BongBongLand (Philippine) Discussion Thread

[Victoriala II]

ah finally a worthy opponent to the current neoliberal degenerate world order

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

the problem isn't that he's impolite; the problem is more that he's so blase about death. he's basically inciting us all not just to rail against the establishment, which i don't agree with but isn't necessarily evil, but to rail against the deepest standards of good and evil by which our society is kept sane. hate against the EU? it might lead to economic ruin, which would destroy your point about "committing to positive change", but sure. ignore all incentives to make this current drug war any less murderous, even if he's not directly responsible for all the deaths? might as well be responsible for those deaths, he's supposed to represent this entire nation.

By positive change I mean change that is beneficial ONLY to the Philippines. That's the only thing that matters: that he serves his country well because Duterte is only answerable to the Filipino people.

"Deepest standards of good and evil?" Don't lecture me about morality and ethics: there is nothing logical with morality unless you talk about a certain actions should be done which would benefit your own country and your own people.

"Hate against the EU?" Negative opinion, that is. The EU needs better leaders, not the Philippines. The EU can't even answer the cultural jihad that's spreading in their nations and they come here lecturing us about "human rights" while they seem to be okay with ithe free movement of pedophile "refugees". Place leaders like Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orbán, Hofer and Petry in those EU countries, and not replace Duterte in the Philippines.

The deaths are mostly caused by people who resist arrest: they should know that they should not resist arrest and instead surrender to the police. If they don't surrender, then it is COMPLETELY LEGAL to shoot them in the name of self-defence. I completely support that notion, and no, Duterte isn't responsible for those killings and he cannot and he has no right to apologize for anyone: he can only apologise for himself.

What Duterte SHOULD change, however, is the policy in which policemen are screened. He should focus more on the corrupt policemen who abuse their power, and not on the current "EJK" exaggeration that the opposition keeps on crying about. EJK here isn't as big as they make it look like. Another thing I believe that he should fix is the economic growth and the flow of investments in the country, as well as the Transportation/Internet in the country. No, it's not about his tirades, but it's about knowing how and who he should negotiate and appoach certain countries through an independent foreign policy.

Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings.
He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country.
And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard.

[Kovacna]

Najib needs to fuck off tbh

Barisan's still going to win tho. So they're probs replacing one puppet for another.

Also pfft. Mocha's appointment just means they're legitimizing gov't funds going into her pocket.

As much as I support President Duterte, I think Mocha Uson is a big joke of a "government official".

[Saradena]

At this point, I'm becoming more skeptical of Duterte and his actions.
I'm really confused on what he wants to do

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

At this point, I'm becoming more skeptical of Duterte and his actions.
I'm really confused on what he wants to do

He's the "Trump of the East", I mean if you don't know what Trump wants, what's the chance of understanding the Eastern version of him?

[Pasong Tirad]

The deaths are mostly caused by people who resist arrest: they should know that they should not resist arrest and instead surrender to the police. If they don't surrender, then it is COMPLETELY LEGAL to shoot them in the name of self-defence. I completely support that notion, and no, Duterte isn't responsible for those killings and he cannot and he has no right to apologize for anyone: he can only apologise for himself.

No it isn't.

What Duterte SHOULD change, however, is the policy in which policemen are screened. He should focus more on the corrupt policemen who abuse their power, and not on the current "EJK" exaggeration that the opposition keeps on crying about. EJK here isn't as big as they make it look like.

Brad taga saan ka?

[Devernia]

At this point, I'm becoming more skeptical of Duterte and his actions.
I'm really confused on what he wants to do

He's the "Trump of the East", I mean if you don't know what Trump wants, what's the chance of understanding the Eastern version of him?

Uh... change?

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

He's the "Trump of the East", I mean if you don't know what Trump wants, what's the chance of understanding the Eastern version of him?

Uh... change?

Well if it's just the action of "change", then I suppose changing the state for the worse counts.

[Devernia]

Uh... change?

Well if it's just the action of "change", then I suppose changing the state for the worse counts.

For Duterte!

[Paragos]

At this point, I'm becoming more skeptical of Duterte and his actions.
I'm really confused on what he wants to do

Chismis-proof I believe.

It'll ruin the vibe if everyone knows about it, including his own cabinet members!

[Kovacna]

The deaths are mostly caused by people who resist arrest: they should know that they should not resist arrest and instead surrender to the police. If they don't surrender, then it is COMPLETELY LEGAL to shoot them in the name of self-defence. I completely support that notion, and no, Duterte isn't responsible for those killings and he cannot and he has no right to apologize for anyone: he can only apologise for himself.

No it isn't.

What Duterte SHOULD change, however, is the policy in which policemen are screened. He should focus more on the corrupt policemen who abuse their power, and not on the current "EJK" exaggeration that the opposition keeps on crying about. EJK here isn't as big as they make it look like.

Brad taga saan ka?

1. What do you mean no it isn't. What is legal remains legal. Anything bad with that?

2. Taga-Muntinlupa ako brad. Sumusuko ang mga adik tapos nakakarehab kaya di pinapatay.

[Pasong Tirad]

No it isn't.


Brad taga saan ka?

1. What do you mean no it isn't. What is legal remains legal. Anything bad with that?

2. Taga-Muntinlupa ako brad. Sumusuko ang mga adik tapos nakakarehab kaya di pinapatay.

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

[Kovacna]

By positive change I mean change that is beneficial ONLY to the Philippines. That's the only thing that matters: that he serves his country well because Duterte is only answerable to the Filipino people.

"Deepest standards of good and evil?" Don't lecture me about morality and ethics: there is nothing logical with morality unless you talk about a certain actions should be done which would benefit your own country and your own people.

"Hate against the EU?" Negative opinion, that is. The EU needs better leaders, not the Philippines. The EU can't even answer the cultural jihad that's spreading in their nations and they come here lecturing us about "human rights" while they seem to be okay with ithe free movement of pedophile "refugees". Place leaders like Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orbán, Hofer and Petry in those EU countries, and not replace Duterte in the Philippines.

The deaths are mostly caused by people who resist arrest: they should know that they should not resist arrest and instead surrender to the police. If they don't surrender, then it is COMPLETELY LEGAL to shoot them in the name of self-defence. I completely support that notion, and no, Duterte isn't responsible for those killings and he cannot and he has no right to apologize for anyone: he can only apologise for himself.

What Duterte SHOULD change, however, is the policy in which policemen are screened. He should focus more on the corrupt policemen who abuse their power, and not on the current "EJK" exaggeration that the opposition keeps on crying about. EJK here isn't as big as they make it look like. Another thing I believe that he should fix is the economic growth and the flow of investments in the country, as well as the Transportation/Internet in the country. No, it's not about his tirades, but it's about knowing how and who he should negotiate and appoach certain countries through an independent foreign policy.

Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings.
He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country.
And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard.

"Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings."

You mean his joke on how he wants us to kill 1,000 drug lords each? I have to admit, he should make it clear that he's joking about it. I also joke about killing 1,000 drug lords but I can't do it because I don't have a gun. It's true that he should

"He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country"

I'm anti-Marcos myself. I also rallied against the Marcos burial for the sole reason of historical revisionism and the whitewashing of the Marcos family. But when I've been reflecting on things, the real problem with the issue is that it's COMPLETELY LEGAL to bury him and there were loopholes in the jurisdictions regarding his LMNB burial. Anti-Marcos or Pro-Marcos, we can agree that it's legal for him to be buried, regardless of the feelings we have which should have nothing to do with upholding the law. While it is completely legal to bury him there, we should still recognize that his administration was a total failure which could have been successful if not for his corruption and cronyism. Speaking of moderate muslims and their trigger, let them suit themselves. I still won't recognize Marcos as a hero, though.

"And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard."

Terrorist attacks are going to be more rampant and it will intensify over the years. In our country, the administration is declaring an all-out war against Abu Sayyaf and terrorism, but of course, it's not that easy to curb these attacks. The comparison with the other countries is bogus: countries like France, Netherlands and Germany are not doing anything to curb terrorism other than placing more patrols. They are not addressing the root problem which is the open-border policy which allows an influx of migrants (where at least 10-20% of them are terrorists or people who want to implement and preach sharia law in a country that they just "migrated in") in their country and then trying to figure out why terrorist attacks happen there.

They don't close their borders to protect their own citizens unlike here in the Philippines wherein the President declares a state of lawlessnes and puts a tighter military control to protect the citizenry. Trust me, if another terrorist attack happens in France, I don't think people would care as much anymore because they elected an idiot like Emmanuel Macron instead of Marine Le Pen.

[Pasong Tirad]

He's literally using the "dem ebil muslems" argument.

[Kovacna]

1. What do you mean no it isn't. What is legal remains legal. Anything bad with that?

2. Taga-Muntinlupa ako brad. Sumusuko ang mga adik tapos nakakarehab kaya di pinapatay.

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

1. Murder due to SELF DEFENCE is LEGAL; that's what the policemen are doing.

2. "Surrender or die". People don't get killed for not surrendering; they get killed because they resist arrest and of course the policemen get threatened with such resistance, so they have to defend themselves.

3. Are you trying to use "human rights" as an excuse?

[Vulkata II]

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

1. Murder due to SELF DEFENCE is LEGAL; that's what the policemen are doing.

2. "Surrender or die". People don't get killed for not surrendering; they get killed because they resist arrest and of course the policemen get threatened with such resistance, so they have to defend themselves.

3. Are you trying to use "human rights" as an excuse?

1)Murder against self defence is legal and that's what policemen are doig
-Like killing a random suspect on the streets and putting a gun on their corpses to make them look hostile?

2. "Surrender or die". People don't get killed for not surrendering; they get killed because they resist arrest and of course the policemen get threatened with such resistance, so they have to defend themselves.
-So is shooting first and ask questions later also legal? Hmm?

3)Are you trying to use human rights as an excuse
-I mean I plan to have all Communist and Communist supporters to North Korea but no human rights.

[Vulkata II]

Also hello again everyone and goodbye.

[Stormwrath]

Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings.

Ah yes, because whether a sitting official unintentionally murders children or not should be the standard we should hold against that sunuvabitch.

He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country.

It's probably died out by now, like most things that people have a romp with Duterte so far.

And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard.

Except we don't have a nationwide cultural jihad carried out by the Muslim population in the Philippines. Plus, the second bombing of Quiapo shouldn't be attributed to ISIS--that would be giving them too much credit, not to mention incredibly Islamophobic.

Sure, perhaps his scare tactics worked with drug dealers, but to the more intellectual populace, they lose respect for a man who cusses 24/7 and keeps on presenting this "bravado" personality like he's constantly trying to prove something. See Trump.

It's not like intellectuals make up a majority of the population anyway, nor are those intellectuals necessarily against people like Duterte or Trump.

the problem isn't that he's impolite; the problem is more that he's so blase about death. he's basically inciting us all not just to rail against the establishment, which i don't agree with but isn't necessarily evil, but to rail against the deepest standards of good and evil by which our society is kept sane.

Okay, by which standards of morality are you referring to here? Because there are a lot of choose from depending on who you ask.

hate against the EU? it might lead to economic ruin, which would destroy your point about "committing to positive change", but sure.

Yeah, no. Just because Euros aren't gonna be injected into the Philippine economy as much doesn't mean that the Philippines will end up in economic ruin within a few years. Presenting the notion that it will as fact is what Duterte has railed against the EU and the West in general--the argument that dependence on Western markets is vital for the survival of a nation's economy in the 21st century. Duterte's not saying that the Philippines will shut itself from the world, he says that it will survive even if the West will not help it with even the smallest penny. Besides, he could (and is) looking for other countries to partner up with economically.

ignore all incentives to make this current drug war any less murderous, even if he's not directly responsible for all the deaths? might as well be responsible for those deaths, he's supposed to represent this entire nation.

He can't accept every single alternative to reduce the number of deaths either. That is just as irresponsible as "rejecting them all". If there should be a measure to reduce the number of deaths, I personally think that it should be done because it does good, not because it feels good.

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person, correct? If a policeman kills a criminal in self-defense, it's not murder because it is in performance of duty and it is what policemen have been trained to do in the face of imminent death by the actions of the criminal. Therefore killing a criminal in self-defense is lawful.

Also, many criminals don't want to go to jail. Should we just leave them be then?

[Pasong Tirad]

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person, correct? If a policeman kills a criminal in self-defense, it's not murder because it is in performance of duty and it is what policemen have been trained to do in the face of imminent death by the actions of the criminal. Therefore killing a criminal in self-defense is lawful.

Also, many criminals don't want to go to jail. Should we just leave them be then?

Murder isn't legal. And that's not exactly true, either. I can see at least 15 names from Muntinlupa in there. "Surrender or die" doesn't sound very legal. Ever hear of, I don't know, not killing people who don't want to go to jail?

1. Murder due to SELF DEFENCE is LEGAL; that's what the policemen are doing.

2. "Surrender or die". People don't get killed for not surrendering; they get killed because they resist arrest and of course the policemen get threatened with such resistance, so they have to defend themselves.

3. Are you trying to use "human rights" as an excuse?

Human rights is absolute. Murder due to self defense is legal, but that's not what's happening. People get killed because of quotas that need to be reached, financial incentives and the like.

[Vulkata II]

Has everyone turned Pro-Duterte when I was out?

I think I'm going down with a cold or something

[Kovacna]

Human rights is absolute. Murder due to self defense is legal, but that's not what's happening. People get killed because of quotas that need to be reached, financial incentives and the like.

Now THIS kind of quota killings are the ones that have to be solved, not the ones done in the name of self-defence. Bringing up "human rights" and "extrajudicial killings" without specifically stating your subject of concern is just stupid; the word "human rights" is beginning to lose its original meaning wherein it's becoming a negative connotation of people who overreact towards the use of force to maintain stability.

[Pasong Tirad]

Human rights is absolute. Murder due to self defense is legal, but that's not what's happening. People get killed because of quotas that need to be reached, financial incentives and the like.

Now THIS kind of quota killings are the ones that have to be solved, not the ones done in the name of self-defence. Bringing up "human rights" and "extrajudicial killings" without specifically stating your subject of concern is just stupid; the word "human rights" is beginning to lose its original meaning wherein it's becoming a negative connotation of people who overreact towards the use of force to maintain stability.

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

[Vulkata II]

Human rights is absolute. Murder due to self defense is legal, but that's not what's happening. People get killed because of quotas that need to be reached, financial incentives and the like.

Now THIS kind of quota killings are the ones that have to be solved, not the ones done in the name of self-defence. Bringing up "human rights" and "extrajudicial killings" without specifically stating your subject of concern is just stupid; the word "human rights" is beginning to lose its original meaning wherein it's becoming a negative connotation of people who overreact towards the use of force to maintain stability.

Give me one example of this "Self-defense killings" just one.

I will most likely not hear it because I'm not staying for long.

[Kovacna]

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

Do you think I care about people being coerced into submission? Even I don't. I prefer a stable government with a strictly diciplined citizenry than an unstable and democratic government.

[Pasong Tirad]

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

Do you think I care about people being coerced into submission? Even I don't. I prefer a stable government with a strictly diciplined citizenry than an unstable and democratic government.