Propose A Law

[redshift]

All government (elected and non-elected) officials must enroll their children in a public school...

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

An amendment of the Constitution, particularly on "Suffrage." Those who are allowed to vote and to run for public office are those who are paying and actually filing income tax returns. Students are also allowed to vote if they are actually enrolled in a school. Medyo elitist, but at least we can be assured that the people voting are educated and reasonable.

 

But then again, this is wishful thinking.

 

I quite agree. But like you, I think this is wishful thinking. We live in a democracy which empowers the majority to decide who gets to govern. And since the masses are in the majority, we have no choice really but to accept their decision, no matter how much we despise that decision.

 

Could be a reason why so many people from the "thinking class" have left because they see no hope for this country.

 

 

 

[kempaf]

dapat taxpayers lang ang may karapatang bumoto

[Julianda]

Any Takers?

 

 

(Idiotic) Laws Proposed by Philippine Politicians.

 

1. The Balato Bill

2. The Anti-Selfie Bill

3. The Anti-Dildo Bill

4. Ordinance Against Comedy Bars

5. The Anti-Hammer Ordinance

6. Tax Exemption for Manny Pacquiao

7. The Anti-Helmet Ordinance

8. The Anti-Planking Bill

 

Full story HERE.

[maxiev]

Any Takers?

 

 

(Idiotic) Laws Proposed by Philippine Politicians.

 

1. The Balato Bill

2. The Anti-Selfie Bill

3. The Anti-Dildo Bill

4. Ordinance Against Comedy Bars

5. The Anti-Hammer Ordinance

6. Tax Exemption for Manny Pacquiao

7. The Anti-Helmet Ordinance

8. The Anti-Planking Bill

 

Full story HERE.

I'm all in favor of an anti-helmet ordinance to help identify riding in tandem criminals. Helmets should only be required for big bike motorcycle riders on SLEX, NLEX, SCTEX, etc.

 

It's surprising, that in some US states, motorcycle riders are not required by law to use helmets. Considering the relatively high rate of speed of vehicles over there, and Americans' penchant for safety, this is indeed surprising.

 

Besides, if you get hit by a truck or a bus or a car travelling at high speed, it doesn't matter if you wear a helmet or not. It's not going to save your life. I find it silly seeing people riding motorcycles in heavy traffic using helmets. What's the helmet for when you're travelling 20 km/hr? People can run that fast or even faster. Does it mean that if you run, you should use a helmet as well? Absolutely ridiculous.

Edited September 16, 2014 by maxiev

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

dapat taxpayers lang ang may karapatang bumoto

Sounds really enticing. Unfortunately such a law will never pass over here. Politicians who endorse such a law will need to find a new job other than one in government.

 

That's the major flaw of democracy. The tyranny of the ignorant, stupid, and unenlightened governs what type of society we get to live in.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Repeal the law which decriminalizes squatting. Squatting should be looked at for what it really is. The theft of private property. If carnapping, (which is theft of privately owned vehicles) is a crime, why consider the theft of real property any other way? If ever, the penalties for stealing someone's land should be higher than the penalties for car theft because real property cost more than vehicles. Generally speaking, of course.

[Julianda]

I'm all in favor of an anti-helmet ordinance to help identify riding in tandem criminals. Helmets should only be required for big bike motorcycle riders on SLEX, NLEX, SCTEX, etc.

 

It's surprising, that in some US states, motorcycle riders are not required by law to use helmets. Considering the relatively high rate of speed of vehicles over there, and Americans' penchant for safety, this is indeed surprising.

 

Besides, if you get hit by a truck or a bus or a car travelling at high speed, it doesn't matter if you wear a helmet or not. It's not going to save your life. I find it silly seeing people riding motorcycles in heavy traffic using helmets. What's the helmet for when you're travelling 20 km/hr? People can run that fast or even faster. Does it mean that if you run, you should use a helmet as well? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

I beg to disagree. Anyone who rides a motorcycle wont agree this idiotic anti-helmet ordinance. Regardless of the speed or size of the motorcycle, the rider must wear a helmet. Period.

 

I am a rider and have a full and open face helmet. I use them for safety and protection purposes not just in compliance of what's in the law. Therefore, anyone who imposes this anti-helmet or any related ordinance is an idiot.

They think imposing such ordinance will help solve the crimes? It wont.

[sonnyt111]

I beg to disagree. Anyone who rides a motorcycle wont agree this idiotic anti-helmet ordinance. Regardless of the speed or size of the motorcycle, the rider must wear a helmet. Period.

 

I am a rider and have a full and open face helmet. I use them for safety and protection purposes not just in compliance of what's in the law. Therefore, anyone who imposes this anti-helmet or any related ordinance is an idiot.

They think imposing such ordinance will help solve the crimes? It wont.

Are more people killed because of accidents which was a result of not wearing their helmets? Or are more people injured and killed by riding in tandem criminals. It may not solve crimes but then everyone (CCTV's witnesses, law enforcers and others who happen to be around the suspects when they committed the crime will have a great shot of those criminals. One can't see what these riding in tandem criminals look like with their helmets on. Without a helmet, they can easily be identified through cctvs, personal phone cameras, witnesses, victims, etc. It will be so much easier to track down the perps.

 

So the California government and New Hampshire state governments are idiots according to you because in those states, using helmets isn't mandated. I've seen lots of motorcycle riders riding big bikes with nothing on their heads except a bandana.

 

 

Or how about a compromise? Remove the helmet requirement law but allow those who want to use helmets to use them. There will always be some who are concerned with safety and the presence of a good helmet provides some measure of confidence. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

But because of all these riding in tandem crimes, police will randomly pull over motorcycle riders wearing helmets and checked for weapons. drivers' licenses, ownership of the bike, etc. In other words,if you wear a helmet, expect to be hassled by police. It's really a very small price to pay in exchange for your peace of mind, and your own personal safety.

 

 

 

[sonnyt111]

A law increasing penalties for killing wildlife illegally.

[Julianda]

Are more people killed because of accidents which was a result of not wearing their helmets? Or are more people injured and killed by riding in tandem criminals. It may not solve crimes but then everyone (CCTV's witnesses, law enforcers and others who happen to be around the suspects when they committed the crime will have a great shot of those criminals. One can't see what these riding in tandem criminals look like with their helmets on. Without a helmet, they can easily be identified through cctvs, personal phone cameras, witnesses, victims, etc. It will be so much easier to track down the perps.

 

So the California government and New Hampshire state governments are idiots according to you because in those states, using helmets isn't mandated. I've seen lots of motorcycle riders riding big bikes with nothing on their heads except a bandana.

 

 

Or how about a compromise? Remove the helmet requirement law but allow those who want to use helmets to use them. There will always be some who are concerned with safety and the presence of a good helmet provides some measure of confidence. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

But because of all these riding in tandem crimes, police will randomly pull over motorcycle riders wearing helmets and checked for weapons. drivers' licenses, ownership of the bike, etc. In other words,if you wear a helmet, expect to be hassled by police. It's really a very small price to pay in exchange for your peace of mind, and your own personal safety.

 

 

 

Comparing of how it is like between US and Philippines for that matter is like as if a certain place of the former is part of the latter, which is indeed out of question. Kelangan ba natin gayahin ang US sa mga ordinansa nila? Yes, whoever behind the implementation of the no-helmet policy are bunch of idiots. will say it again and again.

 

Now, whoever believes repealing such policy from city ordinance to NATIONAL motorcycle NO-HELMET law, because he/she believes that it is the absolute solution to the rising number of crimes in the country, must be shot.

 

[sonnyt111]

Comparing of how it is like between US and Philippines for that matter is like as if a certain place of the former is part of the latter, which is indeed out of question. Kelangan ba natin gayahin ang US sa mga ordinansa nila? Yes, whoever behind the implementation of the no-helmet policy are bunch of idiots. will say it again and again.

 

Now, whoever believes repealing such policy from city ordinance to NATIONAL motorcycle NO-HELMET law, because he/she believes that it is the absolute solution to the rising number of crimes in the country, must be shot.

 

When it comes to safety protocols, everyone looks to the United States as the leader. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point.

 

For instance, when the US FDA declares a particular drug safe for human use will the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines conduct its own tests to determine for itself whether such drug is indeed safe for use for Filipinos? It simply doesn't have the budget nor manpower for this tedious process.

 

It just takes the word of the US FDA.

 

When the US FAA certifies that a particular aircraft is safe for use, does the Philippine CAA or DOTC for that matter, conduct its own tests to determine if that particular aircraft is indeed air worthy or does the Philippine government simply take the word of the US FAA?

 

Let's face it. The US is the leader when it comes to technological innovations, safety, medicine, science, etc. If we did not take their word for it, it would be like trying to re-invent the wheel. We would be wise to try to emulate the success of the United States like other countries in the world are trying to do.

 

Of course, there are situations in this country that need ordinances tailor-made for Filipinos because of differences in culture, environment, economic situations, and so on.

 

I just find it silly that American bikers are deemed safe driving motorcycles at 120 kph on freeways without the need for helmets while Filipinos need helmets while driving in bumper to bumper traffic at 30 kph.

 

This is not to say that ALL American states don't require helmets. Some do, some don't. But it's quite obvious that in states where helmets aren't required, the risk of death in case of accidents at high speed are much higher than the risk of death caused by accidents at extremely low speeds in an extremely congested metropolis such as Metro Manila. And yet the government requires the use of helmets (most of which are definitely useless anyway) because they are sub-standard. Quality helmets cost a lot of money which most Filipinos don't have. So they resort to using really cheap, brittle, sub-standard helmets which won't provide the least amount of protection to motorcycle riders. But they do provide hold-up men/assasins riding in tandem, the perfect cover/protection from identification to commit their crimes even with the proliferation of CCTVs all over Metro Manila.

[Julianda]

When it comes to safety protocols, everyone looks to the United States as the leader. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point.

 

For instance, when the US FDA declares a particular drug safe for human use will the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines conduct its own tests to determine for itself whether such drug is indeed safe for use for Filipinos? It simply doesn't have the budget nor manpower for this tedious process.

 

It just takes the word of the US FDA.

 

When the US FAA certifies that a particular aircraft is safe for use, does the Philippine CAA or DOTC for that matter, conduct its own tests to determine if that particular aircraft is indeed air worthy or does the Philippine government simply take the word of the US FAA?

 

Let's face it. The US is the leader when it comes to technological innovations, safety, medicine, science, etc. If we did not take their word for it, it would be like trying to re-invent the wheel. We would be wise to try to emulate the success of the United States like other countries in the world are trying to do.

 

Of course, there are situations in this country that need ordinances tailor-made for Filipinos because of differences in culture, environment, economic situations, and so on.

 

I just find it silly that American bikers are deemed safe driving motorcycles at 120 kph on freeways without the need for helmets while Filipinos need helmets while driving in bumper to bumper traffic at 30 kph.

 

This is not to say that ALL American states don't require helmets. Some do, some don't. But it's quite obvious that in states where helmets aren't required, the risk of death in case of accidents at high speed are much higher than the risk of death caused by accidents at extremely low speeds in an extremely congested metropolis such as Metro Manila. And yet the government requires the use of helmets (most of which are definitely useless anyway) because they are sub-standard. Quality helmets cost a lot of money which most Filipinos don't have. So they resort to using really cheap, brittle, sub-standard helmets which won't provide the least amount of protection to motorcycle riders. But they do provide hold-up men/assasins riding in tandem, the perfect cover/protection from identification to commit their crimes even with the proliferation of CCTVs all over Metro Manila.

 

Now that makes sense.

 

Thank you for such 'discernment'.

And for being gentle.

 

 

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

A law to rescind all the BIR memorandum circulars issued by BIR Commissioner, Kim Henares. She's the most hated person in the business world. Her adversarial stance vis-à-vis business may negatively impact the growth rates of companies.

 

How I'd love an administration that balances regulation with a general laissez-faire policy. Too much regulation and interference on the part of government will stifle companies' productivity which in turn affects the ability of the companies to provide taxes, provide jobs, provide quality products and services, and contribute to the general economy of the nation.

 

Too little regulation, on the other hand will make business unreliable, uncaring, inefficient, prone to abusing its employees and providing its customers with sub-standard products.

 

A balance should be struck between the two.

 

 

 

[sonnyt111]

Now that makes sense.

 

Thank you for such 'discernment'.

And for being gentle.

 

 

 

There's no reason or excuse for me not to be gentle. Especially toward an intelligent lady such as you. We see things in different perspectives and hence form different observations and form different beliefs. This is the perfect place to air your ideas so I'll see where you're coming from and will be able to look at the situation from your perspective.

 

And vise versa of course. I'll do my best to make you understand my observations and beliefs based on my perspective. Let's just agree to be rational and as diplomatic as we can possibly be.