It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President of Philippines to UN - I don't give a [snip] about your repercussions

page: 12
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
So it has nothing to do with drugs? It's political?
What a surprise.




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

You mean like viagra soft?
That sort of buds?


Nope, I mean "Obama" soft.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

leave someone in peace
Avoid disturbing or bothering someone, as in It's best to leave Dean in peace when he's paying the bills. This expression uses peace in the sense of "undisturbed," a usage dating from the early 1200s.

No irony.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The people there seem to see a champion fighting to preserve their culture from invasive special interests seeking to slowly destroy and erode their culture for their own purposes of greed and personal gain.

As you're not the people, nor living their on the ground seei8ng what they see.

What makes you so certain they're wrong?

Are you telling me there aren't special interests worming their way into governments to benefit themselves?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Drugs are a political issue. If you think they're anything but you're fooling yourself. The drug war is a war waged and maintained for the direct benefit of special interests.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

The people there seem to see a champion fighting to preserve their culture from invasive special interests seeking to slowly destroy and erode their culture for their own purposes of greed and personal gain.


Which people?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Indeed. And calling any member of the opposition a dealer is a very convenient solution to the problem. Going "extrajudicial" makes it all the more so.

No?


edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

How about the ones who voted him in. Those people?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's a civil war with the people and their leader vs. a corrupt invasive influence, it's not politics as normal.

Maybe you're right. Maybe he's tricking a naive frustrated and scared people to back him while he murders his opposition to maintain power under the guise of standing up for them.

It's also possible this is the first place where people have chosen to take the fight to those who've been subverting governments to benefit the few over the many. The drug war being one of the biggest tools in their arsenal. Is Duerte taking advantage of that desire for his own benefit? Maybe, I can't say. But one thing is clear, the people are fed up with the way things are.

No one will ever be able to revolt in this world against a corrupted broken court of law, because there's a strong push that daring to do so makes you the villain.

If a court of law is broken and works for evil, it's no less unjust than death by mob rule. The only difference is whether it's the elite or the masses deciding who they want to persecute.

When you can prove to me that the people are wrong and the court is just and not controlled by special interests I will agree with you.

As is, the people back Duerte and it's their country.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove



When you can prove to me that the people are wrong and the court is just and not controlled by special interests I will agree with you.

When you can show me that rejection of a Constitution is lawful I might listen to you.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Forgive me for butting in, but what do mean when you said this:

When you can show me that rejection of a Constitution is lawful

Which constitution or what part of it is being rejected and by whom?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The people who wrote our own constitution believed quite vocally that there's a time and place when the people must revolt, and that one day we may have to do so once again in our own country. The people of the Philippines have put him in power and continue to support him. They have decided it's time. When corruption has subverted your government to it's very core, the laws only work to protect that corruption. When that happens, there's no longer justice or a court of law. That's when revolution is the only choice. Revolt or submit.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
If revolt means lynchings, no thanks.

During prohibition in the US the mobs ruled cities. Al Capone was not executed.
edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: bijouramov

Asking to not be disturbed while you disturb other peoples lives, even if they have much disturbance already due to drugs, does make it ironic.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bijouramov


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.


The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
In case you didn't recognize the source
edit on 6-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But maintaining the drug war for personal profit, creating addicts and promoting organized crime is acceptable? Controlling the court of law to keep people in a constant state of poverty while you benefit from the fruits of their labor is all good? Letting child rapists go scott free, allowing for rape, and only enforcing laws on the lower class while letting the criminal elite politicians skirt such laws is acceptable?
edit on 9/6/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

No, and no.

But abandoning the rule of law is worse.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

These people control the rule of law. There is no rule of law to abandon, it's been subverted.

In order to get a rule of law back, one must eliminate the ones who've subverted the rule of law, destroyed it, and made it do the opposite of what the rule of law is built to do.

The problem is, you're under some delusion that there's a rule of law at this point to abandon. The people are fighting to get the rule of law back.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
And drug dealers (and users) are the problem?
Boogieman.

Open season. Kill 'em. Kill 'em all.
edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
The people are fighting to get the rule of law back.

Becoming what they are fighting is not the way to do it.
edit on 6-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join