Skip to content

If UP, Ateneo Profs Really Read the RH Bill Yet Still Support It, Then They’re A Bunch of IDIOTS!

April 2, 2011

The show of force by some schooled supporters of the fascist Reproductive Health bill is now becoming more and more disturbing and alarming. Consider the tragic case of some University of the Philippines and Ateneo professors who had to join forces to perhaps educate the people on the social significance of the anti-reason, anti-rights, and anti-freedom RH bill.

Here’s the highly pathetic, stupid statement of these statist UP and Ateneo professors:


Statement of individual faculty of the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila University in support of HB 4244, “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for Other Purposes”

We, the undersigned faculty of the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila University, in our individual capacities as educators and scholars from various academic disciplines, declare our strong support for the consolidated reproductive health bill (House Bill 4244) and urge its immediate passage in Congress. We issue this statement because we see the need for our active engagement in social issues, believing as we do that the academe has a distinct role to play in achieving social justice and national development.

We have read House Bill 4244 on “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development” currently filed in the House of Representatives and have kept abreast of the ongoing debates. Many of us have been working on reproductive health and its related issues, some of us for decades. We have undertaken our own studies (literature reviews and analysis, policy studies, empirical researches, etc.) on reproductive health. Many of us have also participated in legislative processes such as public hearings and technical working groups.

Our studied and collective opinion is that House Bill 4244 is a vital piece of legislation. Its passage will mandate policies which will save women’s and men’s lives, improve infant survival, enhance young people’s health and well-being, and enable couples and individuals to make responsible decisions in planning their families. We also endorse this bill as a necessary element to achieve the goals of social equity, poverty reduction, and national development. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that these goals can be achieved without resorting to population control. Our reading of HB 4244 is that it is not a population control bill, nor does it violate any other rights and freedoms. HB 4244 in fact promotes the sexual and reproductive rights, the right to health, and the right to informed decision making of all Filipinos but especially the poor, in fulfillment of the provisions of our Constitution and our obligations under international covenants. The passage of a national and comprehensive law will also guarantee budgetary support from the national government for reproductive health initiatives and ensure their implementation by local government units, regardless of the vagaries of national and local leadership.

We are issuing this statement because we wish to support those legislators who rely on scientific evidence when they craft legislative proposals or decide how to vote. Their endorsement of HB 4244 is an encouraging example of progressive legislation that is necessary to national development.

In this light, we feel the need to comment on the way science has been misused by those who oppose this bill. We have seen the misrepresentation of easily verifiable information, such as the actual text of the proposed bill. We have witnessed the misuse of outdated studies, data that have already been disproven, or studies that cannot be replicated to support what are merely ideological positions. One example that is particularly dangerous is the lie that condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS. There have also been those who misrepresent extremist positions as the prevailing consensus of the scientific community. This evidence-based consensus, however, does support the provision of reproductive health services that include contraceptive access and sexuality education. It also supports the services for adolescents and children that HB 4244 mandates.

We are concerned over reports that teachers offer incentives, such as bonus points, for students to make anti-RH statements or engage in anti-RH activities. We welcome disparate opinions as necessary to the vitality of any scholarly community. Thus, we believe that it is an abuse of our role as value formators to dictate the political actions of our students in this way. We denounce any such violations of our duties to inculcate critical thinking and respect our students’ right to their own opinions. We denounce this, regardless of whether the teacher is for or against the RH Bill.

We caution our people to be more critical of the data and opinions presented to them and find out the truth for themselves. We are heartened by polls that show that most Filipinos know of the bill and support it, and in so doing have shown their capacity for enlightened citizenship.

Together with the legislators who have proven themselves worthy of their mandate by their support for the bill, we reiterate our full and unequivocal endorsement of HB 4244 and call for its immediate enactment into law.

This very much hilarious, amusing statement contains two tragic phrases that reveal the ignorance and lack of foresight of these UP and Ateneo professors. They are as follows: “We have read House Bill 4244…” and “Our studied and collective opinion is…” I say, WHAT A BUNCH OF STATIST IDIOTS!

First, let me tell my reader that I’ve written a number of blog articles to expose the evils of the RH bill. There’s a need to dissect the contents of the RH bill, which covers a number of issues, namely, philosophy, economics, politics, ethics, the law, and religion. However, based on my observation, most of the bill’s fanatic supporters simply focused their arguments on the alleged humanitarian side of the measure. They believe that our statist politicians should pass the bill because it was designed to help the poor and the marginalized. If humanitarianism is about helping the needy by sacrificing some group of people, then I say, down with humanitarianism!

Since these UP and Ateneo welfarists and nihilists claimed they have read the bill and that many of them have been working on reproductive health and that they have “undertaken” their own study, they came up with their “studied and collective opinion” that the bill “is a vital piece of legislation.”

First, they argued that the measure’s “passage will mandate policies which will save women’s and men’s lives, improve infant survival, enhance young people’s health and well-being, and enable couples and individuals to make responsible decisions in planning their families.” This assertion reveals the level of mentality of many schooled and professional supporters of the bill. They mainly look at the immediate impact of the measure while ignore its long-term effects on the economic health of the nation and on the rights and freedom of its citizens. Since the bill’s explanatory note states that it aims to help the poor and the marginalized, particularly women, they simply took such a promise on FAITH without taking into cognizance the means by which the government is to accomplish the measure’s intents and goals.

On its face value, it is true that the bill’s explanatory note and some provisions will “mandate policies, which will save women’s and men’s lives, improve infant survival”, etc., but the fundamental question is HOW! How is the state going to achieve this goal? The bill will deliver public good to its intended beneficiaries by sacrificing doctors and health care providers, and by disregarding people’s individual rights. I’m going to explain this premise below.

Another important question is: are couples and individuals not entitled to make responsible decisions under the current setup? This makes the bill a gigantic strawman. It presupposes that the entire Filipino people are deprived of their rights to obtain proper RH information, to make responsible decision, to buy condoms and pills, to practice family planning, to seek physician’s help on RH care concerns, etc. The most tragic fact is that these schooled and professional RH bill supporters are buying these bill’s strawman arguments. This is what makes the bill a GIGANTIC SCAM. It is very much evident that these social reproductivists call for government intervention. Since when did the government efficiently manage its public functions and welfare duties?

They said they endorse the bill because it is a “a necessary element to achieve the goals of social equity, poverty reduction, and national development.” It’s as if these so-called educators from Diliman and Katipinan had just discovered that Santa Claus is real! The tragic implication of this statement is that all we need to do is pass laws and legislative measures to solve some of the country’s social ills. How is this bill going to achieve social equality? – poverty reduction? – national development? They didn’t explain how. They merely stated their fanatic support of the bill in terms of adjectives and some socialist snippets. Just exactly how is this bill, which aims to force employers to serve the social interest of their workers and doctors to deliver their patients’ RH care needs even if it’s against their conscience, going to achieve equality, less poverty and development?

How much equality is needed to achieve a just and prosperous society? It is very much evident that the word “equality” here has all the trappings of egalitarianism and Marxist ideology. These schooled social reproductivists should understand that “equality,” in a human context, is a political term. It simply means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every individual possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be violated or transgressed the government or any of its agencies. However, what is very much clear is that this is not the meaning that the social reproductivists ascribe to the word “equality,” as they seek to destroy its real essence and turn it into an anti-concept. They use to mean, not political, but metaphysical equality—the equity of wealth, levels of income, as well as personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. Thus, what they propose to challenge are not man-made institutions, but nature, e.i., reality, by means of laws and political edicts.

They also said that the bill’s passage will “mandate policies which will save women’s and men’s lives, improve infant survival, enhance young people’s health and well-being, and enable couples and individuals to make responsible decisions in planning their families.” Again, at whose expense? Who will be immolated and sacrificed in the name of women and improved infant survival? It’s as if these so-called professors were talking of a fantasy to be made possible by the government. These social reproductivists believe that some social problems can be solved by means of social institutions (e.g., laws, policies, agencies), as they simply look at the immediate results of their social advocacy.

If that’s the case- if we can solve some social ills by merely employing the regulatory and police powers of the state- then why not make the government the main provider of our daily needs? But what these alleged educators miserably forgot is that many societies applied this fantastic approach in the past yet all of them failed and caused tremendous crisis that severely affected the lives of their own people. For instance, prior to the dictatorial reign of Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Weimar Republic guaranteed to serve the welfare of its people, providing free education, free access to health care, among others, by simply using the police power of the state and by printing tons and tons of paper money that caused not merely inflation but hyperinflation. In just two years from 1918 to 1919, the People’s Commissioners who governed Germany issued a series of decrees which confined to certain sphere- the eight-hour workday, domestic labor reform, agricultural labour reform, right of civil-service associations, local municipality social welfare relief and national health insurance, re-instatement of demobilised workers, protection from arbitrary dismissal with appeal as a right, regulated wage agreement, and universal suffrage from 20 years of age in all types of elections—local and national. This fantastic government program was deliberately implemented all in the name of the common good, and the great crisis it created was taken advantage by the Nazis to advance their political interests. However, under the rule of Hitler, Germany became a full-pledged welfare state, as it provided all the needs of the German people from womb to tomb yet massively controlled the social and political life of the German citizenry.

If these alleged educators really read and studied the bill, it is very much recommended that they also study history before they help deliver this country to total collectivism and economic collapse.

Thus, they said: “there is overwhelming scientific evidence that these goals can be achieved without resorting to population control.” Then why pass the bill? This simply shows the utter ignorance of these professors. The bill is what is not! It is about government control of the entire business industry, medical profession, and education sector. It doesn’t take a genius to see the bill’s impact on our freedom, rights, economy, and future.

They talked about people’s rights to reproductive health ignoring the fact that some people need to be sacrificed and immolated by the state to achieve this social goal. If some group of people have a right to RH and government services, what about the right of businessmen and health care providers to be left alone? Is this not in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law? But it seems that these alleged educators have a warped understanding of reality, as they believe that the bill’s passage merely requires “budgetary support from the national government.”  This simply shows that they didn’t have enough brain cells to properly understand the bill’s provisions.

The wealth, which would be used by the state to support the bill’s welfare goals, would not come from taxpayers’ money; primarily and in reality, it would come from the actual wealth producers, e.i., employers and health care providers. In the name of the poor and the marginalized, the bill’s primary sacrificial victims would be businessmen and doctors.

As I stated in a previous blog titled Killing RP’s Industry and Small Business With the RH Bill:

Those who ignorantly, naively take the consolidated bill at its face value will certainly accept the contradictory slogans, undigested political platitudes and unrealistic public programs of Lagman et al. There are two sides of the consolidated bill: the fantasy side and the reality side.

The measure’s fantasy side can be readily gleaned from its highly ignorant explanatory note, which is filled with supportive statistics and some tragic information about the plight of the poor and women. The fantastic solution is to help the “principal beneficiaries” (e.g., the poorest of the poor and the marginalized) by means of __________. They did not state how except the fact that they enumerated the bill’s nice-to-hear intents and provisions from Section 1 to 17. The proponents guarantee universal access to family planning under Section 7 by providing that “[a]ll accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis.”

However, the reality side of the measure is that all those promised, stated RH services would be covered or delivered by sacrificing, enslaving employers and health care providers.

Now here’s the UP and Ateneo professors’ most ignorant, if not idiotic statement: “Our reading of HB 4244 is that it is not a population control bill, nor does it violate any other rights and freedoms.”

Really?! This simply shows the intellectual bankruptcy of some of our educators. Perhaps this explains why this country is turning to the left, as most students and even professionals embrace anti-reason ideals, collectivism, and welfare statism. Their myopic understanding of reality is highly disturbing, as they simply look at some group of people to be benefited by this fascist bill while ignore the rights and interests of other sectors. What about the right of employers to run and manage their business and rely on their business judgment? The bill provides that if business owners failed to deliver their workers’ RH needs they could be penalized by either fine, imprisonment or both. What about the right of doctors to perform their jobs according to their sounds judgment and to follow their own conscience. Under the bill, any Catholic or religious doctor could be penalized for simply following his own conscience, which could be in violation of the bill’s provisions and intents.

The bill also seeks to disrespect individuals’ freedom of expression as it introduces a new crime termed as “malicious disinformation.” I stated in a previous blog titled Reproductive Health Bill: A Fascist Bill:

This RH bill is no doubt a fascist bill! This is the only bill that penalizes any person for engaging in “disinformation.” This is worse than the defunct Anti-Subversion law implemented during the reign of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. For merely engaging in disinformation regarding the intent of this bill, any person may be held liable. What constitutes “malicious disinformation” and why is it punishable by this would-be special law? “Malicious disinformation” is clearly a by-product of political correctness. This proposed crime under the RH bill is akin to politically correct crimes, such as “hate crime”, “racism”, “discrimination”, etc. What is the definition of “malicious disinformation”? This new legal crime under this fascist bill is unconstitutional for being vague, broad and non-objective. “Malicious disinformation” is open to many interpretations that can be abused by the state by trampling upon the right of the people to free speech. Would I be held liable for calling this law (if ever enacted) a fascist law? Would I be held responsible for saying that it seeks to control and regulate the entire business industry, medical profession, and the education sector? What I’m saying is not an example of “malicious disinformation” but the TRUTH! For those who didn’t read this bill, this bill is non-objective, dangerous and unconstitutional for seeking to violate our individual rights and freedoms! Section 22 states the “Penalties” that may be incurred by any person who violates the provisions and intents of this bill

Thus, every freedom-loving individual, particularly employer or doctor, must oppose this fascist bill because most of its provisions contravene individual rights and freedom. Yes, the bill seeks to violate the following constitutionally guaranteed rights:

  • Equal protection under the law
  • The rights and freedom of employers
  • The rights and freedom of doctors and health care providers
  • The rights and freedom of parents to decide on their own
  • The rights and freedom of the people to say NO to government intrusion into family homes and people’s private lives.
  • The rights and freedom of young students against state-imposed sex education
  • The people’s right to free speech and freedom of expression
  • Everybody’s right to be left alone
  • Everybody’s right against any probable imposition of higher or new taxes
  • The right to freedom of choice, which is being perverted and destroyed by Rep. Edcel Lagman and his stupid ilk

Like I stated before, ideas have consequences. Evil ideas definitely lead to evil consequences. Some Filipinos continue to support the bill simply because they believe there is such no right or wrong in this issue. They perhaps believe that any issue that can potentially affect our rights and freedom is subject to public vote, and if the majority decides, then that makes a proposal or an issue right. Such a mentality is not to be applied in business or in the field of medicine. Look at the most successful companies in the world today. They were not the result of skeptical or no-right-and-wrong mentality. If a doctor followed this so mediocre a state of mind, the life of his patient would be put at great risk.

Should our statist politicians pass the measure, that would signal the end of the country’s free health care and medicine as we know it. Today, doctors still enjoy the freedom they need to properly perform their job and to improve their craft. Nobody tells them how to perform their job, what medicine to prescribe, or whether to advise the use of contraception, ligation, or vasectomy to their patients. Doctors today are free to pursue their work according to their self-interest and rational judgment. But free from whom? From government intervention! However, in the name of the poor, some of our politicians and their mindless civilian supporters would like to put the entire medical industry under state control.

The RH bill empowers the regulators and bureaucrats at the Department of Health to treat hospitals, both public and private, and public and private health care providers as if they were government instrumentalities and workers. Under the bill’s implementing mechanisms, the DOH wouldd have additional power to issue policy programs or rules and regulations so to ensure proper compliance.

The UP and Ateneo professors’ blind, ignorant support of the RH bill simply exposes the level of intellectual bankruptcy in our country. The symptoms of this intellectual bankruptcy can be seen everywhere today. We see young people, professors and intellectuals who proclaim that everybody has a right to education, health care, housing, pension, or almost every kind of public welfare. We see intellectuals who preach anti-capitalistic, collectivist and anti-reason ideas. They preach that we are our brothers’ keepers and that we must sacrifice our lives for the sake of the greater good. We see career politicians who shamelessly proclaim that it is their duty to serve the needs of the people. We see and hear professors and media personalities who urge the government to be our “nanny state.” We see protesters calling for more government services and goods. In short, we see more and more people calling on the government to inflate its scope of powers in order to serve people’s immediate needs. Yes, these are just a few symptoms of the nation’s intellectual bankruptcy that we continue to ignore.

The failure to defend reason, individualism, and capitalism has a very high price: the destruction of individual freedom and rights. Graft and corruption is not the main ally of failed governance and poverty, but our failure to think— our refusal to embrace reason, individualism, and capitalism— our failure to defend the truth. The only logical result of this “failure of the mind” is a nation of freeloaders, of free-askers, and of ‘little dictators’ (those who tell us how to live our lives, to obey, to surrender our will to our society, and to make a sacrifice for the sake of the greater good).

We should oppose the fascist RH bill before it’s too late!

31 Comments leave one →
  1. Dami mong alam permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:38

    Equity kasi nakalagay hahahahaha

    • April 28, 2011 3:38

      Daming bopols na commenters lmao! Social equity and social equality are just the same, bobo.

      Eto source:

      “Many colleges and universities consider the term social equity as synonymous with social equality. Examples include Shippensburg University, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, Arizona State College of Public Programs, and North Carolina State University, among others.”

  2. manuela permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:38

    This the most tasteless and senseless article I’ve read so far regarding the RH Bill. I won’t even bother
    getting into the details of your argument. You are probably a moron who is in love with words such as nihilist, marxist, etc. I don’t normally attack the writer, as much as possible I go head on with arguments, but this is simply way below any intellectual standard. The only way possible to express my reaction is to say that, dude, you are really stupid.

    • Kendricks L.T. permalink
      April 28, 2011 3:38

      This is the most stupid comment I’ve ever seen online. The commenter didn’t even bother to argue against the blogger’s position. Halatang nang-iinis lang or talagang bobo lang haha.

    • Mel permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      Yeah i didnt read all of his arguments its getting boring in every succeeding word. We need not stoop down to this low intellectual standards. sheeESHH!

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        That’s a great way of saying, “I’m STUPID, I don’t have any argument at all…” SHHHHEHHH BS.

      • Mel permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        oohhh a blabber from the intellectually marginalized. I need not argue with the likes of you thats all

  3. Ordinary High School Student permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:38

    Honesty? Objectivity? Integerity? This article screams ad hominem all over it. I’m a high school student and I don’t think immaturely.

    • Kendricks L.T. permalink
      April 28, 2011 3:38

      Where’s ad hominem, bopols? You’re not a high school student. You’re obviously a sock-puppet lolz.

      • Ordinary High School Student permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        Bopols? Sock-puppet? And you don’t label that as ad hominem? Counter-intuitive comment much.

  4. troll permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:38

    If this is what you claim to be a demonstration of your exclusion from the society’s intellectual bankruptcy, then I am appalled.

    • Mel permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      appalling indeed 😦

  5. Lolbat permalink
    May 13, 2011 3:38

    Anyone who does not agree with me is dumb. I am the only intelligent person here.
    I will write a lengthy article wherein most people will get bored to show I am smart and everyone who disagrees with me are dumb.

    Yes all of you dumb, I am smart you are dumb.

  6. ric permalink
    May 15, 2011 3:38

    hmm why do we need the RH bill again?…No to RH ako eh…i was a supporter pero after looking at it..from its Family planning days….it’s just non sense! we don’t need new bill but new breed of men who can stand up for what is moral and right…discipline and love not condoms and contraceptives can control the make-believe “over-population” and other social problems. In that scenario everybody wins.

  7. katipunero permalink
    May 15, 2011 3:38

    nagimbento ba naman ng sariling guaratanteed rights? Bwahahaha! Get your facts straight. Better yet, bumili ka ng 1987 Philippine Consitution. Bwahahaha! Your ideas are so extreme you put Greenspan to shame. Even Greenspan admitted he was wrong right after his ideas torn asunder and blew up world economies esp. the US to smithereens. Kawawang nilalang etong batang eto.

    • May 15, 2011 3:38

      You said: “nagimbento ba naman ng sariling guaratanteed rights? Bwahahaha! Get your facts straight.”

      What’s the problem with my facts?

      You said: “Better yet, bumili ka ng 1987 Philippine Consitution. Bwahahaha!”

      I’ve read the Constitution. Read this

      In regard to the proper concept of rights, for your information the 1987 Constitution does not define the proper concept of rights. It merely enumerated them.

      When dealing with this issue, you have to answer the following questions:

      1. Does right impose any obligation on others? In other words, does your right to food mean others are obliged to provide it to you?

      2. Don’t you have a right to make a living, keep your money and spent it for your own survival?

      3. Does your neighbor’s right to RH care or education justify the government to redistribute wealth by confiscating a portion of your wealth/money in order to serve the needs of your former (neighbor)?

      You said: “Your ideas are so extreme you put Greenspan to shame.”

      Extreme in what way? Does the word extreme have moral evaluation?

      What about Greenspan? I don’t share his stupid beliefs.

      You said: “Even Greenspan admitted he was wrong right after his ideas torn asunder and blew up world economies esp. the US to smithereens.”

      Yes, he admitted he war wrong because Greenspan is a statist. He’s never a pro-capitalist. He and Bernake should should the blame for America’s failure and failed economic policies.

      You said: “Kawawang nilalang etong batang eto.”

      Nope. Ikaw ang kawawa because of your utter ignorance. You think you know better but in truth and in reality you know nothing.

      Read my blogs first and try to educate yourself before making some idiotic comment.

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        May 22, 2011 3:38

        You don’t even know who Greenspan is. He happens to be one of Ayn Rand’s biggest followers. He was there when the Collective was formed, he hung out in her house, for crying out loud. His policies in the US, the one’s which deregulated the banking laws, was precisely because he was trying to bring about that Objectivist dream of lassiez faire capitalism. To call him a statist is to completely miss the point of your advocacy.

        Oh, and guess what happened after he did all that deregulation?

        Oh wait, you’re a wannabe lawyer, right? Here’s something to clue you in:

        Here’s to Capitalism!

      • May 22, 2011 3:38

        Wow! This is epic!

        You said: “You don’t even know who Greenspan is.”

        Really?! Now let’s find out who doesn’t know who Greenspan is…

        You said: “He happens to be one of Ayn Rand’s biggest followers.”

        One of Rand’s “biggest followers”? In what way? True, Greenspan was one of Rand’s admirers before her death, but it is utter idiocy to claim that he was one of her “biggest followers.” Again, in what way? It seems that you got some of your data elsewhere.

        You have to get your facts correct first. Read this…

        You said: “He was there when the Collective was formed, he hung out in her house, for crying out loud.”

        Another data from wikipedia and some other articles. “Crying out loud”? Lol! What the heck is that?

        You said: “His policies in the US, the one’s which deregulated the banking laws, was precisely because he was trying to bring about that Objectivist dream of lassiez faire capitalism.”

        Any source? Any proof to this claim? Laissez-faire capitalism (lassiez faire, idiot)? Give me a break!

        You said: “To call him a statist is to completely miss the point of your advocacy.”

        LOL! Do you ever understand what statism means? What do you know about my advocacy? And why do you think Greenspan wasn’t a statist?

        You said: “Oh, and guess what happened after he did all that deregulation?”

        Now this one takes the cake? “All that deregulation”? Are you insane? What kind of drug are you on? Even Murray Rothbard (once an ADMIRER of Ayn Rand like Greenspan) implied that Greenspan is a statist for being a “conservative Keynesian.”

        Again, get your facts correct first.

    • May 15, 2011 3:38

      @ Katipunero:

      Read these blogs to further educate yourself.

  8. Yes to RH Bill! permalink
    May 26, 2011 3:38

    What a senseless article! Kung wala kang bilib sa gobyerno, e di umalis ka na ng Pilipinas! Or better yet, go to somewhere where there is no governance. And the chances of finding that place is zero. You kept on asking HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT SUPPOSED TO DO IT?!? Well, nabasa mo na ba talaga ang RH Bill? Ano’ng tingin mo sa mga lawmakers natin, bopols? Na they will just put out assumptions of the things that can happen without suggested actions? Oh come one! And you keep on reiterating that the professionals and the businessmen will be the victims here! So that only proves how selfish you are. Workers should be entitled with benefits. They are not idiots. YOU ARE.

  9. djinn soriano permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:38

    good universities but bad or worse..nah..worst educators. pano kaya kung sila ang nasa sinapupunan ng kanilang ina na walang pagpapahalaga sa buhay? tsk tsk

  10. Hubert Posadas permalink
    August 26, 2012 3:38

    Puro galit at pakita na mautak ka. Bakit pa kailangan ng words like idiot? Ikaw na pala ang pinaka mautak na tao sa balat ng lupa. Dapat ok nga na may ibang opinion at wag ka magalit kung may ibang pananaw. Siguro dapat ikaw nalang ang pakingan ng buong mundo kung anong dapat gawin natin sa populasyon, pero ikaw din ang sagot sa magyayari.

  11. kagbalete permalink
    October 12, 2012 3:38


    • October 12, 2012 3:38

      Yes, LIES made by the pro-RH bill MORONS. Right!


  1. Ateneo must FIRE its Pro-RH bill Professors! « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Name-calling Versus Identification « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Rights Versus Entitlement « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Rights Versus Entitlements « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. When UAAP Meets RH Bill: It Means More Than ‘Academic’ Tension! « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. When UAAP Meets the RH Bill: It Means More Than ‘Academic’ Tension! « THE VINCENTON POST
  7. Taming the Tamer « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: