Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

Let's just say he has the machinery because of the tons of money he allegedly plundered. Why are his ratings going down? Why did he have to scrape the bottom of the political barrel for a VP if he were that popular? The thing with the Binay ass-kissers is that they really think that Binay will win despite his plunging ratings and the fact that he had a hard time convincing potential running mates before finally settling on Honasan, who isn't really a popular choice. There is an adjective for that: Delusional. :lol:

 

Watch out your tone, MS.

Edited by FleurDeLune
Link to comment

Furthermore, Bongbong trumps Abnoy's accomplishments in the Senate. By the way, did Aquino really have any accomplishments as senator? :lol:

Exactly!

 

Where did you base this from, sir? Any references? From projects spearheaded? From laws passed? I mean what are the measurements of these accomplishments?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment

He was stating an opinion. What is wrong with that? Don't associate two different opinions of one writer to another. When you're a friend of one person, you will always say something good about that person. Do you know what the meaning of "friend" is? If you don't, there is always the dictionary. :lol: The fact of the matter is Ninoy Aquino never became president so that is an opinion which can never be validated. It is biased because of their friendship.

 

Hhaha....you can only speculate my dear. Your insinuations that he was bias in saying ninoy would have been a good president is because of their friendship is baseless. What proof can you show to back your claim that their friendship tainted his opinion? Since he said good things about BBMarcos then friends din ba sila?

 

Based on the articles i've presented it clearly shows he does not take sides and he just writes what his opinion is. And your basis? Your own self serving opinion. Ano yan friends daw at bias sa friendship pero binanatan niya si Cory at Noynoy na asawa't anak ng kanyang friend. Sabi nga niya nun una, kailangan pa ba natin ng isang family dynasty na maupo sa pwesto bilang pangulo given our experience pero heto nga sa tingin niya pinaka qualified daw si BBM bilang pangulo. Would you do something that would "hurt" your friend? O baka naman fair weather friend lang sila? Boom panis!

Edited by rooster69ph
Link to comment

Sablay pa din kahit anong pinagsasabi....

 

Well kung ganun magisip ang isang ito...sigurado ako ganyan din ang pagkatao nito. Kaya magsinungaling , kaya makipagplastikan in the name of friendship. Ingat kayo dito, baka binobola lang kayo nito.

 

Ako hindi...sasabihin ko lang kung ano ang totoo.

 

Kaya nga kahit baluktot itinutuwid nito maipagtanggol lang ang idol niya

Link to comment

Try checking out the next president thread. A poster has been posting off-topic posts regarding Ferdinand Marcos who was a past president and not a candidate as next president. The troll's posts on Marcos are bordering on obsession. It does not matter if the posts are off-topic as long as the troll posts about Marcos. LOL.

Ok, will check them out.

Link to comment

 

source sir? This is going to be a fallacy without proof because you're putting in something of a "what if"

 

Source? Hindi mo na kailangan humingi ng souce. Kahit si Kris Aquino pa mismo ang magsabi na magde-deklara ng Martial Law si Ninoy kung naging pangulo siya eh hindi magiging credible dahil hindi na natin malalaman yan dahil una, hindi naging presidente si Ninoy dahil sa pangalawang rason, pinatay sya.

 

So, it's pure speculation at this point. Crystal clear. ;)

Edited by Eddy Syet
Link to comment

Mod FDL,

 

I would just like to tell you that I find copy-posted articles without any elaboration laughable and, in my opinion, posts of imbeciles. I would not mind if it was thoroughly elaborated on. Again, a copy-pasted article without elaboration. I will elaborate on it. That copy-pasted article is one person's opinion. It does not change the facts that Marcos did a lot for the betterment of the life of the Filipino and won the 1986 elections. Haters put too much emphasis on Martial Law. The irony is that Ninoy Aquino would have declared martial law if he became president. Let's face it, Marcos has not been convicted of anything. All the haters can give are opinions.Yeah sure, there are cases and the end game of cases is to punish the Marcoses for their wrongdoings. So far, i don't see any Marcos in the slammer. Three decades, that is more than enough time to convict a person.

 

Are you talking about the Raissa Robles article? I read it. Those are not mere opinions. They are facts and Ms. Robles' resource persons and materials are there at the end of her article for all the world to see and analyze to their hearts' content.

 

Besides that, how else can one elaborate about an article that's already explained very clearly by the author? Was it that hard to understand that you're demanding an elaboration?

 

At least, a journalist like Ms. Raissa Robles wouldn't tell you to "backread" if you want to see her sources. ;)

 

Having said that, comments about the so-called yellow media are coming in 3... 2... 1...

Link to comment

Try researching on what these two did as senators.

 

Why tell me to do the research? Nasa akin ba ang "burden of proof?"

 

Sila ang manghihingi ng boto ko kaya sila ang magyabang sa akin ng achievements at plataporma nila.

 

Or since maka-Marcos ka - bakit hindi IKAW ang magpakita sa akin ng mga ginawa nila? I think that's fair enough. ;)

 

Ang lagay eh, hindi ako makapaniwala sa sinasabi mo tapos ako pa ng gusto mong mag-research kung totoo ang sinasabi mo? No, no, no. I'd rather call you on your bullsyet kung wala kang maipapakita sa aking mga katibayan or resource materials.

Edited by Eddy Syet
Link to comment

 

Source? Hindi mo na kailangan humingi ng souce. Kahit si Kris Aquino pa mismo ang magsabi na magde-deklara ng Martial Law si Ninoy kung naging pangulo siya eh hindi magiging credible dahil hindi na natin malalaman yan dahil una, hindi naging presidente si Ninoy dahil sa pangalawang rason, pinatay sya.

 

So, it's pure speculation at this point. Crystal clear. ;)

 

Nakakatawa lang kasi dito just because a writer quoted Ninoy e para bagang gustong gamitin ito to "justify" yun mga kawalanghiyaan pinaggagawa ng rehimeng Marcos.

 

Ang akin lang din sa issue na ito, alam natin na si Ninoy ay kinasusuklaman at nakikipaglaban sa pamahalaang diktaduryang Marcos at kung anu-anong katiwalian na pinaggagawa nito.

 

Therefore kahit na sabihin natin na sinabi nga niya na sangayon siya na ang Batas Militar ang posibleng solusyon, di pa rin tayo nakakasiguro na ang batas militar na ipatutupad niya ay katulad ng pamamalakad nung kapanahunan ni Apo. Looking at history, ilang beses na ba tayo nagkaroon ng Martial Law. Hindi naman tuwing may Martial Law ay nangyayari ang lahat ng nagyari nun panahong Marcos.

 

Isa pa, sinabi rin ni Ninoy na kung naging pangulo ito uunahin niya ang Hacienda Luisita sa land reform kung saka-sakali. Hindi po ba napakalinis ng intensiyon nito kung paniniwalaan nga natin ang lahat ng sinabi nito? Hindi daw kapanipaniwala na posibleng maging mahusay na pangulo ito. E pareho lang naman na "haka-haka". Unfortunately, there are people who cherry pick to win an argument.

Link to comment

So you're saying that Tony Lopez is a liar. It came straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Of course, you are a Marcos-hater. You'd believe any article that's anti-Marcos even if there is only one fact there about the debt which the author even mocked by saying that Marcos got some "grease money" from it and this is an allegation, not a fact.

 

Oh, a source. Why not do it for all your arguments? Because wala ka naman talagang source na matino dun sa ibang mga sinasabi mo dito?

 

Then what makes you different from Raissa Robles whom you claim is just expressing her opinions? Eh ganun ka din? :lol:

So you're saying that Tony Lopez is a liar. It came straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Of course, you are a Marcos-hater. You'd believe any article that's anti-Marcos even if there is only one fact there about the debt which the author even mocked by saying that Marcos got some "grease money" from it and this is an allegation, not a fact.

 

Then point me to a fact. LOL.

 

Of course you'd answer with research it yourself. LOL. You cunning you. :lol:

Edited by Eddy Syet
Link to comment

Let's see here. Marcos never got convicted and Marcos won the 1986 elections. You asked for facts, right?

 

That's according to you but... were you referring to this? :lol: The elections that led to Marcos' downfall?

 

The polls were marred by electoral fraud as well as violence. The International Observer Delegation concluded that "the election of February 7 was not conducted in a free and fair manner."[7]

By virtue of Resolution No. 38, the Batasang Pambansa proclaimed Marcos and former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Senate President Arturo Tolentinoas the duly elected President and Vice-President after receiving the highest number of votes for their respective positions.[8] The opposition, headed byCorazón C. Aquino (the widow of assassinated Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.) and former senator Salvador Laurel refused to accept the fraudulent results. The International Observer Delegation concluded that the proclamation was invalid, among other reasons, because the Batasan "ignored explicit provisions of the Philippine Electoral Code [batas Pambansa Blg. 881] requiring that tampered or altered Election Returns be set aside during the final counting process, despite protests by representatives of the opposition party".[7]

On 9 February, thirty computer programmers walked out of the COMELEC's electronic quick count at the Philippine International Convention Center, some fearing for their safety and seeking sanctuary in Baclaran Church. The technicians—whose protest was broadcast live on national television[9]—claimed that the Marcos camp had manipulated the election results.

The Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines President Cardinal Ricardo Vidal released a declaration in lieu of the Philippine Church Hierarchy stating that "a government does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to make it do so." The declaration also asked "every loyal member of the Church, every community of the faithful, to form their judgment about the February 7 polls" telling all the Filipinos "[n]ow is the time to speak up. Now is the time to repair the wrong. The wrong was systematically organized. So must its correction be. But as in the election itself, that depends fully on the people; on what they are willing and ready to do."[10] The United States Senate passed a resolution stating the same. This chain of events eventually led to the resignation of Marcos' Defence Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, and Armed Forces Vice-Chief of Staff General Fidel Ramos. Enrile and Ramos then secluded themselves in the military and police headquarters of Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame, respectively, leading to the People Power Revolution from 22–25 February 1986, which toppled the Marcos regime.

On 24 March 1986, the Regular Batasang Pambansa passed a "people's resolution" signed by 150 lawmakers. The resolution nullified the election returns that proclaimed Marcos and Tolentino as the winners, and instead confirmed the victory of President Aquino and Vice-President and Prime Minister Laurel.[citation needed]

The snap elections and its aftermath are dramatized in the 1988 film A Dangerous Life.

Source: Philippine Presidential Election, 1986 of WikiPedia. Their resources are indexed below the article.

As for his not being convicted - too bad he did not live that long. You can shout it all day long of course. Marcos was never convicted. Part of that of course was because for the 20 years that he was in power - who would sue him?! :lol: He was only TRIED when he was overthrown by the 1986 revolution and then fled to Hawaii.

Did you read Raissa Robles' article about the Swiss banks agreeing to put a lock on the Marcoses bank account because they were from "criminal activities." This was well-resourced by Raissa Robles. ;)

Edited by Eddy Syet
Link to comment

She was expressing her point of view and allegations. The only fact I see there is the debt which Marcos used for infrastructure for the betterment of the lives of the Filipinos. It wasn't Marcos' fault that the IMF increased its interest rates.

 

If you don't feel obliged to name sources then you should be ashamed about labeling people na they're only writing "allegations" and "points-of-view" rather than facts. Kasi sa mata namin - ganun ka rin. Puro opinyon lang din. Walang facts. Since the author isn't a member here and cannot defend herself - I'm imagining you would at least have the decency to offer evidences or other credible sources when you discredited her. Pero hindi eh, you're not obliged kamo. Pero kapag ayaw mo yung sinabi ng iba, sasabihin mo - hindi sya totoo. :rolleyes: You see? I saw what you did there, Mr. mason_slake, or pete mitchell, or Steel Curtain, or nathan gamble or whichever name you choose next. :lol:

 

 

 

Link to comment

Haha! See? You say he wasn't acquitted, yet, you don't know the significance of the question. :

 

Aba'y malay ko kung ano ba gusto mo tumbukin sa tanong na yan.

 

Pwedeng nagtatanong ka lang dahil hindi mo alam...

 

At ke daming kasong hinaharap nila ...

 

Alangan naman sagutin kita na nakabitin ang tanong mo...

 

Still it does not change the fact he was not acquitted.

Link to comment

How could he be acquitted when he wasn't even arraigned? :lol:

 

Think before you post. :lol:

Hay naku...paulit ulit wala na naman katuturan ang mga argumento.

 

Paiikutin pa ako ng lokong ito...

 

Nabanggit ko na yang health issue na yan...

 

Eh yang argumento mo iisa lang naman ang kalalagyan...

 

Since hindi siya na arraign ...there was no conviction nor acquittal.

 

So the fact remains ... Your claim of non conviction does not prove his innocence to the crime.

Link to comment

Hahaha...nagbuhat ng sariling bangko.

 

only one thing is pretty obvious.

 

Ampaw yang he was not convicted argument mo ... It has not and won't ever prove marcos innocence to the crimes.

 

Ika nga ..walang closure so wag kang assuming.

 

Pero sinisigurado ko wala man conviction, kahit papaano may nabawing "nakaw na yaman" mula sa kanila. Hahahaha

Edited by rooster69ph
Link to comment

It has been almost 30 years and no Marcos is in the slammer. Those crimes have not been proven. Imeldific was acquitted in New York and two Aquino regimes couldn't even convict her. So yeah, go on waiting in vain for the closure. Good luck! :lol:

 

Ang nakaw na yaman ay isang krimen. Bakit ni isa sa kanila wala sa kulungan? You and your allegations. What's new? :wacko:

 

Actually, Imelda Marcos was already convicted... of graft, no less.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/24/world/marcos-convicted-of-graft-in-manila.html

 

Source? The New York Times. Sosyal.

 

Boo-yah! :lol:

Edited by Eddy Syet
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...