Pinas Pulpolitika

[mukai]

nakakatuwa naman magback read dito. up!

[tk421]

Did it happen?

 

How is Duterte threatening human rights?

1) Yes. Kay Kian.

 

2) "President Rodrigo Duterte's repeated threats and orders to shoot and k*ll human rights activists vocal on human rights violations of his State security forces, especially those opposing his bloody war on drugs, is exacerbating the already dire situation in the country," Karapatan said in a statement.

[tk421]

Huh? Can you prove that Duterte gave the order to k*ll Kian?

 

 

Is there an article in the Constitution that states that a president cannot threaten drug pushers?

 

1) Did Hitler order Rudolf Levy to be killed in auschwitz?

 

2) Did you not read what you quoted? Was he threatening drug pushers or human rights activists?

[tk421]

Just answer the question. Stop asking questions that are unconnected to what we are discussing.

It does answer your question by making a point: an order doesnt have to be specific.

 

Halimbawa yun order ni Duterte to get rid of all drug pushers (without specifying a person), mag nahuli nila si juan dela cruz (for example), attributable ba yan kay Duterte or not?

 

In the same vein, yung sinabi ni Duterte na pag ayaw lumaban,bigyan mo ng baril, applies to Kian as well.

[tk421]

There is no such thing as threatening human rights. Threatening persons, yes, but threatening human rights? Haha! You cannot threaten something which is not tangible.

Luh. It seems you have trouble understanding the concept.

 

Let me put it in something relatable: an MTC mod says that if you keep posting out of topic posts, he/she will remove your privilege to post here. Is he/she threatening something tangible?

[tk421]

Did it happen?

 

Eto pa isang incident. NBI na nagsabi.

 

Nevermind that the person killed was allegedly a drug pusher. The point is everybody has rights, even a suspect. A murder is a murder and a crime, kahit ano pa motive.

 

You excuse one thing like this and the next time they overreach, you will accept it and accept it as normal until that time when it is your right that will be violated. And by that time you will have no one to turn to.

 

Remember that human rights is one of the most valued part of our constitution.

 

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/851314/nbi-shows-how-marcos-cidg-8-men-murdered-espinosa-in-jail

[tk421]

Don't take some of what Duterte is saying seriously. Sometimes, you have to discern which is serious and which is not.

 

Again, we go back to this topic. Ad nauseum. How do you know which is serious and which is not? Pag sinabi niyang ayaw niya sa corruption, should I take that seriously? Pag sinabi niyan he will fill the government with the brightest and the best people: serious or no?

 

You know what that shows? He lacks integrity. Hes not consistent at all.

 

And yes, when a president says something to his soldiers, that is not a joke. That is an order, verbal or written it does not matter. He is their commander in chief, after all.

[tk421]

I'm afraid there's really no point, is there? You will come up with more excuses anyways.

But jeez, fine. Here:

Duterte: ‘If I encourage killings, fine’

CHILDREN ‘COLLATERAL DAMAGE’ IN DRUG WAR; COPS CAN k*ll CIVILIANS SANS LIABILITY

“Let me tell you. This is the law of my land. Here is a police, here is a gangster. He’s armed with M16, the gangster only a pistol. But when they meet, they exchange fire. With the police with the M16, its one burst, prrrt, and hits one thousand people there and they died. There’s no criminal liability,” Duterte said.

“It could not be negligence because you have to save a life. It could not be recklessness because you have to defend yourself..."

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/826600/duterte-if-i-encourage-killings-fine

[tk421]

Oh, I dunno... the *He is only joking* excuse.

 

Did you not get what he said? One life of a police officer is worth 1,000 civilian lives against 1 gangster.

 

But then you will say he was joking again...

 

And I honestly cannot defend against such irrational logic.

Edited December 9, 2017 by tk421

[tk421]

Well... so much for when did he say... and Ill change my opinion of him.

 

What you are implying is that he is not a man of his word.

 

Anyways this is where i stop as I belive Ive proven my point.

[tk421]

So they just passed the new tax law... which means higher take home pay but higher price on commodities. Basically if you fall in the bracket where you are tax exempt, you are screwed because not only do you not benefit fron the new law, youll also have less buying power... except on milk and coffee.

[rooster69ph]

You are correct TK. Low income earners which i think comprises quite a big number of the total labor force would have little or no effect. This will mostly benefit mid income earners and penalize the high income earners.

 

But lets face it in the corporate world high income earners do have a way of managing their taxable income such as having part of it it appear as representation or allowance just not to be taxed. Yun maliliit actually ang walang ligtas sa buwis kasi up to the last centavo deklarado ang totoong sweldo niyan.

 

But how many people are able to scrutinize

[tk421]

Talk about wasting tax payer money. Asan yun mga kongresista nun nagbotohan para sa tax bill?

[perfectstranger]

mid income earners have been on the losing end for a long time and big income earners enjoyed their advantage for years so tax reform is better late than never.

 

the only real losers here are those who just recently became rich. they suffered in the past under the mid category and will then be taxed higher after tax reform is implemented.

 

as for low income earners, i think it's still a win for them if they could manage to spend wisely. unhealthy products should be taxed higher to discourage consumers from buying. the only thing i don't like is increasing tax on coal and petroleum products. they should bring in nuclear energy first before that.

[tk421]

mid income earners have been on the losing end for a long time and big income earners enjoyed their advantage for years so tax reform is better late than never.

 

the only real losers here are those who just recently became rich. they suffered in the past under the mid category and will then be taxed higher after tax reform is implemented.

 

as for low income earners, i think it's still a win for them if they could manage to spend wisely. unhealthy products should be taxed higher to discourage consumers from buying. the only thing i don't like is increasing tax on coal and petroleum products. they should bring in nuclear energy first before that.

Unfortunately, its not just unhealthy products that they should be wary about. As the new tax measure also includes higher taxes on fuel.