NICANOR PERLAS IS A LEADER WHO

* –is deeply spiritual with unshakable and sterling personal values.
* –has defended truth, honesty and integrity, saving the lives of millions.
* –is not TRAPO.
* –has experience from a life-long commitment to the Filipino nation.
* –will root out graft and corruption.
* –has a practical vision of sustainability in all aspects of society.
* –has unique skills in synthesizing and harmonizing diverse viewpoints.
* –will promote holistic education and inner change.
* –will not be eaten up by the system, but will actually change the system.
* –has inspired thousands through his work in transformative change.
* –can meaningfully address poverty and enhance quality of life.
* –can build partnerships for social justice.
* –can advance moral and effective governance.
* –recognizes excellence and can create a Philippines we all envision.
* –has a global reputation as a visionary thinker and agent of positive change.



Nicanor Perlas is an ENVIRONMENTALIST.

Nicanor Perlas is an EXPERT CONSULTANT AND ADVISER of government agencies including the United Nations, civil society organizations, and academic institutions on:

* HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
* MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE
* PEACE & DEVELOPMENT
* POVERTY REDUCTION
* FAIR TRADE
* ANTI-CORRUPTION
* MORAL RENEWAL
* PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
* SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
* ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
* and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

Nicanor Perlas is RUNNING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES IN 2010.

====================

NAME: Nicanor Perlas (Nicanor Jesus III Pineda Perlas)

BIRTHDAY: 10 January 1950

PLACE OF BIRTH: Manila

PARENTS (deceased): Jesus C. Perlas, Sr. and Anunciacion M. Pineda, Iloilo Province

EDUCATION:

* Grade School: Ateneo de Manila (1964)

* High School: Ateneo de Manila (1968)

* College: Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao (1972)

* Graduate School: University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna, Luzon (1978)

DEGREES:

* Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Major in Agronomy, Minor in Agricultural Economics (1972)

* Masters of Science (Candidate) in Botany (Environmental Sciences) (1978)

SCHOOL AND ACADEMIC AWARDS

* Various NCAA Gold Medals in Track and Field (100-m, pole vault, others)

* Athlete of the Year, Ateneo de Manila High School (1968)

* Silver Medal, Math and Science Club, Ateneo de Manila High School (1968)

* University Scholar, Xavier University College of Agriculture (1968-1972)

* Highest Honors and Valedictorian, Xavier University College of Agriculture (1972)

* Dean’s Honor List, University of the Philippines at Los Banos (1977)

NATIONAL AND GLOBAL AWARDS

* Right Livelihood Award or Alternative Nobel Prize (2003)

* UN Environmental Program Global 500 Award (1994)

* The Outstanding Filipino Award (1994)

* William F. Masterson, S.J. Agriculture Award (1995)

* Public Service Award, Municipal Government, Maasin, Iloilo (1972)

MARITAL STATUS

* Legally married to Kathryn Carpenter but separated by mutual, respectful, and friendly agreement

* Son: Christopher Michael

SPIRITUAL ORIENTATION

* Socially Engaged Christianity

* Scientific Evolutionary Spirituality

* Advocate of Inter-religious dialogue, understanding, and peaceful co-existence

WORK:

* Technical Consultant/Resource Person to dozens of institutions including:

UN bodies (UNDP, FAO, UNCSD, UNICEF),

Government (Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives, NEDA, DSWD, DA, DENR, and Official Philippine Delegations to the UN and APEC)

Donor Agencies (Plan International, HEKS, NOVIB, CIDA, GTZ, others)

Civil Society organizations and movements

Businesses striving for social responsibility

* Plenary Speaker/Resource Person, over 90 global conferences and 140 national conferences.

* Author, over 500 articles/writings including the international best seller, Shaping Globalization: Civil Society, Cultural Power, and Threefolding

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

For details, kindly see www.nicanorperlas.com or www.nicanor-perlas.com.

INTERESTS:

* Reading books (philosophy, science and technology, psychology, history, civil society, societal change, self-transformation, health, farming, scientific approach to spirituality)

* Listening to music: classical, pop and rap music

* Watching movies with my son (science fiction, comedy, biography, history, documentaries)

* Eating healthy organic vegetarian food

* Organic gardening

FAVORITES:

* Movies: “Chariots of Fire”, “Brother Sun, Sister Moon”, “The Matrix”, “AI”.

* Books: “Philosophy of Spiritual Activity” by Rudolf Steiner, “Phenomenon of Man”, by Teilhard de Chardin, “Civil Society and Political Theory” by Cohen and Arato; Theory U, by Otto Scharmer, and the New Testament.

* Magazine: EnlightenNext, Utne Reader, Wired, Foreign Policy, and Yes! A Journal for Positive Futures

QUOTES:

* Martin Luther King: “We start to die the moment we stop caring about things that truly matter.”

* Jose Rizal: “Resignation is not always a virtue; it is a crime when it encourages tyrants; there are no despots if there are no slaves.”

* Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever did.”

Know more about Nick
Nick at Wiki

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

happyknappy said:
MARITAL STATUS

* Legally married to Kathryn Carpenter but separated by mutual, respectful, and friendly agreement

medyo sablay lang dito. lam mo naman ang mga pinoy.....

-----
ako ay si.... kanselado
salamat sa core2quad processor killer penguin!

@sir kanse, ok lang sir.. para walang gray areas sa pagkakakilala sa kanya...

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

He's just waisting his time going against Noynoy and Villar who are now at the top of most surveys. He'd still lose if this election was only a 1 on 1 between him and Jamby M., who's also wasting her time in this one.

IMHO, He should try running for lower positions first before vying for the highest seat in the country. And maybe from there he could go up the government ladder gracefully.

-----

@sir chrizd, i respect your opinion sir..

no time is wasted.

Thanks to Senator Brown kung di pa makikielam ang ibang bansa di pa magbabago ang isip ng Comelec

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

mukhang ito ang isa sa pag iisipan kong kandidato para presidente. ayaw ko kasi , kina noynoy, villar at erap

agree with Chrizd.
sana bago sila lumusong magisip muna sila..
lalo na si jam (liner)..

-----

sometimes, we need to forget about the people from our past, 'cause there must be a good reason why they didn't make it to our future.

Oo nga naman. Kung tatakbo sana siya bilang senador, iboboto ko siya.

-----

@mam click, and blue sapphire, so para rin palang si Bayani Fernando or Gibo or Binay etc...

Winnability I
The Trap of Traditional Notions
of Winnability
by Nicanor Perlas

The good news is that there is a tremendous burst of initiatives in the Philippines trying to reclaim authentic democracy in the national elections of 2010. The bad news is that the would-be bearers of change politics are still stuck with the thinking of the old politics.

Nowhere is this more evident than in their concept of “winnability”. To win in 2010 means, for them, to have, from the beginning, name recognition, political machinery, financial and other resources, and endorsements.


If they continue to view “winnability” in this traditional manner, then the political reform movement would be its own worst enemy, severely limiting and even preventing truly new politics from emerging.



No doubt, money, machinery, popularity, and network support are important. And, yes, it is perfectly understandable for change advocates to want to ensure that the new politics wins. For without winning, what is the point of even aspiring for new politics? Why waste votes on a perceived loser?

But this is a one-sided and potentially disempowering picture. If we are stuck with understanding the elements of success in this traditional manner, at that very moment, we become paradoxically our own worst stumbling block to success. However, we can reframe our traditional understanding of “winnability” and place it in its proper context and time sequence. Then, as we shall see, old notions of “winnability” will become true enablers of success, instead of becoming the assassins, of the new world of politics that is starting to emerge.
“Winnability” - Four Fatal Flaws

Briefly, there are four fatal flaws in the traditional concept of “winnability”. First, the old is mistaken for the new and prevents the new from emerging. Second, and stemming from the first, it encourages negative thinking. Third, it is not complete and suppresses other more essential elements of the new politics from fully unfolding their power. And fourth, the traditional concept of “winnability” becomes static and therefore dangerous. It is blind to the reality that “winnability” is fluid and dynamic.

Because of these four fatal flaws, advocates of new politics will not appreciate that a candidate may be winnable today but may be a loser on the day of the elections. They will be blind to the real possibility that a very promising and highly qualified candidate may not have the national stature today, but may be the icon of the nation tomorrow and therefore the candidate of choice come election day.

Let us now examine each for the four flaws in greater detail and see the proper place for traditional notions of “winnability” so that they truly enable, and not sabotage, the emergence of the new politics.
Forcing New Substance Into Old Forms

We have to be careful how we tell ourselves to win and how we restrict our imagination to only one path of winning. A reliance on old and familiar ways of winning could become the very instrument for stamping out the new, for killing the prospects of really promising candidates. (See also “Science of the Impossible, Part I, in this regard.)

IBM, once the leader of the computer industry lost its edge when it became overconfident regarding its formula of success that had worked in the past. IBM ignored promising new developments in the computer industry that could have positioned it as the leader of the personal computer (PC) revolution. Instead, it focused on the manufacture of mainframe computers and ridiculed the vision of PCs in every household.

Its formula for success, derived from its past experience, blinded IBM to a much larger revolution that was wanting to happen in the computer industry. Microsoft, not blinded by success formulas from the past, clearly saw the future as its was emerging and placed itself strategically to harness that future. Today Microsoft, not IBM, is the
leader of the computer industry and the world is awash with millions of personal computers.

This tendency to rely solely on the past as a gauge of the future is especially true in a political context dominated almost completely by traditional politicians or “trapos” (”dirty rags”). In a society where media focuses mostly on the activities of trapos, almost any new and fresh face in the existing cesspool of traditional politics will be, almost by definition, relatively unknown. Does it make sense, therefore, for change advocates to fall into the deadly temptation of subjecting what is truly new to the same name recall or exposure standards of the old, and expect the new to have the same political machinery that the old have constructed for years or even decades?

It is not the task of authentic change advocates to force the new to fit into the categories of the past, no matter how essential these past categories seem to be. For in so doing, naïve advocates of a new politics are killing the new and preventing it from entering the world. And when they kill what is newly emergent, they, in effect, promote the prolonged existence of the devastating and violent world of the old politics.

To succumb to this temptation of prejudging the new on the basis of the old, would mean the end of any form of change politics. By its very nature, the new is different from the old. Candidates of the new politics will most probably not have the same degree of exposure and support as the old. But this does not lead to powerlessness for change. Rather, it means that the new will bring a new world in ways very different and unfamiliar to the old. Nurturing the truly new means that smart and determined change advocates will find innovative ways for enabling the new to express itself as a force for profound societal transformation. As an element of this innovation, the past can be part of the future, not as its judge, but in service to what wants to emerge.
Negative Thinking, Negative Outcome

Proponents of change politics often throw cold water on promising candidates of the new politics because the latter do not have the traditional elements of “winnability”.
What these advocates do not realize is that, in effect, they are dousing the movement of change politics itself. No one, no movement, has really won on the basis of negative thinking.

Social science calls this phenomenon the Pygmalion Effect or the self-fulfilling prophecy. The Pygmalion Effect can work either negatively or positively. If we believe that a new politics anchored on solid reputations and qualifications will not win because promising candidates do not have the traditional elements of “winnability”, then we deny the birth of new politics. We have automatically limited our horizon on what is possible and doable, thereby dooming the whole enterprise from the start.

At the personal level, psychologists call this self-defeating framework, “learned helplessness”. Psychologists have discovered that we all have our inner conversations, things that we tell ourselves all the time, often at the subconscious level. We have “tapes” about how we frame our experiences. All new experiences are filtered to run along the programming of these internal tapes. With self-defeating inner conversations, we totally convince ourselves that certain things are impossible. We become victims of our own “learned helplessness”. This is the inner programming that shatters our visions of the future and makes us lead depressed lives.

Thus, if from the very beginning we believe somebody or something is a lost cause, then the initiative towards a new politics is defeated. It is the height of inconsistency if we want something new and then attack it for being new, that is, not dependent on the old and familiar ways of doing things. We are aborting our own ideas and initiatives, forcing them to fit into the mold of the old.

Let us take an example of how negative attitudes play out when the old meets the new, when the past meets a promising future. This example will then also awaken us to the third danger lurking when we subject the new and its exciting possibilities
to the conditionality of the old, the straightjacket of the past. When this happens, we betray the essence of what the new politics is trying to bring about.

How To Destroy a Promising Future in the Name of New Politics

Somebody appears with exciting qualifications. He has in-depth knowledge of many of the issues that plague the country. He understands the systemic and structural nature of these challenges. He also understands the underlying belief systems and identities that animate the structures that are responsible for bringing about poverty, corruption, injustice, violence, and the other plagues of Philippine society.

He has a tremendous range of leadership capabilities and an unusual and spectacular record of achievements. He has played a key role in several anti-corruption initiatives and has spent over three decades in large-scale initiatives to help the poor. He has resisted bribery attempts and has courageously faced assassination threats. While never directly involved in politics, he helped to shift not only national policies, but has also played a key role in shaping global agreements and institutions.

Because of these achievements, global and national award bodies have given this individual their highest and most prestigious awards. Reputable global leaders have called him a “practical visionary”. He can craft an exciting vision of the future and realize it in action. He can bridge the divides of society – the rich with the poor, the spiritual with the secular, the young with the old, the proponents of moral revolution with the champions of institutional and structural transformation, the Christian with the Muslim, and those who seek short-term gratification with those who want strategic initiatives.

In short not only is the person superbly qualified. He has outstanding qualifications to run as candidate for the Office of the President.

What do would-be supporters do if they are infected with the habit of old political thinking? They dampen the promise of this exciting candidate. They subject him to their own old paradigm of what it would take to win.

They ask. Does he have money? Or does he have people with money backing him up? Does he have an organization that reaches out to the smallest political unit, the barangay? Does he have prominent persons endorsing him? Is he popular with economic class D, the people who constitute 70% of the voting public?

These questions are useful and constructive if they are meant more as means to have an overview of the terrain of challenges ahead. They are helpful if they are cautionary and future oriented, ensuring that the candidate for new politics takes these important ingredients of electoral success into consideration.

But these questions are totally uncalled for and self-defeating if they are nothing but judgments in disguise. And worse, these questions victimize the questioners themselves if they are nothing but statements of rejection of the highly qualified candidate. In effect, they are rejecting and betraying their own ideals and themselves.

For at that very moment of judgment, the would-be bearers of the new politics have become very old. And they have become very close to being traditional politicians (”trapos”), the very “trapos” that have ruined the Philippines, the very “trapos” that they want to replace. For the trapo thinking is so obsessed with popularity, money, machinery, and endorsements that it would do anything, including engaging in questionable and corrupt means, to obtain these important ingredients for electoral victory.

When this kind of mentality is present from the very beginning, then the outcome is predictable. Since no one has the total combination of qualifications, talent, competence, leadership, and courage on the one hand plus the money, organization, national popularity like a rock star, and bus loads of endorsements from prominent people on the other, then pessimism sets in. Phrases like “we have to be practical”, “we have to be realistic”, “let us choose the lesser evil”, “no one is perfect but he has the machinery” start to prevail.

And in short order, the new politics enters, very fast, into the murky world of the old politics. The tendency is to take shortcuts and engage in “justified” manipulative practices and damaging compromises with one’s principles. The slogan, “the end justifies the means, a very trapo concept, starts to proliferate. “Maybe we can have a perfect politics someday, but not now” echoes another very trapo and defeatist concept. It only shows that the would-be bearers of the new politics have no belief in the power of their own vision, their own passion for and commitment to a new politics, and the new maturity of the electoral public.
Denying the Essence of New Politics

This leads to the third flaw of old, traditional notions of “winnability”. Money, machinery, popularity, network support, and endorsements cannot be the sole basis for determining, from the beginning, the viability of candidates for new politics. Therefore, old traditional notions of “winnability” cannot be the operative criteria, in the beginning, of a movement for new politics. Traditional elements of winnability have a role, but not a determinative one in the beginning of any attempt to create the very foundations of a new electoral reality, a new democracy.

There are other determinants of success, determinants that lie at the very core and essence of the new politics. And if these other determinants are recognized and pursued, then the traditional elements of success – money, machinery and so on, will find their proper and appropriate place within the larger context of these essential determinants of the new politics. Embedded in this essential context, the traditional elements of “winnability” become true enablers of success, instead of land mines threatening to sabotage promising initiatives in new politics.

For what is the essence of the new politics? What really is it that we are all hoping to achieve with a new kind of politics?

When all is said and done, new politics is, in essence, enabling the emergence of truly engaged citizens, and new kinds of political leaders as described in the example above. These are individuals who have the vision, operational savvy and integrity to:
promote widespread and authentic participation by all sectors of society in true
democratic processes; strengthen the institutions of governance; reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty and corruption; reinforce the existence of a vibrant and independent civil society; prod business to be more ecologically and socially responsible; create innovative institutional arrangements that would promote the realization of our highest human and spiritual potentials; encourage a respectful relationship with the ecosystems of the planet; and reshape notions of globalization that advance a more peaceful, equitable and compassionate global civilization; in short, vigorously advance integral sustainable development.

If advocates of the new politics promote the “numbers game”, they should understand that the numbers game is only definitive near the end and on the day of voting itself. It cannot be the beginning requirement of any campaign. If this is not understood, then reform advocates will force themselves to compromise and lower their expectations in order to win. But, even granted that they win, the victory will be hollow and empty. Because what they would have installed, despite their own good intentions, is nothing but another version of old politics.
Thought Experiment On Choosing Lesser Evil

Let us do a thought experiment. Assume that, because we are obsessed with “winnability”, we settle for the lesser evil. We support a traditional politician because, first and foremost, he has the money, the machinery, national name recognition, and networks of influence and, in addition, has some aspects of his/her reform agenda that we can relate to. We may not be totally happy with aspects of his track record, but, at least, he is the lesser evil when compared with some other presidentiable who is totally abhorrent to us.

Do you think this arrangement will usher in the new politics? Of course not! In reality, as a nation and individually, we have suffered so much because of this belief in the “lesser evil”. Have we forgotten that, once, former President Joseph Estrada was the “lesser evil”, a belief that led some very prominent civil society leaders to ruin their reputations when Estrada had to be ousted by People Power II? Have we also forgotten how many civil society and business leaders were hoodwinked by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the current illegal occupant of the Office of the President.
Many saw her as a “lesser evil” then. Now her former enthusiastic supporters are swearing that Arroyo is worse than Marcos, the iron-fisted dictator who imposed martial law on the Philippines.

The reality is that people are so fed up with choosing the “lesser evil” that they have taken to apathy and inaction rather than street protests calling for the ouster of Arroyo. They do not want to unwittingly install another “lesser evil” into office through People Power.

They are fed up with trapos and their brand of politics. They prefer to sit on the sidelines as long as they do not see real choices, real alternatives.

But this is about to change. Now the apathetic have rediscovered their will to organize. Why? Because now they see a unique and concrete possibility in the national elections of 2010 to get rid of trapos and radically transform the country for the better.

If we understand this, we will understand that 2010 is about real choices, between real
candidates for new politics versus pseudo reformers or trapos in the guise of change agents. It is no longer the choice between a lesser or greater evil. It is the choice between birthing real genuine service- and people-oriented politics versus continued suffering under the burden of the old politics. (See also article on “Lesser Evil or New Politics”.)

Imagine then a change politics advocate championing the tools of choice of trapos, that is, money, machinery, popularity, endorsements, over and above real qualifications, leadership, vision, and passion for a new politics. At that very moment, the would-be advocate of the new politics will transform himself/herself into an instrument of old politics, a step away from the slippery slope towards trapoism.

The new politics is not content with merely forging a new vision and reform agenda for the country and finding the best-qualified individuals to be the faces of visionary and transformative politics. The new politics also necessitates the passion and commitment to make sure that truly qualified candidates of the new politics get all the support they need. Then the volunteers will come and the effort will snowball into a national political organization. Donations will pour in. Endorsements will follow. Press excitement will turn a relative unknown into a national icon, ready to compete with the strongest the trapos can offer.

In essence then, the key determinants for success are, first and foremost, about qualities of people and qualities of the vision and programs that their leadership will establish with the help of an awakened and involved citizenry. Once we have these fundamental and essential determinants in place, then we can focus on making sure that these quality candidates and leaders have the appropriate support to achieve electoral victory.

This is where the traditional notions of “winnability” properly come in. They are molded and mobilized within the more essential criteria we can broadly call qualifications as detailed above. Money, political organization, national stature, network and endorsers become enablers of the essential determinants (qualifications, track record, leadership, etc.) of the new politics, instead of assassins of the truly new and promising.
Winnability, A Moving Target

These reflections naturally lead us to the fourth fatal flaw. “Winnability” is not a static concept and a kind of given which remains unchanged from the beginning to the end. “Winnability” is a very fluid and dynamic concept. One may be popular today but then be at the bottom of ratings in a few months. In the beginning a new candidate may not even register in surveys. But, in a few months, the situation may totally change. A candidate may receive widespread exposure in the national media and in the internet. There is a favorable response. And the relative unknown becomes a serious contender for national office.

This favorable response is highly likely in the present Philippine context and cannot be ruled out. We seem to be forgetting that there is a mushrooming of initiatives towards 2010 because Filipinos are fed up not only with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the illegal President of the Philippines. Filipinos are totally fed up with trapos. And if someone sparks their imagination and that someone is uniquely qualified, then there is a high probability of political swarming towards this new candidate and a crossing over to the tipping point of a new political reality. One who may not have been “winnable” a few months back can become the center of hope and promise for an entire nation.

In conclusion, the traditional elements of “winnability” have their place in the new politics. But these traditional elements should never become the starting point and the decisive factors in advancing new politics. Other more essential elements of success (qualifications, leadership, etc.) should be the overriding factors in the pursuit of new politics. They will determine the context, the meaning, and the day-to-day practice of generating support, managing volunteers, inspiring the flow of donations and endorsements, media strategy to attain not just name recognition but also widespread understanding of the purpose, meaning, and feasibility of the new politics.

So, if the scenario of “winnability” is different for the new politics, how can we concretely imagine it to happen? In Part II of this editorial, we will describe a scenario of how a highly qualified individual can win national elections even if, in the beginning, he/she has no money, political machinery, prominent endorsements, or national prominence. Understanding how this can be possible will then eventually result in greater commitment and enthusiasm among those who are yearning for a truly different political order, one that genuinely serves people and the planet.

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

Matanong ko lng knappy, isa ka po ba sa mga campaign manager nya? Just wondering. ^_^ Sa totoo lang dapat talaga nagsimula sya sa mas mababang posisyon. After that. He must first establish his name on that position before pursuing a higher level. Kahit sabihin natin na malinis hangarin nya e wala syang mapapala kung presidency kaagad tumbok nya. Let's face the truth that nowadays popularity is a main asset if you're running for a position especially presidency. Well perhaps pwede na syang tumakbo for Mayor on the next election since may nationwide exposure na sya ngayon. Just stating my opinion. ^_^

-----

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit.

knappy, ????

may mga experience na sa katungkulan naman iyang mga binanggit mo.

Gibo - former Congressman ng Tarlac at former Secretary of National Defense
Bayani - former Secretary of MMDA
Binay - mayor ng Makati

-----

@sir aithan, haha campaign manager, volunteer lang sir.

well siguro oo, sa siste at kalakaran ng politika dito sa bansa natin tama dapat nagsimula muna siya sa ibaba.

Pero it's worth a try, para hangarin kaagad na mapalitan ang bulok na sistema, lalo na yung ganung paniniwala. Ika nga, kung di ngayon kailan pa?

@mam blue sapphire, etc... - Brother Eddie Villanueva ? - Leader of Jesus is Lord...

so dapat pala gaya ng sabi ni sir Aithan na mayor muna

and si sir Bayani - ex Mayor ng Marikina to...

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

happyknappy said":

* Listening to music: classical, pop and rap music

This presidentiable is gangsta man. He's so cool I'm having second thoughts choosing between him and Villar.

-----

@sir bochog, same reaction here nang makita ko to sa bio data nya.... nakikinig ng bone thugs and harmony si KaNick...

Pero honestly, kaya ko bitbit ang kandidatong ito ay dahil sa pagiging enviromentalist nya...

-----
==================ADEK sa ONE PIECE=====================

==============Bokurawa Hitotsu One Piece!=================

bochog said:

This presidentiable is gangsta man. He's so cool I'm having second thoughts choosing between him and Villar.

Hahahahaha.. Yun pa talaga napansin ni Bochog. ^_^ Well honestly speaking kung gusto ko magkaroon ng pagbabago sa pulitika I'll probably pick this guy too along with Villanueva; but on presidency? Na-ah! Gusto ko magumpisa ung pagbabago sa pinakamababang posisyon. Perhaps that's one way on establishing your name on the said position.

### auto-merged ###

happyknappy said:
@sir bochog, same reaction here nang makita ko to sa bio data nya.... nakikinig ng bone thugs and harmony si KaNick...

Pero honestly, kaya ko bitbit ang kandidatong ito ay dahil sa pagiging enviromentalist nya...

Environmentalist. Hmmmm... Loren is a well known environmentalist as well. How come you didn't chose her?

-----

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit.