has any meaning. The "harm" of defamation, for example, is so overrated. Think how Erap was vilified when he got ousted two years into his presidency, only to find himself still popular with the masses. You can name many other politicians who've been alleged to have been involved in corruption and is still winning elections. Where's this so-called defamation? Truth is people have short-term memories and they usually move on with their lives. Only people with overblown self-importance are paranoid about what people think of them.

The law maybe harsh, but it is still the law.

Where are these "highly mature, highly intelligent societies"? Well, take a look at the index on press freedom and see which countries are tops on the list.

You didn't give me a link to such index, so I googled the keywords "freedom of speech index" and came to here:


https://rsf.org/en/ranking#


It seems Norway is at the top of the index. A quick glance at their freedom of speech on limitations.

Norway’s History of Free Speech


When Scandinavian countries were founded, it was understood that free speech was absolutely fundamental to a healthy society. When Norway was under Danish rule in 1770, censorship was abolished. Once an independent country in May 1814, Norway drafted the Norwegian Constitution with the same attitude toward censorship as Denmark. Article 100 states, “Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever.” (Norwegian Constitution, Article 100) Limitations to expression included defamation, hate speech, and deliberate contempt of religion. Nearly 100 years later in 1902, Article 100’s limitations were elaborated on;.

Hate Speech is also another limitations imposed on Norway's Freedom of Speech, here:
https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news...f-hate-speech/


Norway also has a defamation law:
https://kellywarnerlaw.com/norway-de...20be%20imposed.




But suffice it to say, even the Norway the country at the Top (#1) in the Freedom of Speech index has limitations to Freedom of Speech.

To chime in on that last sentence: In our country, people kill each other merely for exchanging unpleasant words. And that is why I said that free speech is only recommended for highly mature, intelligent societies.

People kill other people for a lot more reasons.

Relax. I'm not saying Duterte is the same as Kim Jong Un. I'm just noticing a great degree of fanaticism in cyberspace and this is not good for intelligent discussion. I agree with most of what you've said. Political rallies usually have dubious origins, especially in the Philippines. There are people who've made a business/profession out of protesting and this is symptomatic of a less mature society. In the case of Hong Kong, they are indeed facing existential threat from the CCP. Big difference. They're not protesting for nothing.

Well, you brought it up in your previous post regarding North Korea and Dictatorship, so.

But the elusive one (Federalism) will reverberate throughout our history. People will remember this turning point.


Every leader wants to be known for "achievements" and then they kick the debt problem to future administrations who will have their hands tied because debt-servicing will have eaten up the budget. Guess where the pogi points go to? And can you blame that future president for not being able to achieve much?


How's the future going to look like in your crystal ball, my friend? I certainly need a good dose of optimism right now.

I would have hoped that Federalism pushed through with this administration, I don't see it becoming a reality in this administration though. Gloria tried it and didn't materialize. Probably a Presidential candidate with no other agenda other than a Federal State is given a chance at the helms of the government, then maybe. But with the current state of our government. I don't think so.


Debt problem, is another propaganda I've heard being brought about by the opposition, even the US is having trouble with such, and this pandemic has worsened it.

[firestarter]

though ksabot ko sa realistic nga punto ni duterte towards sa china nga wla gyud tay bawt ug mgka.gyera ta against them, i just hoped he stood firm nga protektaran ang sovereignty sa pinas just like how other countries approach it. pero murag talaw mn c manoy. and yet he seems complacent mn towards china sab. we can't just dismiss pro-LP's sentiments ani nga butang kay naa mn say kamatuoran ilang gi.raise nga concerns. i hope people would get past the mindset of needing to take either sides (both of which has their own flaws sab) and instead be more objective and rational sa ilang decisions.

pero i think it would be unfair to put all the blame kang duterte ky katong panahon ni pnoy wa sd toy ayo ang pgdala. just like what's happening sa philhealth nga fiasco nga pila na diay to ka tuig ang pagpangurakot.

The only real hope of curtailing China's expansionism in the West Philippines Sea or SCS whichever the case maybe, to my mind, is with the intervention of the United States.

If you have studied the history of battles, that led to the 2nd world war. It involved, countries invading other countries. Like Germany and USSR invading Poland, while other countries stand watch and the US never a lifting a finger against it. It was slaughter of course.

It was only until Germany Invaded and the slaughter of thousands of French people when the US and Britain intervened.

If I were the Philippine President I wouldn't want to be the next Poland. Duterte tried to ask help from the US when he was elected early on. But was never given concrete reasons to be all out against China.

If you were the President who is no superpower, no nuclear weapons, no proper navy, a handful of aging military assets, and a pitiful military budget, the only way I could handle such a looming conflict would be to defuse it.

China is flexing it's arms and is starting to show the world how powerful it is. I wouldn't wanna be the country being the first example of a show of force.

The former Justice Carpio, suggested something of ganging up against China, I believe he mentioned Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, not sure. But would you as a President wanted to risk war against China with nothing to show for it?

I do believe Duterte made it clear enough that he doesn't want to do anything with being a wartime president. Better eliminate enemies by making friends of them. I think that is what Abraham Lincoln said.

People could go on and on about this against China, but I would have to say this President is making the right decision against China. There might be better more sensible decisions towards sovereignty, but his concern decision towards China, might me the least bloody one.