MACHISTAS AL PAREDON!!!

Siempre debes seleccionar una clave fácil de recordar.

        

Una mujer ayuda a su marido a instalar un equipo nuevo.
Una vez que se ha introducido todos los antecedentes previos, el sistema indica que elija una contraseña o sea que seleccione una palabra que siempre recordará.

El esposo mira a su esposa y con un gesto machista y un guiño de ojo, selecciona la palabra:

“mipene”

Mientras golpea “enter” para validar la selección, su esposa cae al suelo muerta de la risa, en forma  estrepitosa!!
 

     

 El computador ha respondido:
 

 DEMASIADO CORTO – ACCESO DENEGADO!

Infographic: Singapore versus Philippines under @NoynoyAquino @Orasnaroxasna #Duterte @BongbongMarcos

Posted by BongV on Nov 27, 2015

The politicians in the Philippines presidential “election” will once again be hogging the headlines on the TELL-A-LIE-VISION.

The information will be controlled based on a criminal agenda of plundering the income of other people in the guise of “alleviating poverty”.

Spending the money on their cronies, restricting liberties and assaulting basic human rights – such as the right to your income, the right to be peacefully smoking marijuana ON YOUR PROPERTY

This guy sez – don’t fuck with my team – but he fucks around with people?

…. the right to own a gun without licensing, the right to drive without licensing – as outrageous as it may sound  as you have been made to believe.

However, let’s look at a more fundamental action that takes place every day that has eluded detection by the asleep – and is a stinking red flag to be eliminated - to the awakened.

People don’t see the plunder as they have been mesmerized by a magic show.

What’s more outrageous is to keep on allowing these thieves to steal your money and threaten people.

But before we get to the part about waking up and holding these people for their criminal deeds and misdeeds – let us first build the moral basis for rejecting the depravity – and burying it for perpetuity.

If we are to use mere beliefs – then we will not come to an agreement as everyone will have their own beliefs.

However, we can only come to a consensus based on a shared definition of the KPIs that will establish the moral superiority of freedom.

Without validating what the crowd believes, we might very well end up making the wrong decision.

Discernment is key. Get the facts. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusion

But never fear, I am here to provide a perspective that will change the way you think.

Take what you may, and leave what does not resonate with your beliefs.

And the way to do that, is to use the very same numbers that the governments around the world use to proclaim their usefulness to society- which to the awakened, is absurd.

Anyone can have a belief – the question is, whether the belief is supported by empirical data

So how come you were not aware of this?

Because you were distracted that’s why.

Duterte Supporter Says Only Criminals Cry About Human Rights Abuse

November 29, 2015

by Paul Farol

One of the Rody Duterte presidential campaign’s key distinguishing features is all the tough talk on how he proposes to get rid of crime and corruption. The most glaring proposal he and his friends in media is the claim that he’ll turn Manila Bay into Death Bay by turning it into the dumping ground for the bodies of criminals and corrupt government officials.

One popular Facebook page continues circulate a statement which is attributed to Duterte and it says, “Ngayon pa lang ay nagbabanta na si Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte na papatayin niya ang 100,000 kriminal sa oras na mahalal siya bilang presidente ng Pilipinas sa 2016.” (Translation: “Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte warns that he will kill 100,000 criminals the moment he gets elected president of the Philippines in 2016.”)

The people who liked and commented on the page post didn’t seem think about the implications of that statement. All they cared about was that someone said something that they wanted to hear and that’s what politicians are really great at.

What people don’t realize is that if there’s one thing that Duterte is good at, it’s playing the role of the seducer.  He knows people are so sick of crime and corruption that they’re so desperate for any solution, so Duterte told them the most fantastic thing they wanted to hear and people allowed themselves to be played.

Thing is, Duterte’s seduction strategy is poorly played and easily found out.

All one has to do is ask how Duterte intends to LEGALLY kill 100,000 criminals IMMEDIATELY after he is elected as president in 2016 given that RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

If Duterte says that he will ask congress to repeal RA 9346 and reinstate death penalty, he runs into another problem because also swore to abolish congress.

Now, if you’re scratching your head at this point, let me help you by saying that Duterte’s way of getting around the need to repeal RA 9346 is to establish a revolutionary government.

If that is so, then, I have to ask… WHY EVEN FRICKING FILE FOR CANDIDACY?!!!

Moving on…

The next thing that bothers me a little about Duterte are his followers and how they think that they can actually pick which laws ought to be followed.

One argument I’ve come across is this, “The criminal justice system doesn’t work, therefore we must abolish due process.”

First of all, they fail to conclusively prove that the country’s criminal justice system doesn’t work. Second, I don’t think they even understand what the implications of abolishing due process means.

Article III. Bill of Rights

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

To put it simply, abolishing due process means that any agent of the state can do anything to anyone for any reason. That there is your basic definition of tyranny. 

So, at this juncture, I am really curious as to how a political party as illustrious as PDP-LABAN can support Duterte?

My friend JP Fenix asked the party’s leader, Senator Koko Pimentel, this question and has so far not received an answer:

Maybe Senator Pimentel is too busy to answer questions from us nobodies. LOL!

Anyway, Senator Koko Pimentel assured that Duterte would follow the law once elected and I am daring Pimentel to ask Duterte to account for his statement admitting to links to the Davao Death Squad.

Thing is, if Duterte indeed IS the Davao Death Squad, he could be liable for breaking a number of laws including the Philippine constitution.

If Duterte turns around and says he IS NOT the Davao Death Squad, then he was lying and really, proves himself to be no better than all the other nuisance candidates.

Will Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s brand of ‘justice’ work on a national scale?

November 28, 2015

by Ilda

Former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales thinks Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, a Presidential candidate for the 2016 Presidential elections, has the makings of a dictator. She is basing her opinion on Duterte’s “alleged vigilante-style approach against suspected criminals in his city”. Here are some of the things she had to say about Duterte “the punisher”:

“He hates criminals. Suspected criminals have no space for him. He guns them down if he feels like it,” she told ABS-CBN News.

“The moment you take the law in your hands and you think you can get away with it, then you become part of the problem, and that has been the way of all authoritarian rulers.”

“These people who say we need a Duterte, they don’t think of the law. They don’t realize that if you don’t respect the law, it would affect also you and your family,” she said.

“As mayor, I don’t understand it, but he felt that he had the authority to gloss over the rule of law, to gloss over due process, and to let people know that he could get away with murder, and that’s what makes it dangerous.”

Rodrigo Duterte: He’ll need more than loud threats to get things done as president.

Who doesn’t hate criminals? For Duterte’s supporters, Rosales comes across like she is siding with the criminals. In fact, there are people who think Rosales has lost her moral high ground considering she doesn’t speak out against human rights abuses allegedly committed by the Cojuangco-Aquino clan, in particular, regarding the incident involving the massacre of farmers at Hacienda Luisita in 2004 where seven protesting farmers were killed by members of the military.

Likewise, I have yet to hear Rosales or any of the human rights advocates speak out against President Benigno Simeon Aquino for violation of human rights by illegally detaining former President Gloria Arroyo even after the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that her continued detention is arbitrary and illegal under international law. Furthermore, Rosales didn’t speak out against the Department of Social Welfare and Development under the leadership of Corazon “Dinky” Soliman when the agency violated the human rights of street dwellers by detaining them against their will to hide them from foreign dignitaries visiting the country like Pope Francis and other world leaders who came for the APEC summit.

Having said all that, Rosales does have a point. To strengthen the country’s institutions, Filipinos need to respect the rule of law. This means following due process – a system that guarantees that the state respect all legal rights of the accused including the right to a presumption of innocence.

Unfortunately, this concept is too hard for most Filipinos to understand. While some may be ignorant of the idea behind due process, there are people who are aware of it but have become frustrated with the slow pace or lack of justice in the Philippines. Which is why it has become difficult for the average Filipino to believe in the Philippine justice system. This is especially true when they see “justice” leaning favorably towards the moneyed elite and those allied with people in power. In the Philippines, the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty seems to apply only to those currently in power.

While Rosales is right about respecting the rule of law and the country’s institutions, she needs to answer this: Is the justice system working in the Philippines? It’s like the chicken and egg dilemma. How can one respect the rule of law when the system is broken? Even some lawmakers do not know how to follow the law. According to Duterte, he resorts to his own brand of justice because the “justice system as it is does not work”. The fact that he can get away with openly admitting that he supports extra-judicial killings of suspected criminals is enough proof that what he is saying is true – that the justice system in the Philippines does not work.

On the surface, there is an appearance that due process is being followed. But in some cases, the problem lies in the way verdicts are handed out. There are allegations some judges can be bribed to rule favorably towards the guilty party. Some said this was the case when Hubert Webb, son of popular basketball player and former senator Freddie Webb was acquitted in 2011 of the crime of the murders of three members of the Vizconde family in 1991. Despite the public uproar, the Supreme Court’s decision to free Webb and the other co-accused was final. Webb may have spent 15 years behind bars before being acquitted but there could be hundreds of people languishing in jail for decades because they do not have the money or connection to help “clear” their names.

President BS Aquino: It’s high time somebody calls out his human rights violations.

In another high-profile case involving former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, President BS Aquino allegedly bribed senator-judges using public funds during the impeachment trial to rule against Corona. Their verdict resulted in Corona’s removal from office. That was a classic example of due process seemingly being followed for the sake of “appearances” but the verdict or outcome was dubious. It was what they call a kangaroo court.

No wonder Duterte’s brand of “justice” is becoming popular not just with Davaoenos , but also with Filipinos all over the country. This is evident in Duterte leading the recent popularity survey among Presidential candidates.

The question now is, how can Duterte as President prevent the bribery of members of the law enforcement agencies including the judges in municipal courts on a national scale? It would be impossible for him to monitor everyone’s actions especially since he will also have to divide his time fixing and upgrading the country’s economy and infrastructure. It is only fair to ask him realistic questions since he finally decided to join the fray in the presidential elections.

Will Duterte be enough of a father figure to inspire everyone in the country especially the people running the justice system to behave? Or does he need to point a gun on everyone’s groin for them to develop a conscience? That indeed, remains to be seen.

Rodgrigo Duterte is wrong: There is a lot of room to be ‘iron fisted’ legally!

November 27, 2015

by benign0

I make no secret of my own preference for iron-fisted rule. In the Philippines, there is a lot of room to implement that within the framework of the law simply by consistently applying said law.

Take that quintessential Filipino icon, the jeepney. By itself the jeepney single-handedly epitomises the Philippines’ culture of criminality. The state applies the law to them with a limp dick. Do we want “iron-fisted” rule? It’s easy in this instance. Being “iron fisted” with jeepneys is a simple matter of arresting jeepney drivers who stop where they are not supposed to stop and swerve onto lanes without indicating their intent using their indicator lights.

If they need to be rounded up by the hundreds, by all means, round them up. If the police find themselves undermanned for the task, call in the armed forces to assist. Resisting arrest attracts severe prison terms and steep fines. Sick that law on anyone who refuses to cooperate with this roundup. Impound all these erring jeepneys until such time that their drivers and operators could cough up the cash or serve their prison terms. Send their clunkers to the junkyard if they choose to forfeit.

See what I mean?

All of that is being “iron fisted”. But it is all within the framework of the law. There is no need for extrajudicial killings to rule with an iron fist.

But then ask Filipinos the simple question: Are they willing to see even this simple legal case of being “iron fisted” implemented consistently and over a sustained period? I don’t think so. Kawawa naman itong mga jeepney driver. They are simply “making a living”.

And so, yet again, out the door goes that will to be “iron-fisted”. And kabaklaan continues its decades-long reign in Philippine society.

We are quick to raise our fists to champion “getting tough” on drug lords and terrorists. Yet we cannot even enforce simple city ordinances against idiot jeepney drivers and trespassing squatters in our own backyards.

The Philippines has such a bakla approach to law enforcement and policing that aspiring to being “iron fisted” in establishing law and order starts from a pathetically low bar. These people who act like baying dogs in their support of presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte do not know what they are howling about. A people who cannot respect much less enforce simple rules in their everyday goings-about quite simply cannot presume to call upon their leaders to do the same. This is a democracy, after all. And in a democracy where leaders are chosen by popular vote, the character of leadership reflects the character of the society as a whole.

There is no need to resort to vigilantism. All that is needed is to understand the law and apply it consistently. There is lots of room to improve within the legal framework. Vigilantism is a product of lazy and deranged minds. Philippine politics is already deranged enough as it is. We have no-results motormouth politicians, resident aliens, thugs, has-been celebrities, and mama’s boys running for office in the coming elections. Again. It’s time Filipinos think and put their feelings under control. People who think succeed. People who are all feelings fail.

Culture of Retribution Keeps Society Barbaric

November 26, 2015

by ChinoF

After my post on the gun culture of the United States, I realized I was missing one key factoid to my argument: the “culture of honor” in the American South. In short, this culture, mostly attributed to the Southern (or Confederate) culture of the U.S. and related to the pro-gun culture, dictates that people should avoid offending others, or else they would be met by retribution. In other words, this culture allows killing or hurting others just for being pissed off or because of mere suspicion.

Complaints/Revenge

Its supporters may claim, this is how to keep troublemakers in line. But that’s it, what does “in line” mean? They should always agree with you, and if they disagree with you, you have the right to kill them? If they are of a different culture you find strange, you have to kill them? Then there’s something wrong with it. Also, here’s the problem: these people are likely anti-gay or anti-Muslim, or anti-anyone-of-another-culture. What they really want is if they encounter gays or other “undesirables,” they would want to kill them (like the colonel killing Lester Burnham in American Beauty). Or because of dumb whims, people can be wrongfully killed. For example, a girl insisting she is beautiful (when she is actually not) kills someone who disagrees with her. Or perhaps because a father was told by someone else his daughter was raped by his neighbor’s son, but it never happened; yet instead of checking if it’s true, he goes ahead and kills the neighbor’s son. So if this is the “culture of honor,” there’s nothing honorable about it. Lately, fellow blogger Paul Farol had raised the issue of the Davao Death Squads, who may have been killing innocent people as well as confirmed criminals.

Perhaps this culture had its day when there was no government and law enforcement during the pioneer or Wild West days. But those days are long gone, and there is law enforcement today. Thus, people still believing in taking the law in their own hands are favoring ethically questionable principles. It’s very likely that deep down inside, people who approve of retribution and things like the Davao Death Squads, have actually no or little respect for others.

Let me tell you one other fact. What terrorists are doing is retribution. They hate what they perceived the West did to them, so terrorist attacks are retribution for all that. In other words, terrorists have a similar attitude as the “culture of honor,” if only in the retribution part. If they believe that if someone has wronged them, they have the right to kill them. That is perhaps the best simple explanation of what terrorism is.

Here’s my answer to people who point to the Bible’s “eye for an eye” principle: my church teaches that the reason for the establishment of that rule was because, in retribution, humans wouldn’t be satisfied with just an eye. They would want two eyes for an eye and a jaw for a tooth. I think the movie line is from The Untouchables: “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” So what damage he does to you, you do greater. So if he just insults you, you kill him. It’s this immature attitude likely based on pride that leads to escalation of violence – plus the attitude of “I can do better than that.” In this case of violence, it’s better not to do “better.” Thus in the New Testament, the teaching of “eye for an eye” was abrogated and replaced with “love your enemy.” In other words: prevent violence from escalating.

Let’s borrow a little bit of wisdom from Mohandas Gandhi.

To those who insist allowing free retribution will keep society in order: no, it won’t. Violence does not keep people in line. It leads to more violence. Because after retribution, people will want to repay the retribution, and again and again it goes. Non-stop. Also, if keeping people in line is done with fear, that is actually tyrannical. It is not “just.” For example, there are cases like the Davao Death Squads getting the wrong guy. The guy killed is actually law-abiding and doing nothing wrong, and that is what does he get for it? That is not justice at all. So other people living there are actually kept in fear that they will be killed by mistake. Retributive entities like this are not keeping society in “order,” but are actually keeping it in fear. And a fearful society is never a productive society.

And the question for the citizens who favor this kind of society is, are you sure you are law-abiding citizens? Or are you like the redneck right wingers who want people who they dislike killed? And perhaps the question after this is, do you really believe in human rights, democracy and all that? Do you actually hate your neighbors? This is something I pondered on in my blog post about tolerance – I reasoned that some people do not like other people who are not like them, and want them to disappear. That’s why the world is how it is right now.

Retribution is also prevalent in the Philippines with our warlords. Simply, the warlords of the Philippines use it: piss me off, I will have you killed (who knows if the DDS are under them). And they are the people who are voted to even the highest offices in the land. You think it ended with Marcos? Look at Mendiola, Lubao, Hacienda Luisita, Maguindanao and more. The Philippines is still indeed the “wild wild west,” and it’s a reason why we can’t move forward.

Until today, the people who believe they have all the solutions to the world’s problems still justify violence. And, sadly, but appropriately, their “solutions” only worsen the violence. Thus, elimination of the culture of retribution, so wrongly called “culture of honor,” is one step to creating a more humane and just society. Any culture that says violence by people against fellow people to keep them in line is unethical. If we are only willing to leave our neighbor to do their thing in peace (as long as it is ethical), and not force “assimilation” or “do it our way,” the world would be a much better place to live in.

Saving Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign from his own balasubas supporters

November 25, 2015

by benign0

Well, what would one expect of a character like Rodrigo Duterte? A man with his character would, indeed, reflect the character of his constituents. Mga balasubas.

My colleague Paul Farol earlier wrote about the plight of a certain Jack Labang who had the “audacity” to post a disapproving comment about Duterte’s recent announcement of his candidacy in the coming 2016 presidential elections and how this guy was thrashed in various Facebook forums infested with Duterte supporters.

Now that Paul had published his work on GRP, supporters of Duterte who are subscribed to the GRP Facebook Page are also now out in full force slamming the article, Paul himself, and the overall GRP site and its Admins as well! It’s good in a way. It’s an opportunity to purge our page of people following us for the wrong reason.

Thing is, I myself have written quite a bit about Duterte and will have to admit that I wrote these without bias — neither for nor against him. I admired his boldness and pointed assertions but, at the same time, noted the slippery slope that is his shortcut approach to law enforcement and justice delivery. I wrote about Duterte because he fascinated me. He was someone to watch because Duterte, unlike the other wishy-washy no-substance presidential candidates in the running, did not equivocate in his views, made bold and categorical assertions, and had a clear vision around how to go about changing things. Most important of all, he had a track record of delivering results (flawed or questionable the means to achieving these may be).

Unfortunately, it is not Duterte himself that does him in. It is his supporters. A disturbing alarm bell about his supporters (or, for that matter, any tardic supporter of any politician) is a quickness to permanently shut out any view they perceive to be critical of their bet. That’s a sure recipe for the sort of goose stepping type of blind following that asks for trouble once such a politician sieazes power. When a leader gets surrounded by blind followers who consciously and deliberately close their minds to even the slightest criticism, the outcome becomes predictable.

This is a specially dangerous cocktail for a man such as Duterte who has openly threatened to kill people who cross his path (consistent with his self-avowed record in his former role as Mayor of Davao City). Duterte’s followers have as early as now proven to be of the blind sort with a penchant for Taliban-like behaviour. They will likely take the vigilante attitude of their leader to heart and, themselves, propagate Duterte’s dangerous fundamentalism. The sense of superiority in how they regard the way things are run in Davao is practically reminiscent of the way German Nazis regarded their homeland when they set out to blitz the rest of Europe.

Perhaps Duterte does not intend to have his supporters behave this way. That simply means, just days into his candidacy, Duterte already suffers from a monumental public relations problem of his own followers’ doing. He needs to get his act together if he is to mature into a leader of presidential calibre and get his supporters under control to mitigate any further risk of damage to his campaign.

SEX WITH OLDER MEN

When George Burns was 97 years old he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah asked, 'Mr. Burns, how do you carry so much energy with you? You are always working, and at your age I think that is remarkable.'

George Burns said, 'I just take good care of myself and enjoy what I do when  I do it.'

Oprah said, 'I understand you still do the sex thing, even at your age.'

George said, 'Of course I still do the sex thing, and I am quite good at it.'

Oprah said, 'I have never been with an older man. Would you do it with me?'

 

So they had sex and when they finished, Oprah said, 'I just don't believe I  have ever been so satisfied. You are a remarkable man!'

George said, 'The second time is even better than the first time.'

Oprah asked, 'You can really do it again at your age?'

 

George said, 'Just let me sleep for half an hour. You hold my testicles in  your left hand and my penis in your right hand and wake me up in thirty  minutes.'

When she woke him up, they had great sex again, and Oprah was beside herself  with joy.

 

She said, 'Oh Mr. Burns, I am astounded that you could do a repeat performance and have it be even better than the first time. At your age, Oh  my, Oh my!'

George told her that the third time would be even better. 'You just hold my testicles in your left hand and my penis in your right hand and call me in  thirty minutes.'

Oprah asked, 'Does my holding you like that kind of recharge your batteries?'

 

George replied, 'No, but the last time I had sex with a black woman she stole my wallet. !!!