Re: We, the people

You lost. GMA won. Get over it. Get on with life. It is really that simple.
She won. The cries of fraud are themselves just that - fraudulent claims.
Get over it. Try again next election.

Yes, the impeachment vote was fair. It failed. Because it doesn't go
someone's way doesn't make it unfair. It followed the constitution - that is
all that matters. By the way, the President can issue decrees. She is the
Chief Executive officer of the country and she is also the head of the
military. She can bar military members from all sorts of activities,
including appearing before a Congressional or House hearings without proper
authorization from her. That is part of the separation of powers. Please
read the constitution if you have not, or again a little more carefully if
you have. It could be enlightening.

Possibly the opposition's time could be better spent on the new Sesame
Street game: "Where in the world is Garci?"


"shunconscious" <shunconscious@GM唣.com> wrote in message
news:2005111102544350073%shunconscious@xxxxxxxx
> You can call it a democracy. Nobody is claiming that it is not; rather,
> they are claiming that she got to power to foul play, a claim that was not
> addressed. By definition, the opposition had the fewest people who went to
> vote, that does not mean there are less of the opposition. It also is not
> static in numbers. There may be more in opposition now (and looking at the
> peso, I can't see why not) than when she was 'elected.' And last I
> checked, getting more votes in certain districts than there are people
> doesn't fit any definition of fair or democracy I know.
>
> A fair impeachment trial?
>
> Question: What is a state of rebellion? And exactly who is rebelling?
> Question: How exactly is it fair, when opposition testimonies are being
> barred from court, and the witnesses court martialed?
> Question: What exactly was she talking about on the tape?
>
> Fact: Circumventing the congress to create a decree (an archaic
> declaration used only by monarchies which, what do you know, isn't
> democracy.) is done with complete contempt for due process which is the
> very foundation of the Philippines' government. Checks and balances.
>
> What was that about democracy again?
>
>
>
> On 2005-11-10 12:09:19 +0800, "Unbreakable" <auburn_place@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>> IT is tiresome to listen to strident voices claiming to speak for "the
>> people," with nary a whit of objective proof that they do, in fact,
>> represent the majority view.
>> Strangely enough, these claims are usually made by party-list
>> organizations, which by the very nature of their status, are
>> representatives of marginalized sectors - and therefore not the majority.
>>
>>
>> They are also made by the political opposition, which again by definition
>> means a minority.
>> The last time we looked, the Philippines was still a democracy - with its
>> share of problems, but a democracy nonetheless in which the majority has
>> the final say, through institutions that exist based on laws written by
>> legislators elected, again, by the majority.
>> Whether these would-be spokesmen of "the people" like it or not, the
>> current administration is in office because it won the last election, and
>> all legal challenges to that victory - save for the vice presidency -
>> have
>> been exhausted. The President, too, has undergone a legal impeachment
>> process that failed
>> to go to trial because her opponents did not have enough support in the
>> House to garner a third of its members, never mind a majority.
>> Finally, the disgruntled critics - including former members of the
>> Cabinet
>> - tried to create a show of force in "the parliament of the streets" but
>> again failed to mobilize "the people" they claim to represent.
>> The ultimate insult on our intellect, however, came with this week's
>> poorly disguised effort to cloak yet another political attack on the
>> administration as a "people's court." The publicity stunt insults on two
>> levels - misappropriating a populist
>> label to which it has no right, and pretending to be a judicial process,
>> which it is clearly not.
>> If any doubt remains about the true nature of this beast, one only need
>> look at how long it took this "court" to find the President "guilty." One
>> day. Now that's what "the people" would call a rush to judgment.
>>
>> Source: http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=editorial_nov09_2005
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We, the people
    ... By definition, the opposition had the fewest people who went to vote, that does not mean there are less of the opposition. ... getting more votes in certain districts than there are people doesn't fit any definition of fair or democracy I know. ... How exactly is it fair, when opposition testimonies are being barred from court, and the witnesses court martialed? ... with nary a whit of objective proof that they do, in fact, represent the majority view. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Lebanon majority issues an ultimatum urging Saturday elections
    ... The March 14 meeting grouping Parliament majority leader MP Saad ... leader and former president Amin Gemayel, ... The March 14 leaders rejected attempts by the opposition to bypass the ... Welch and Abrams met with March 14 leaders on Tuesday. ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... You've showed me only your personal bias and confidence in democracy. ... A democracy rule as the majority wants. ... The biggest form of welfare it is grabbing the wealth from creator and give ... idiots (politicians) will inevitable find a way around it. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • To win, opposition must cater to voters’ priorities
    ... opposition must cater to voters? ... may give top priority to issues of democracy, freedoms and human rights, it ... Asian leaders and parties who have been in power for a long time know this ... cater to the priorities of the Asian electorate if they ever hope to become ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Where to smoke in LA and Seattle
    ... Democracy is mob rule, whereas in a Republic, the ... minority is SUPPOSED to be protected from the whims of the majority? ... They've already outlawed serving raw eggs in California. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
Loading