MERGED: Do You Want U.S. Statehood For the Philippines?

[FK]

---

mao jud... kong naay tabang (dawaton ang tabang) but not necessarily magpa under og lain nasod para lang ma usab.

[josephdc]

mao lagi.. defeatist man gud na nga idea kanang magpa-statehood ta. it's abandoning our responsibilities as members of a nation, which is to work for the preservation of our national identity and the betterment of our country. valid man jud generally ang mga arguments sa pro-statehood people. for example, that corruption is the root of our economic downward-spiral, etc. pero layo ra man kaayo na nga idea ang "statehood" gud. i mean, dili realistic. escapist, in another word.

kinahanglan nga ato jud i-carry ang atong responsibilities as members of our society and country. yes, it's such a huge burden -- what with all the discouragements and bad news we receive daily in the form of new revelations of incompetence, abuse of power, and corruption in government, etc. -- pero kung ato talikdan atong obligation to fight for our country (defending it not only from outsiders but also from those who seek to sabotage it from the inside, i.e., corrupt politicians, etc.), if we abandon all hope, seek "solutions" that are drastic, or if we pack up our bags and leave for "greener pastures" in distant lands having convinced ourselves that nothing anymore can be done about our country, unsaun na man lang diay nato pag-improve?

ang solution naa ra jud nato. it's really up to us. we shouldn't pass our responsibilities to others. mao na ang strength sa mga developed countries. dili sila defeatist o escapist. ila jud gi-accept ang fact nga if their country is ever to go anywhere, or if it's ever going to progress, naa ra jud nila ang power.

[clarkhkent]

ang solution naa ra jud nato. it's really up to us. we shouldn't pass our responsibilities to others. mao na ang strength sa mga developed countries. dili sila defeatist o escapist. ila jud gi-accept ang fact nga if their country is ever to go anywhere, or if it's ever going to progress, naa ra jud nila ang power.

its good if most of us thinks only the future of our countrymen or the country but most of our political leaders are only thinking ther good.....that can brought the downfall of our nation.

so its time na siguro nga we need them........lets forget na lang sa atong pride!

[FK]

it's not really about pride... it's about changing our attitudes. Nga mawala ang atong pagka swapang sa kwarta...

Mao na usahay ang mga taw mo resort sa binoang para lang masunod ilang American dream (to have items that are imported) and living beyond their means.

[gareb]

LytSlpr:

1. nope it was not our best. if we did our best then these corruption in the high halls will be minimal... even non existent. we actually do not have any strategic development plan that is suppose to be effective because the very same people that are in power last time belong to the very same clique that the ruling people of today are also members of.

2. for basic social services to work, it must be organized and encompassing. if we open social services to competition, then the people will ultimately be at the losing end. power struggles make these services which are essential to the economic function of the country, unreliable and ineffectual. because of the size of the industry and the relatively small number of firms that can be accomodated, it will ultimately turn out the way the oil industry has turned out.

3. renting from private buildings=true. what i suggest? focus on the millions that is lost. IF they cannot have relocation sites for those squatters, better not touch them yet. their rights are guaranteed by law.

[gareb]

If the problem is our Culture.. then the introduction of another culture would be the best remedy, right?

i suggest not. it would only befuddle the already murky and chaotic "us" that we are. i think it would be better for us to sort out and look deeper into ourselves on what really is wrong with us as a nation and as a people. the servile attitude that some people espouse is a laugahble idea.

would the Filipinos be treated as 2nd rate citizens in their own homeland?

cors not. hehehe. the fact itself that we use the term "homeland" betrays our "assimilation tendencies". we will forever treat ourselves as separate from them... because we really are. we will not be "discriminated" againt in our own soil... but the fact itself that we will be under the aegis of the american stars and stripes... u know basically how it goes.

and why should there be any discrimination in hawaii against filipinos at the first place,w hen the hawaiians are also of teh same austro-polynesian stock that we come from... and are also discriminated against when they go to the mainland?

Ang hustisya gihimog puppet sa mga dagkog tae ... do you think these would exist if the Philippines is under U.S. statehood...? I don't think so... ma usab ang pangutok sa taw if kabalo sila nga dili madali dali ang ga dagan sa balaod.

it is as if the USA of today does not benefit from the relative lawlessness of the Philippines. who do you think chummy chummy sila ni gloria? hehehe

Unsa may mahimo nato aning butanga? Do you think nga a revamped administration would remedy this?

nah. we have tried that in EDSA 2wice. did not work. system wide change and nit just the figureheads, thats what i suggest. malunod lang ta ug samot kung magpailalom ta sa US.

Don't blame foreign influences.. we brought this upon ourselves.

yep true... but we must admit that they have a very, and i mean *very* big role in all of our miseries...

unsaon man paghatag ug kagawasan sa usa ka langgam nga dili ganahan mugawas sa iyang hawla? wla man gus siya kabalo nga naa diay siya sa sulod.

JOLINA= borloloy power

[EZRA]

Lisod naman kaayo if we're talking about culture cause that dictates our identity. As hwta you said, our culture is one of the reasons of our downfall... that's almost permanent.
----
Point is.. we won't be treated as 2nd rate citizens... we'll share the same benefits as other under the American flag. I have the privilege of having stayed in several states.. although tinuod nga naay discrimination but only the ignorant ones do that.. mga rednecks mostly.
----
Gloria's administration is almost over.. so's Bush's. The upcoming Presidential hopefuls are not that happy with the present administration. Pero regardless if ni benefit ba ang US sa lawlessness or wala.. as long as tight ang pag kupot sa laws and regulation, walay mo abuso. Mga parak nga mo abuso diri, papas dayon.. mga politicians, samot!

-----
EDSA is a joke... both of them!!! nuff said


"unsaon man paghatag ug kagawasan sa usa ka langgam nga dili ganahan mugawas sa iyang hawla? wla man gus siya kabalo nga naa diay siya sa sulod. " .. this is a good statement! And I hope people realizes this.. pero as long as daghan magpa bilin nga ignorante ug magpa bongol-bongol, wa gyuy kapa-ingnan"

[josephdc]

Struggle through non-violent means.

But when you said "radical", and that there must be an "overhaul" of things in society, doesn't it mean armed revolution? How can a radical change, an overhaul of things in society happen without violence? Or how can an act be radical and at the same time non-violent?

i will throw back the question to you. and on top of that is the idea that all along, we have waged fake "revolutions" (EDSA 1,2,3... 10), "non-violent revolutions" though was able to change the person on top
but have emerged to be ineffectual in changing the purtid and filthy bureaucratic system.

bitaw sad. i agree nga radical yet dili violent to ang edsa revolutions. yes, they were radical, and for a while it seemed as if they achieved an overhaul of the status quo. pero si marcos ra ang na-replaced. true, nawala na ang martial law, nawala na (at least to a significant degree) ang mga human rights violations, pero sa time ni cory naa man japun ang mga injustices. naa ra japun nagpaluyo ni cory ang mga crony ni marcos, ang mga elite nga nag-influence sa paghimu sa policies sa government. the biggest injustice of all was the aquino administration's failure to bring to justice the conspirators of martial law, the top military officials and their subordinates who helped make martial law the terror that it was. bitaw, wala jud nausab atong government, in spite of the edsa revolutions. on the face of it, there was change. marcos' tyranny was replaced by aquino's benignity. but essentially naa japun ang injustice, only that in cory's time they took on a subtle form.

i think the failure of the edsa revolutions to effect genuine and lasting changes in our society only tell us that those kinds of revolutions were not enough. that what is really needed is a revolution from the inside, a revolution from each of us. the problem with the two edsas is that they were only expressions of the filipino's willingness to die for democracy, when what is more important is that they be willing *also* to live for it, practicing it in their day to day lives. i mean, we don't cultivate a culture ba, a habit of practicing democracy in every aspect of our lives, day by day. pareha sa edsa 2, we only waited for estrada's corruption to come to a climax before we actually booted him out of office, when what we should've done is condemn him the first time he committed a sin. so the edsa revolutions were not enough because they did not start from each of us. i think a more radical revolution is a personal one -- we each have to be honest in every aspect of our lives (as condrado de quiros once said, a life lived in all honesty is an indictment of the corruption around us, or something like that) , and we need to be responsible, we need to practise democracy everyday. until that happens, until we wait for things to worsen before we take to the streets and declare our loyalty to democracy, we can expect more people power revolutions, which would only indicate that society is not changing.

You are hopeful that change can come without violence, but think that we may have to resort to it if the present downward spiral of the country continues...?

exactly. but it is not that "we will have to resort to violence if the present downward spiral of the country continues"... the fact itself that the elite is *already* instituting violence in the countrysides by militarization, their private armies, and even using the army and the police to guard the vast haciendas that these elite (who incidentally are also the ones in power) own.

the elite will do anything it can to protect itself and the position that it already has now even to the point of using the law itself to discredit and ignore the plight of the filipino "masa" that is suffering from this institutionalized poverty.

we must understand that the peaceful mode of radically changing the society is our primary aim. yet bloodshed will be inevitable if the powers that be will not give in to the outry of the majority. it is time the filipinos woke up from the long disturbing nightmare that he is in... a nightmare that made him believe that he cannot do anything substantial about his own sufferings.

bitaw sad, violence already exists in our society. but can't justice be achieved without violence? basin naa jud siguro'y way uy nga maka-kuha ta ug justice, ang mga pobre, without violently colliding with the interests of the elite. i mean, within the law ba, if mu-work lang ta within what is legal, to achieve justice, to take from the elite what is rightfully the people's (for example, land; or, in the case of the coco levy, money), i think possible mana ba. although it is also true nga arduous sad kaayo ang process. kanang coco levy dugay na kaayo, pero hangtud karun wala japun makuha kay danding, wala japun mabalik sa mga coco farmers. pero at least naa'y gamay developments ba.... ..

[josephdc]

If the U.S. Government wants the Philippines to be one of their States... that's their gamble. If they want to risk it, they must have a reason why.

The thing is, the US will never take that risk. The Philippines will prove to be a huge liability than an asset. And they don't need us to become a state. The country, or at least the Arroyo administration, is already subservient to US interests, ang ila interests na-served na to some extent, so there's no need for them to make us a state. And keep in mind nga mao ra jud na ang gihuna-huna sa US, ang iya ra jud economic ug strategic interests. The US is not driven by benevolent intentions, to believe that would be naivety. It's always concerned about its own interests.

[EZRA]

Of course.... that's why I said "IF"..