Skip to content

Presidential System Over Parliamentary System

May 29, 2011

I’m in favor of presidential system for the same reason that I reject a parliamentary form of government: free-market capitalism.

I strongly reject some of the compromising features of our presidential system. However, I strongly disagree with the so naive a political proposal that we need to replace our ‘form of government’ with a parliamentary form of government if we want a more stable government. I do not buy the idea being peddled

First, let's talk about freedom.

First, let’s talk about freedom.

by a nihilist group in these parts that “moving to a Parliamentary System will give us a more stable, efficient, accountable, flexible, cheaper to operate, more issues and policies-centric, more party-based, and overall superior system.”

I also don’t agree with the so ignorant a claim that “that use Parliamentary Systems” is “much more attractive to foreign investors as well as encourages local entrepreneurs and investors to emerge.”

Our so-called ‘presidential system’ is not even a ‘carbon copy’ of America’s alleged ‘system of government’. Our political framework is purely a ‘national’ one, e.g., it gives so much political power to the national government.

But this is what most naive political theorists and wannabe political pundits and ideologues do not understand: America’s framework or system of government should be properly called “The American System”, not merely presidentialism, federalism, Republicanism, or a combination of the three. You remove one of this classical features and you destroy the entire “American System”.

America’s federalism was originally envisioned to limit the power of national or federal government (related blog On America’s Federalism and its Conformity to Republican Principles). Notice that there are three co-equal branches of a Republican government: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The legislative branch is essentially composed of State representatives and senators. Since States have authority and “rights” of their own and are independent of the Federal government, the executive branch must therefore be properly represented by the States (which created the Federal government) through an indirect election. This doctrine of State independence was reiterated in the landmark case National Federation v. Sebelius, which quotes Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 45– “The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”

Our so-called presidential system is a national one, because (1) we do not apply/implement federalism; (2) senators who represent the legislative branch’s higher chamber (Senate) are elected via a national election; (3) we do not have electoral college system). In other words, we do not have independent states that elect their own representatives and senators; we have local representatives and NATIONAL senators who both represent the legislature (Congress).

Thus, our so-called form of government should not be compared to America’s political system.

Furthermore, I totally reject the claim that “Parliamentary Systems also feature a check-and-balance system that is far superior to the grid-lock prone and extremely slow and dilatory nature of the separation of the executive and the legislative branches in the presidential system where “veto” or “blocking” is the only means for “checks-and-balance.” Far too many Filipinos and Americans erroneously think that separation-of-powers is the only way to provide checks-and-balances.”

Here are the reasons why the ill-informed arguments in favor of parliamentary system are misplaced and ignore some crucial political and economic realities.

A form of government (e.g., parliamentary system, presidential system, monarchy, etc.) is just a political tool to achieve the stated political, economic and social goals and aspirations of a nation. The last refers to political system. As a political tool, a form of government, say, presidential or parliamentary system, identifies the structure of a representative government, its functions, and defines its roles.  One of the fundamental questions in regard to this matter is NOT “how would you want your government to rule you”, BUT, “why do you need a government?”

Do you need a government to act as your ruler-for-life or to be your personal dictator? Or do you need a government to protect your freedom and rights? This is the fundamental premise that the modern-day peddlers of a parliamentary system of government fail or refuse to see.

No matter what form government it is the role of government and the nature of rights that people need to properly understand. However, this does not mean that a form of government is dispensable. So before we talk about the form of government that we ought to adopt for our country, we have to consider first the following fundamental principles:

  1. What’s the proper role and nature of government? Is it the provider of public goods or protector of rights, or both? This means that we need to define the role of our government first before choosing the form of government that we need to adopt. If the government is the protector of rights and freedom, it follows the government only has the following CONSTITUENT functions: 1) law courts for the protection of contracts and to settle any kinds of legal dispute; 2) police for the protection of innocent individuals against criminals and gangs; and military for the protection of the whole nation against internal threats and foreign invaders. This “proper role doctrine” effectively separates the line between a capitalist-individualist state and a welfare-collectivist state.
  2. What’s the nature of man’s rights? Is man entitled to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness? Does a ‘right’ mean a right of action in a social context or a political entitlement to be guaranteed by the government? The answer to the last question determines 1) the relationship between man and state, and 2) the function or role of government. If a “right” means a right to act, then, every man is free to pursue his goals in order to sustain his life, to earn a living and keep his earnings, and be protected against undue government interference and possible violation of his privacy. However, if a “right” means a political entitlement to ‘something’, then the government is mandated by law to provide the people with their needs, such as food, education, heath care, housing, transport, and other social services. The first definition of “rights” pertains to an individualist/capitalist society, while the second pertains to a socialist/welfarist society.
  3. Do government powers need to be limited by law OR created by law? There’s a big difference between the two (constitutional limitation and legal creation). In fact, the difference tells whether a state is a collectivist or an individualist. An individualist state is one whose powers are limited by the Constitution. A collectivist state is the exact opposite of an individualist state. The latter may simply create laws to either limit the freedoms and rights of its people or to (allegedly) provide for their needs. I believe that if we want a free society, we need to establish a limited government.
  4. What are the constitutional/legal protections to prevent possible abuse of political power, including internal and external threats? Are there established mechanisms for hiring and firing elected and appointive officials? Is there any non-arbitrary mechanism for hiring and hiring the president? Some well-known protections under a Federalist Republican system (not presidential system) are as follows: separation of powers and checks and balances, impeachment of some public officials, anti-graft laws, etc. As to protection against internal and external threats, we have laws against treason, treason and coup detat, the power of the government (through constitutionally appropriate branches) to declare war, etc.

Are there established mechanisms for hiring and firing elected and appointive officials? Is there any non-arbitrary mechanism for hiring and hiring the president? Some well-known protections under a presidential system are as follows: separation of powers and checks and balances, impeachment of some public officials, anti-graft laws, etc. As to protection against internal and external threats, we have laws against treason, treason and coup detat, the power of the government (through constitutionally appropriate branches) to declare war, etc.

This is not to say that our national system of government, which some people call ‘presidential system’, is perfect and must be preserved. It’s quite the opposite. We are a failed state (to borrow the term used by political quack doctor Noam Chomsky), politically and economically, not solely because of our  presidential form of government, but because of the total disregard of the FOUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES presented above. Thus, those who point to the failure of our “presidential system” as a justification for a shift to a parliamentary system fail to see the real source of poverty, failure of government, and any form economic problems.

I agree with the argument that our miserable economic condition is due to lack of economic freedom owing to our protectionist constitution, government regulations and intervention, progressive tax system, among others. However, those who rely on this ‘incomplete’ argument simply missed one thing: the real source of political/economic failure.

What is this source of political, including social and economic, failure? It is BIG GOVERNMENT or Welfare statism, the idea that the government must act as a nanny state or Santa Claus state. The reason for this political and economic catastrophe is the failure to identify the proper role of government and to define man’s rights.

A nation’s failure to consider these indispensable, fundamental principles (e.g., proper government role and man’s rights) could give rise to welfare statism or even dictatorship regardless of the form of government being implemented.

We already had a ‘parliamentary system’ during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos wherein the legislature obediently served the role of a rubber-stamp Congress.

As to the baseless, unfounded claim that “that use Parliamentary Systems” is “much more attractive to foreign investors as well as encourages local entrepreneurs and investors to emerge”, any form of government can have the potentials to attract both domestic and foreign investors so long as the institutions of economic freedom are duly established and protected. What attracts investors is not the form of government, but the institutions (or protections/recognitions) that the government adopts.

For instance, a country that applies presidential system (e.g., The United States and Philippines), may be able to attract both domestic and foreign investors by protecting and recognizing the institutions of economic freedom: 1) property rights, 2) limited government, 3) access to sound money, 4) global free trade, and 5) mechanisms against corruption. This means that so long as a nation remains free, that is, so long as it recognizes and protects individual rights, in general, and property rights, in particular, it may be able to propel itself from being a backwater state to a first world nation.

Also, any country may adopt “decentralization” as a political or economic policy. Decentralization is not inherent to only one political system, say, parliamentary form of government. Both presidential and parliamentary systems may establish decentralization as a political policy. So this means that the argument that we need to replace our presidential system with parliamentary system in order to implement decentralization is utterly misplaced. We can decentralize our government by simply adopting a federal-presidential system.

One of the unique characteristics of presidential system is the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances. This doctrine is inherent to the presidential system because it is fundamentally composed of three co-equal branches– the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

Under a presidential system, the entire electorate may directly elect their leaders, from the lowest political post of the land up to the president. Under a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, who is the most senior minister of cabinet in the executive branch of government, is directly elected by the legislature. The Wikipedia definition of this form of government somehow shows the nature of this form of government. It says, “A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined.”

If the PM gets its political legitimacy or mandate from the legislature, the tendency is that it is accountable only to that body. In reality, the PM is not directly accountable to the electorate; it is the legislature that is accountable to the latter.

Thus, those who endorse a parliamentary system of government simply fail to understand the source and the destroyers of wealth. A country is economically stable not because of its form of government, but because of the fundamental political and social system that it adopts. There’s a big difference between ‘political system’ and ‘form of government.’ A political system is a system of politics and government (e.i., capitalism, socialism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy, etc.), while a form of government refers to the set of political institutions by which a government of a state is organized. I’m in favor of presidential system for the same reason that makes me reject a parliamentary form of government: free-market capitalism. I believe that a PROPER presidential system (that is, that which considers the proper role of government and individual rights), is the most practical political tool for this country, as it is compatible with free-market capitalism.

A limited Republican-presidential system is inherently a decentralized government. It is non-objective political laws and edicts, as well as regulations and intrusive economic policies, that can only make a “centralized government” or even an intrusive centralized government possible. If only laws were committed to the protection of individual rights, this country would be able to achieve economic success in the near future.

RELATED BLOGS:

Stupid Shit a Parliamentary Dum-dum Says

Welfare State and Parliamentarism

A Critique of Riggsian Anti-Presidentialism Gibberish

On America’s Federalism and its Conformity to Republican Principles

An Unsolicited Advice to People Hoodwinked By a Pro-Parliamentarism Cult

Blame the Constitution, Not Presidential System, for Our Protectionism and Poverty!

Competition is Good; Regulation is Evil!

Exposing a Statist’s Parliamentary Megalomania

Basic Principles for Presidential Type of Government

Fareed Zakaria’s Parliamentary Drivel

Presidential System Over Parliamentary System

The Origin of ‘Cult of Personality’

The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy

Uncle Sam to Pinas: ‘Scrap Protectionism!’

It’s the Political System, Stupid!

Legalized Political Balkanization: Why the Philippines is Doomed to Failure

The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy

The Impending Rise (and Fall) of the Collectivists

The High Cost of Ignoring FREEDOM!

The Dictators of “Common Good”

The Evil of Welfare Statism

Pres. Aquino and His Society of Lemmings

“Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex” is an Evil Concept

What if They Went on Strike?

Privatize MRT, LRT; NO to State Subsidy!

What Makes a Nation Great?

Advertisements
98 Comments leave one →
  1. terence_18 permalink
    May 30, 2011 3:38

    nice one again froilan

    • June 7, 2011 3:38

      isa kang tangang katulad ni froi. ang tanga sumusunod sa tanga.

      • June 7, 2011 3:38

        And what are you? Are you not a “tanga” and an “idiot” when you simply took the IDIOCY of those who support parliamentary system on faith?

        So kindly tell me now why you favor parliamentary system over presidential system? Prove that you’re not “tanga” and an “idiot”.

  2. June 7, 2011 3:38

    Great explanation of the difference between form or system of government and political system. Most people, especially the alleged intellectuals, use these terms interchangeably.

    Indeed, we only need to “perfect” our presidential system by taking America’s presidential and political systems as a standard.

    • June 7, 2011 3:38

      another idiot like froilan vincent. hay naku. puro kayo mga tanga.

      • June 7, 2011 3:38

        Look who’s idiot now. Idiots are people who simply post STUPID comments without sane and sound arguments.

        That’s not how a non-idiot make comments.

        Kindly elaborate your refutation against Vincenton’s blog?

        First, you point out the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Second, refute the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Third, give your own opinion on the matter.

        Now, let’s see who’s idiot… I’d like to see your refutation and opinion on the matter.

  3. June 7, 2011 3:38

    froi vincent is so stupid. marcos system was not even parliamentary.

    idiot talaga. marcos was a fake system. tunay bang prime minister si cesar virata?

    tanga mo naman froi. leader ba ng majority party si cesar virata? idiot ka talaga.

    di naman parliamentary ang system ni marcos. gago.

    • June 7, 2011 3:38

      “froi vincent is so stupid. marcos system was not even parliamentary.”

      Perhaps you need to reeducate yourself. Most Filipino intellectuals, academics and political analysts know and understand that Marcos system was parliamentary. He abolished the bicameral system, which is one of the unique characteristics of presidential system in order to pave the way for his unicameral system. This allowed him to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp one.

      Your only source that Marcos’s system was not a parliamentary system is your small mind.

      By the way, what, then, if Marcos’s system was not a parliamentary form? What’s your point? But reality has it that what he implemented was parliamentary system.

      So would you care to present your refutation and counter-arguments now to show that you’re not an IDIOT?

      • Dadomzterz permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        wrong. the government was “parliamentary” but not really, thanks to the transitory provisions. Marcos did not call a National Assembly (parliament) from 1973-1978/81 because the transitory provisions did not say when he should call the parliament. it was parliamentary in papers but not in reality. if it were really parliamentary, Marcos should not be making the decisions alone. just a little bit of information for you to consider.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        “wrong. the government was “parliamentary” but not really, thanks to the transitory provisions.”

        LOL!!! Are you out of your mind? Every historian knows that Marcos established a parliamentary system in order to perpetuate his stay in power. Perhaps you need to back your hilarious claim with facts and credible sources.

        “Marcos did not call a National Assembly (parliament) from 1973-1978/81 because the transitory provisions did not say when he should call the parliament.”

        LMAO! So even if it were a presidential system, the same thing applies. So just because he didn’t call the legislature parliament his system was no longer parliament? What a sick logic!

        “if it were really parliamentary, Marcos should not be making the decisions alone. just a little bit of information for you to consider.”

        Do you know the term rubber-stamp Congress? If you understand what that term means, you’d understand that he didn’t make decisions alone.

        Did you know that the Prime Minister of Bahrain, Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa, ruled like Marcos? He’s the PM of Bahrain since 1971, hence is the longest-serving unelected prime minister in the world. Like Marcos, he also has his own rubber stamp parliament.

        Educate yourself first before posting BS comments, ok?

        By the way, improve your English because it’s a carabao english… 😉

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        talo na ang mga tanga tulad mo. gago. bahrain is not even parliamentary. bobo. absolute monarchy sila gago.

  4. Dadomzterz permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Quoted:
    “If the PM gets its political legitimacy or mandate from the legislature, the tendency is that it is accountable only to that body. In reality, the PM is not directly accountable to the electorate; it is the legislature that is accountable to the latter.”

    Then the PM is indirectly accountable to the electorate. What matters is the leaders are accountable. Besides, the PM is also a member of the parliament (MP) and is first among equals. He is also part of the legislature that is accountable to the electorate.

    • Dadomzterz permalink
      June 8, 2011 3:38

      “He is also part of the legislature that is accountable to the electorate.”
      -I’m taking this back because I’m not sure about this.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        “-I’m taking this back because I’m not sure about this.”

        See? That shows you don’t know what you’re talking about… That means you’re more than clueless. Perhaps a moron.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      It seems that you don’t understand the blogger’s article.

      He wrote: “No matter what form government it is the role of government and the nature of rights that people need to properly understand. However, this does not mean that a form of government is dispensable.”

      Do you know that if we were a parliamentary government today and an election were held tomorrow, there’s a big possibility that Gloria would be elected PM by our corrupt lawmakers?

      Again, educate yourself first…

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Is that you Froi-tard? I know the kind of way you argue with others.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        It’s Tykes… an avid reader. Why?

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        what an idiot. tykes kaw nga si froi bobo engot

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        You can say whatever you want. That only makes you stupid.

        Again…

        Idiots are people who simply post STUPID comments without sane and sound arguments.

        That’s not how a non-idiot make comments.

        Kindly elaborate your refutation against Vincenton’s blog?

        First, you point out the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Second, refute the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Third, give your own opinion on the matter.

        Now, let’s see who’s idiot… I’d like to see your refutation and opinion on the matter.

  5. PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Froi’s arguments against the Parliamentary system is based on an individualist cry-baby perspective.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      What does “individualist cry-baby perspective” perspective mean?

      So the pro-parliamentary system’s argument is based on a collectivist cry-baby perspective… Am I right?

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Collectivist my ass you self-righteous individualist piece of crap.

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        So it means the presidential system is collectivist too, isn’t it Froi-tard?

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        “Collectivist my ass you self-righteous individualist piece of crap.”

        LOL! That’s a sign of defeat and irrationality.

        I’m still waiting for your proper, sane arguments. I’d like to know what you think. I don’t think that’s the proper way to refute another person’s arguments.

        Let me repeat…

        First, you point out the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Second, refute the blogger’s “idiotic” arguments.

        Third, give your own opinion on the matter.

        ….

        You have nothing but pure stupid gibberish…

  6. Dadomzterz permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    sorry Mr. yo, Bahrain has parliamentary constitutional monarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      “sorry Mr. yo, Bahrain has parliamentary constitutional monarchy.”

      LMAO!!! You really need some reeducation. Both of you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahraini_parliamentary_election,_2006

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalifa_ibn_Salman_Al_Khalifa

      ‎Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa (Arabic: خليفة بن سلمان آل خليفة‎) (born 24 November 1935) is the Prime Minister of Bahrain since 1971, hence is the longest-serving unelected prime minister in the world.

  7. PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Tykes is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo gay for Froi-tard. Pathetic piece of individualistic shit.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Is that all you got? How pitiful…

      Well, based on how you miserably argued you pathetic case, you have nothing but pure gibberish. That simply means that those who support parliamentary system have little minds.

      You’re only good at ad hominem attacks and name-calling.

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Oh and those who argue that the presidential system is better than the parliamentary are no better than self-righteous biased hypocrites. Grow up you little retarded monkey.

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Sorry. I really love to degrade mindless motherfuckers like you. Study politics before you indulge yourself on these grown up matters Rand cocksucker.

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        You’re not even worthy of a healthy discussion Froi-tard.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        I expected you to say that because that’s what most people who don’t have sane arguments usually say.

        In short, they’re crazy people.

        The fact that you’re commenting here thereby spreading your insanity is a PRIMA FACIE evidence that Froi has valid arguments which you can never refute.

        Nice try, crazy folks.

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Froi-tard can never be refute? You made me laugh gayTykes.
        Any monkey or an elementary kid can refute his crappy arguments.
        What makes Froi-tard special? It’s because his arguments are full of meaningless words?
        I know you hide behind motherfucking face Tykes aka Froi-tard.

  8. BongV permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Bullshit article.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Wow! The GET HILO (GRP) retards are here!!!

      Trollin’… hatin’… because they have nothin’… Lol!

      • PINOY UTILITARIAN permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Why are you insulting me Froilan? Do you want yourself to be kicked out from AP Crowd?

  9. Jet M. Tan permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Froilan my man! Why did you create a stupid article like that?

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Another GRP troll…

      Another proof that the GET HILO retards are indeed retarded. 😉

      • Jet M. Tan permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Shut up Froilan! Why are you calling me names like that? I thought you’re my friend.

  10. June 8, 2011 3:38

    TO ALL GRP TROLL:

    Your only strategy: TROLL and SOCK-PUPPETRY

    When asked to present your arguments, you’re going to say: “You’re not even worthy of a healthy discussion.”

    But why are you here?

    Why are you spreading your idiocy?

    That means you’re nothing but mindless trolls.

    Get real!!!

  11. Froilan is BongV's little cocksucker permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    GRP Troll = Froi-tard Vincent

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      I smell sock-puppetry from GRP here… Pathetic.

      Why oh why?

      I strongly disagree with Vincent’s political and ideological arguments but I somehow agree with him on this one.

      • Gagong Pare permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        YOU’RE A COMMUNIST PATHETIC SHIT? WHY WOULD YOU AGREE WITH A NON-COMMUNIST PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM? PATHETIC SHIT!

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Lol! Pathetic talaga ang mga taga-GRP haha!

  12. BongBongV Marcos permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Gago ka pala Froilan Vincent. Ipinahiya mo ako. Putang-ina mo!

  13. Gagong Pare permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    PATHETIC TALAGA SI GAGONG PUTA FROILAN VINCENT!

  14. June 8, 2011 3:38

    Matindi talaga galit ng mga taga-GRP haha!

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Ganyan ang mga taga-GRP…

      Get TROLL Philippines sila at GET RETARDED HAHAHA!!!

    • Democracy Guy permalink
      June 8, 2011 3:38

      I’m from Pro-Dem though I think you are the same as those GRP. Sorry. You’re just a stupid Marxist.

  15. Anti-Pinoy dude permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Good article but it’s a waste of my time. Sorry Froily.

  16. Democracy Guy permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Froily’s post has many relevant arguments but in general it’s just bullshit.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Interesting comment, but I’d like you to point out the “bullshit”.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Putik… isa na namang GRP troll to haha!

        Nakakabobo na kayo, guys.

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Sorry Markista. It’s just obvious his post is bullshit in general.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        It’s very easy to make such a claim. As a reader and as someone who’s interested in an alternative view, I’d like to know your own arguments/opinion on the matter.

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Sorry. I’m not in the mood of doing such things. I don’t want to waste my time refuting a bullshit article.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Then you’re bias from the very beginning. I have a hate-love relationship with Vincent. I came to understand him after lots of online encounters. And we both resorted to name-calling.

        But I don’t agree with your style or whatever.

        How can you say the article is “bullshit” when you don’t consciously know why you disagree with what he said?

        That means you’re not thinking at all. You’re simply moved by your emotion. Perhaps you had a previous encounter with him. I can somehow read your mind and feelings… 😉

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        “I have a hate-love relationship with Vincent. I came to understand him after lots of online encounters. ”

        What are you, a couple? Sorry if it’s a joke. I just came to this article by accident but I suddenly realized it’s just bullshit.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        “What are you, a couple? Sorry if it’s a joke. I just came to this article by accident but I suddenly realized it’s just bullshit.”

        — We’re like Professor X versus Magneto in X-Men, although I don’t know who’s Prof X or who’s Magneto.

        I’m sorry but I can detect whether you guys are from GRP or not. I’ve been doing some espionage for sometime…

  17. June 8, 2011 3:38

    PUTSA… Akala ko pa naman matatalino at may alam tong mga taga-GRP na to.

    Puro angas lang ang ga-nobela nilang walang kwentang mga kuwento haha!

    Sock-puppetry at best… *Sigh!

    Don’t be obvious, guys.

    I disagree with the ideological content of this blog, but I agree with its position and conclusion.

    Pare-pareho lang yan. Kahit presidential at parliamentary. I’d like to see kung pano mag-argue ang mga taga-Get Real Philippines (or Get retarded ika nga ni GRP Troll).

    I’m disappointed…

    Tsk! Tsk!

    Ganito na pala mag-argue ang mga may pinag-aralang tao. Educated pa naman DAW… Haha!

    • Democracy Guy permalink
      June 8, 2011 3:38

      Being an ex-member of Anti-Pinoy and Get Real Philippines, I find it that you have the same mentality as those two groups. Sorry.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        It’s very stupid to say, “this post is ‘bullshit'” when you presence shows very clearly that you give a damn with what Vincent said.

        Hindi na tayo mga bata.

        As someone who’s very much interested in alternative views I’d like to see some rational arguments from the GRP people who support parliamentary system.

        And take note: Vincent didn’t attack a group. He was simply attacking the idea that parliamentary system is better than presidential system and all the lies and myth created by some people who are pushing for a regime shift in the Philippines.

        Why resort to trolling and sock-puppetry, GRP folks?

        Can you not present your arguments properly without trolling and name-calling? Is that what you’re good at?

        You guys are a BIG, BIG disappointment…

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        Again, I don’t belong to GRP or AP no more. I’m Pro-Dem. Also, Vinceton’s post is bullshit just bullshit. I hope you will not end being a bullshit like him.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Ok. You have all the freedom to make any kind of claims.

        I trust my mind and instinct on this one.

        Even Warlito V. made his own judgment on this matter.

        I know that what I saw and see is GRP… That’s all.

        Does GRP stand for Get TROLL?

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        AP and GRP loves to troll. Warlito’s articles are also not intellectual. His articles are just utter boring and pure crap. Visited Anti-Pinoy.com before and it’s damn boring.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Because you’re a GRP troll… That’s very clear.

        Trolling (like what you’re doing right now) manifests DEFEAT and lack of arguments.

        Tandaan mo yan.

    • Democracy Guy permalink
      June 8, 2011 3:38

      Any bases that I’m a troll? Stop throwing stupid accusations at me.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        What do you think you’re doing?

        Kahit ano pang sabihin mo, you’re a GRP troll.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Ayan! Nagalit tuloy sa ‘yo, Karl haha!

        GRP troll… They’re trollin’, they’re hatin’ because they’re nothin’… 😉

  18. Democracy Guy permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    Karl Markista
    Prove that I’m your so-called GRP troll?
    Baseless accusation is just pure bullshit.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      YOU ARE THE PROOF!

      Your funny, hilarious reaction is pure BS as well.

      Well, troll experts can always change colors. That’s what they do, GRP troll…

      • Democracy Guy permalink
        June 8, 2011 3:38

        As I said before, I’m from Pro-Dem. Sigh. Having no proof of your claim means you’re just insulting and judging someone. How uncivilized of you.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        I’m a pro-dem too and I’m not a GRP troll… because YOU ARE. 😉

        Get that?

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Oh, I didn’t know a troll also gets insulted… Mea culpa, GRP troll.

        I’m not a type who’d easily buy the trash “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

        Well, I know that you, GRP trolls, consider Vincent your enemy. He is my ideological enemy.

        Pero para sa akin, mas may sense at balls si Vincent compare to you, guys. It’s not even possible to argue with you. Mabuti pa si Vincent he knows how to argue properly despite his ad hominem attacks. Well, who doesn’t resort to ad hominems these days?

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Or because I’m reminded of this… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/why-did-some-get-hilo-peeps-go-berserk/

      You’re not that careful, guys…

  19. Wyett Lukas permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    AP also stands for Abnormal Padyakeros.
    Nice article Froilan. It really reflects the nature of your stupidity.

  20. Ming permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    It’s a shame to see intellectuals flinging insults like these.

    In the end it boils down to GRP vs. AP.

    • June 8, 2011 3:38

      Well, it’s because some people don’t know how to argue properly. I believe those GRP trolls (according to GRP troll and Karl Markista) would not stop trolling had their “group identity” not been revealed.

      As you can see, my first comment is as follows:

      “Great explanation of the difference between form or system of government and political system. Most people, especially the alleged intellectuals, use these terms interchangeably. Indeed, we only need to “perfect” our presidential system by taking America’s presidential and political systems as a standard.”

      And then someone (Yo and his fellow trolls) called be “stupid” and “tanga.”

      I urged them to present their arguments. I was disappointed. Until their group identity was revealed… Indeed, these trolls are from Get Real Philippines, which I learned later on.

      • June 8, 2011 3:38

        Kagaya ng sinabi ni Karl Markista, very obvious ang mga GRP troll.

        After they ran out of good trolling skills, they began to reveal their “group identity”, to borrow Tyke’s term.

        These GRP trolls are familiar with AP bloggers/characters, as they shamelessly used the following nicks (na actual name ng mga taga-AP):

        1. BongV

        2. Froilan is BongV’s little cocksucker

        3. Gagong Pare… an allusion to Ulong Pare.

        4. Jet M. Tan

        Ang mga onion-skinned and cry-baby GRP retards lang ang familiar sa mga name na ‘to. Therefore, some GRP retards are guilty of trolling, ad hominem attacks and name-calling. Ironically, these are the very people who promote “responsible free speech” whatever… Kalokohan!

  21. dianecruz permalink
    June 10, 2011 3:38

    to the author : where have you been?wake up,apparently you are still living in LULU land. The systems now adays are a mixture of both individualist and socialist. This is indeed pure propaganda set to play on the emotions of people so that they can see the so called Rand light. This is psychological warfare at its best. This article is not about information but rather an information on the idea of Rand. And havent you notice your blog is UNPOPULAR, the only way it garnered attention was all the so called mudslinging and attacks on the people you so call “socialist,collectivist,etc.And please if you want evidence go to your page vincenton post. It is so quiet in there. Ive said my piece. This is just daft boring. Another failed blog. Get over your fanatism,you immature wannabee adult.

    • June 10, 2011 3:38

      Isa na naman itong GRP troll. Haha!

      ULOL!

      Anong Ayn Rand pinagsasabi mo gunggung! Hindi mo ba alam na pati si Enrile ay fan at avid reader ni Vincenton? Haha! Pati si Enrile agree sa kanya, gunggong!

      Hindi ka nagbabasa nga news kasi gunggung at bobo ka, ulol! Wala na yang CORRECT niyo na yan. INCORRECT yan.

      At luma na yang patutsada niyo laban kay Vincenton about Ayn Rand. Wala nang bumibili sa patutsada niyong yan, mga gunggong!

      Eh ano kung gusto niyang i-promote si Ayn Rand. May masama ba dun? Wala akong nakikitang masama. Kayo lang mga gunggung at bobo ang mahilig gumawa ng kasinungalingan at isyu.

      Ano ba ang isinusulong ng Get Hilo? CORRET na walang kuwenta at walang naniniwala? Kalokohan yan, gunggung!

    • June 10, 2011 3:38

      dianecruz,

      Isa ka na namang sugo ng GRP o Get Hilo or Get Retarded and Prick.

      Wala ba kayong alam kung hindi mag-troll? Haha!

      Bat ba kayo galit na galit kay Vincent?

      Is it because he wrote a blog debunking all your BS arguments? Why not properly respond to his arguments? Kasi wala kayong mai-sagot? It’s because you’re a bunch of morons?

      FYI, I consider Vincent my ideological enemy, but I don’t have to resort to trolling and sock-puppetry. May tinatawag po tayong counter-arguments.

      What you’re doing is just really disappointing. Tsk! Tsk!

  22. dianecruz permalink
    June 10, 2011 3:38

    im taking into consideration of joining the groups my brother had joined. But in seeing this situation, i rather not you guys are FLIPS as well. Get hilo all of you. The author clearly is just using this as a end mean to promote Rand in the shadows. During my earlier years i have known this NERD guy who used to read ATLAS shrugged. He was such a turn off that guys and women alike from my group deemed him the “never been laid and kiss guy”.He considered himself superior to others that he never did have any forms of socialization. So its just my opinion,grow up you young adult. And yes i am a flip as well. So get real all of you. For all i know you guys are only worth in the internet. If in a real fight i doubt that you guys will confront head on. Nothing but big boys who has small dicks.

  23. terence_18 permalink
    June 10, 2011 3:38

    bakit ba ganyan ang mga get hilo. anu b problema nila.

  24. diane cruz permalink
    June 10, 2011 3:38

    it seems you guys are wiping each other asses. Typical MAN but the question is who has the bigger shit. And i guess that will be the author. And tykes do you think you can argue properly? I guess not your the same as the get hilo pips your mudslinging.

    • June 10, 2011 3:38

      Nandito ka lang para ikalat ang iyong kabobohan, GRP troll.

      Nasan ang argumento mo, gunggung?

      Wala!

      Kasi maliwanag na isa kang bobo!

  25. dianecruz permalink
    June 11, 2011 3:38

    why argue with someone who sucks each others dicks? Calm down you young adults are crying like cry babies. And what is wrong if i am pointing out the obvious??Hurting much???Get over it and move on. Isn’t the author an advocate of free speech. So what is the fuzz,if i make derogatory comments? Your so called author always do this anyway. So who is the bigger moron now? Young adults really are a nuisance.

    • June 11, 2011 3:38

      Nagpakawala na naman ng troll ang Get Hilo haha! Puro kabobohan… Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

  26. Baldamir Linen permalink
    June 12, 2011 3:38

    thegreatcommune and GRP Troll are AP – Abnormal Padyakeros

  27. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. permalink
    December 12, 2011 3:38

    Froi, apart from your beliefs and speculations in favor of the presidential system and against the parliamentary system, do you have some empirical evidence to support your claim?
    Re: your fundamental principles, my view is different. Government (as a human institution) emerged not because people want it, but rather because of the natural flow of evolutionary necessity. And, in virtue of evolutionary necessity–following the survival of the fittest principle–the strongest and fittest beings and/or institutions survive and thrive. In respect to government institutions (forms or structures), there is a plethora of evidence to show that the parliamentary form/structure is, among others, more democratically survivable–and more conducive to the production of human wealth and welfare. (If you care to read some of these materials, then we can refer you to some such references.) Of course, Orion has already presented a lot of this sort of empirical materials which ordinarliy should be enlightening to us all. Froi, the burden of proof is upon you (and the other presidentialists) to falsify the materials already presented by Orion. While it is true that beliefs and speculations are the precursors of science, they definitely do not constitute the corpus of science if they are not tested in the crucible of logic and evidence. Froi, we are eager to see your countervailing evidence–aside from fanatical beliefs and speculations!

    • December 12, 2011 3:38

      “do you have some empirical evidence to support your claim?”

      First, if you try to look at the alleged empirical studies conducted by pro-parliamentary academics and “intellectuals”, most of them are filled with logical fallacies (e.g., “correlation does not imply causation”, etc.), false assumptions, and invalid premises.

      Don’t you understand that the foundation of their dogma is utterly flawed? Look at the alleged study conducted by this Fred Riggs in 1994, which is one of the bases of the Incorrect movement’s dogma and idiocy.

      You only have to know the real cause or causes why many nations failed. It’s NOT because of their forms of government, but because of their failed economic policies. This is the reason why their pro-parliamentary idiocy is indefensible and was based on a FLAWED PREMISE.

      Those alleged “empirical materials” presented by Orion are utterly flawed.

      If you buy Orion’s flawed reasoning, let me ask you some questions.

      Do you think it’s the fault of our “presidential system” PER SE- and NOT any other factor like protectionism, etc.- that we’re economically poor?

      Do you believe that parliamentary system is INHERENTLY devoid of the principles or systems of WELFARE STATE or SOCIALISTIC PARADIGM?

      Also, Orion suggested that presidentialism is not compatible with RP’s collective culture, do you agree with his opinon or evaluation? If you agree, kindly give examples of our collective culture that are not compatible with presidentialism?

      Do you understand the difference between form of government and political system?

      Thanks!

Trackbacks

  1. It’s the Political System, Stupid! « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Competition is Good; Regulation is Evil! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Blame the Constitution, Not Presidential System, for Our Protectionism and Poverty! « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. An Unsolicited Advice to People Hoodwinked By a Pro-Parliamentarism Cult « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. On America’s Federalism and its Conformity to Republican Principles « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. On Dealing With a Clueless ‘Parliamentary’ Lackey « THE VINCENTON POST
  7. Why Republican Federalism? | THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: