Apo Marcos : Facts And Myths

[will robie]

 

Since you acknowledged part of my answer to your question, then at least I know that you know that there was an answer.

What? Hangang sa PNB ka lang? First of all, you didn't need to answer regarding PNB because it was mentioned in the case.

 

You want bank documents - that normal people don't have access to and are likely confidential - as proof to "counter" what you said. That is unreasonable and irrational.

 

I am simply asking you what happened to the money. I mean if you really knew the case, you'd have an answer for that. Just answer my question. If you can't answer it, just say so. I won't take it against you.

 

OTOH, you have NO proof of any of your claims.

 

You can keep repeating your stand until hell freezes over, that still won't magically produce any evidence that will support your position.

 

Yes, I will keep repeating my stand. What claims exactly? Can you quote those claims I made?

 

 

Here's the problem with your reasoning. When the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos wealth was ill-gotten, ayaw mo maniwala. Panay ang "where's your proof" posts mo na walang katuturan.

 

Again, what happened to the money? That is all I am asking.

[will robie]

 

You can keep repeating your stand until hell freezes over, that still won't magically produce any evidence that will support your position.

 

Here's the problem with your reasoning. When the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos wealth was ill-gotten, ayaw mo maniwala. Panay ang "where's your proof" posts mo na walang katuturan.

Yes, I will keep repeating my stand until hell freezes over because you haven't answered my question regarding what happened to the money in question. I was asking a question. What position are you talking about?

 

Show me the post wherein I said "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that the wealth of Marcos was ill-gotten.

I wont believe that they recovered that amount you mentioned unless you show me proof where the money went to and how the money was used.

This is what I said I won't believe they recovered the amount. I never said hindi ako naniniwala sa kaso. Stop fabricating stories, carter.

 

Pero while the courts have yet to resolve the cases against the Marcoses, you're 100% sure the cases are weak. On what basis? Court cases drag on for decades. This isn't unique to the Marcos cases.

 

Logic, carter, logic. If the cases were really airtight and strong, why hasn't any Marcos been convicted? Sagutin mo din yan.

 

Marcos v. Manglapus

RA 10368

Claims documents filed with the HRVCB

 

Also, akala ko ba ang personal rule mo, whoever alleges has the burden to prove? Bakit biglang "I don't need to prove it" ang sagot mo when asked to prove something you allege?

 

Show me the website or even a physical office where your "proof" is. Please. Humor me. Show me that you actually know what you're talking about instead of making up stories. Kasi this is the second time I've caught you making up "facts" just for the sake of having some kind of answer to things I post.

 

Oh, and please use multiquote. Nakakapagod magbasa ng hiwahiwalay na replies eh isa lang naman yung post ko.

I am giving you a month to look for it. I am not about to give it to you on a silver platter so you have to look for it. Really? When was the first time you caught me making up facts? Speaking of making up stories, weren't you the one who just fabricated a story by posting that "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos' wealth was ill-gotten? I posted what I actually said which is that I don't believe they recovered the amount unless you show me proof where the money went. Are you projecting, carter? By the way, if the money was really ill-gotten, it is a crime, why isn't any Marcos in jail? Now, I am gonna hammer you with that question until you answer it.

 

Personal rule? Really? Did I even claim it to be my rule? I was just saying. Another fabricated story. That's two strikes. I am not alleging anything. Did I allege that Marcos did something bad? I was stating a fact and if you don't believe it's a fact, it is not my problem, carter. Like I said, you look for it. Kung ayaw mong hanapin, hindi ko problema and you can throw ad hominems all you want because if you do that, it only shows that you can't argue intelligently.

 

I really don't give a rat's ass if you get tired of reading my posts. If you wanna continue to argue with me, you live with it.

Edited September 7, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

But you have to discern what he says: pag tungkol sa Marcos corruption/abuses, gusto niya may solid proof in court. Pag dating sa Aquino family, auto-guilty daw at ikaw pa dapat mag produce ng proof para ma disprove yun mga accusations nya. LOL.

 

Sayang walang shrug emoji dito

[jc44 - RETIRED]

What? Hangang sa PNB ka lang? First of all, you didn't need to answer regarding PNB because it was mentioned in the case.

I am simply asking you what happened to the money. I mean if you really knew the case, you'd have an answer for that. Just answer my question. If you can't answer it, just say so. I won't take it against you.

Yes, I will keep repeating my stand. What claims exactly? Can you quote those claims I made?

Again, what happened to the money? That is all I am asking.

 

What happened to money after it was remitted: ginamit for human rights claims. Ilang beses nang sinabi yan. At hindi lang ako. Either tamad kang magbasa or may problema ka sa reading comperehension. Kaya nga kita inaya sa HRVCB para tignan ang records nila doon. Ayaw mo. Kelangan ko pa ba i-spoonfeed sa iyo ang mga documents? Ganoon ka ba ka-inutil?

 

Yes, I will keep repeating my stand until hell freezes over because you haven't answered my question regarding what happened to the money in question. I was asking a question. What position are you talking about?

 

Show me the post wherein I said "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that the wealth of Marcos was ill-gotten.

This is what I said I won't believe they recovered the amount. I never said hindi ako naniniwala sa kaso. Stop fabricating stories, carter.

Logic, carter, logic. If the cases were really airtight and strong, why hasn't any Marcos been convicted? Sagutin mo din yan.

I am giving you a month to look for it. I am not about to give it to you on a silver platter so you have to look for it. Really? When was the first time you caught me making up facts? Speaking of making up stories, weren't you the one who just fabricated a story by posting that "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos' wealth was ill-gotten? I posted what I actually said which is that I don't believe they recovered the amount unless you show me proof where the money went. Are you projecting, carter? By the way, if the money was really ill-gotten, it is a crime, why isn't any Marcos in jail? Now, I am gonna hammer you with that question until you answer it.

 

Personal rule? Really? Did I even claim it to be my rule? I was just saying. Another fabricated story. That's two strikes. I am not alleging anything. Did I allege that Marcos did something bad? I was stating a fact and if you don't believe it's a fact, it is not my problem, carter. Like I said, you look for it. Kung ayaw mong hanapin, hindi ko problema and you can throw ad hominems all you want because if you do that, it only shows that you can't argue intelligently.

 

I really don't give a rat's ass if you get tired of reading my posts. If you wanna continue to argue with me, you live with it.

 

"Show me the post wherein I said "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that the wealth of Marcos was ill-gotten." See the fifth line in the quoted post above: "By the way, if the money was really ill-gotten, it is a crime, why isn't any Marcos in jail? Now, I am gonna hammer you with that question until you answer it. " Which implies na hindi ka naniniwala na ill-gotten ang wealth ng mga Marcos.

"You don't believe they recovered the amount" Ginamit na nga na pambayad sa reparations sa human rights violations victims, nasa denial stage ka pa rin. Again, not my problem if you are willfully ignorant of what has been happening around you.

Also, what is your proof that supports your allegation that the funds were not recovered?

"Logic, carter, logic. If the cases were really airtight and strong, why hasn't any Marcos been convicted? Sagutin mo din yan." Already answered. Complex case, dilatory tactics, negligent prosecution. None of these establish the innocence of the Marcoses, especially since the hundreds of cases are still pending before the courts.

"Personal rule? Really? Did I even claim it to be my rule? I was just saying. Another fabricated story. That's two strikes." WAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

 

You're the one alleging. You prove it.

 

 

you have the burden of proof

 

But hey if it isn't your personal rule I understand, kasi ikaw mismo panay ang allegation mo pero wala ka naman proof.

 

But let's go back to the root of all this:

 

If indeed the PCGG recovered it, whoever is the president should be transparent on where it will be used. I have not read anything about where it will be used. That is if it was really recovered.

 

Yun ang problema. IKAW ang walang nabasa tungkol sa recovered funds, tapos noong ipinakita sa iyo kung ano yung nangyari, biglang panay ang hingi mo ng "proof" na yung nireport sa media ay totoo. Aba, hindi na namin problema yun, sa totoo lang. Ikaw ang umamin na ignorante ka, ikaw dapat ang magpakita na totoo yang sinasabi mo.

 

So, recap tayo:

 

1. Sabi mo, Marcoses were never nailed for ill-gotten wealth. Pinakita ko sa iyo na mali ka:G.R. no. 152154.

2. Nagtanong ka, narecover ba yung pera? Sabi ko at ng iba, oo. Napunta sa claimants ng human rights violations noon panahon ni Dictator Marcos.

3. Humingi ka ng documentary proof para patunayan na talagang doon napunta ang pera. Sabi ko sa iyo, yung mga dokumento, nasa HRVCB. Inalok pa kitang pumunta tayong pareho doon para tignan. Umayaw ka.

4. Pinipilit mo na hindi na-convict ang mga Marcos. Totoo, kasi ongoing pa yung mga kaso.

5. Panay ang pilit mo na ang kausap mo ang maglabas ng ebidensya sa mga sinasabi namin (burden of proof etc.), pero kapag ikaw ang tinanong kung nasaan ang ebidensya mo, either wala kang mailabas o kami pa ang sasabihan mo na maghanap sa internet.

 

Kung gusto mo ipagpatuloy ito, okay lang sa akin. Pero sana naman, mag-level-up ka kahit konti. Maglabas ka naman ng kahit katiting na ebidensya. Hindi yung puro arguing from the absence of facts (ie. hindi naconvict, hindi nakulong, hindi narecover allegedly). Pakita ka ng website. O kahit libro. Kahit pdf file ng dokumento. Ipakita mo naman sa amin yung basehan ng paniniwala mo.

 

Kung hindi mo kaya, eh di great. Wala na tayong pag-uusapan. Sa tingin mo wala kaming ebidensya sa sinasabi namin (kahit meron, hindi lang immediately accessible kasi physical records siya sa mga bangko o sa govt office), at sa tingin namin wala kang ebidensya dahil wala ka naman talagang maipakita. Eh di quits lang.

Edited September 9, 2018 by johncarter44

[will robie]

 

What happened to money after it was remitted: ginamit for human rights claims. Ilang beses nang sinabi yan. At hindi lang ako. Either tamad kang magbasa or may problema ka sa reading comperehension. Kaya nga kita inaya sa HRVCB para tignan ang records nila doon. Ayaw mo. Kelangan ko pa ba i-spoonfeed sa iyo ang mga documents? Ganoon ka ba ka-inutil?

Haha! This post is full of ad hominems. Ginamit for human rights abuses kasi sinabi mo? Haha! Why not go to the HRVCB and show it. Maybe, just maybe, I will give you credence. Your posts are all hearsay. Haha!

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

 

 

"Show me the post wherein I said "ayaw ko maniwala" when the Supreme Court tells us that the wealth of Marcos was ill-gotten." See the fifth line in the quoted post above: "By the way, if the money was really ill-gotten, it is a crime, why isn't any Marcos in jail? Now, I am gonna hammer you with that question until you answer it. " Which implies na hindi ka naniniwala na ill-gotten ang wealth ng mga Marcos.

Really? The fifth line? I am amused at your grasping at straws and you really have no idea what you are talking about. I was asking you to post what I said prior to my question. Did you even understand your own post? Haha! Don't confuse a question with an implication. Haha! Nagkakalat ka na, carter.

[will robie]

 

Here's the problem with your reasoning. When the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos wealth was ill-gotten, ayaw mo maniwala. Panay ang "where's your proof" posts mo na walang katuturan.

carter, ito ang pinost mo na ako ay ayaw maniwala that the Marcos wealth was ill-gotten. Tapos tinanong kita hanapin mo yung post kung saan ko sinabi yan. Wala kang mapakita at palusot pa yung post mo na "look at the fifth line of the post". Haha! carter, tigilan mo na ang pagkakalat mo.

[will robie]

 

"You don't believe they recovered the amount" Ginamit na nga na pambayad sa reparations sa human rights violations victims, nasa denial stage ka pa rin. Again, not my problem if you are willfully ignorant of what has been happening around you.

Nope, I am not in the denial stage. I don't easily believe hearsay. It's also not my problem if you post hearsay. Ad hominem na naman. Haha! carter, take it easy. You're losing it.

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

"Logic, carter, logic. If the cases were really airtight and strong, why hasn't any Marcos been convicted? Sagutin mo din yan." Already answered. Complex case, dilatory tactics, negligent prosecution. None of these establish the innocence of the Marcoses, especially since the hundreds of cases are still pending before the courts.

"Personal rule? Really? Did I even claim it to be my rule? I was just saying. Another fabricated story. That's two strikes." WAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

But hey if it isn't your personal rule I understand, kasi ikaw mismo panay ang allegation mo pero wala ka naman proof.

Hahaha! I asked you to show me a post wherein I claimed it was a personal rule. I never claimed nor implied that it is a personal rule. Magpapakita ka na lang ng posts, sablay pa. Posting something does not mean it is a personal rule. Your ignorance is showing, carter. Tinatawanan mo sarili mo, carter? Again, you are the one challenging my post, you prove it. That is not a personal rule, just saying. Baka sabihin mo personal rule ko naman yan. Haha!

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

But let's go back to the root of all this:

 

 

Yun ang problema. IKAW ang walang nabasa tungkol sa recovered funds, tapos noong ipinakita sa iyo kung ano yung nangyari, biglang panay ang hingi mo ng "proof" na yung nireport sa media ay totoo. Aba, hindi na namin problema yun, sa totoo lang. Ikaw ang umamin na ignorante ka, ikaw dapat ang magpakita na totoo yang sinasabi mo.

Like I said, I don't believe in hearsay. Another ad hominem. Projecting ka ba, carter? Between you and me, you're the one who looks like he is ignorant because you are posting something which you don't even have an idea of. Puro ka "punta ka sa HRVCB" or whatever agency. If you really knew what you were talking about, you'd show it. Good luck in showing it, carter.

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

 

1. Sabi mo, Marcoses were never nailed for ill-gotten wealth. Pinakita ko sa iyo na mali ka:G.R. no. 152154.-I was asking you where the money went and your replies to my post are "go the the HVRCB". Wala ka kasi mapakita na document or article lang man. Good luck, carter.

2. Nagtanong ka, narecover ba yung pera? Sabi ko at ng iba, oo. Napunta sa claimants ng human rights violations noon panahon ni Dictator Marcos.-Kasi sinabi mo? You'd have to do better than posting hearsay.

3. Humingi ka ng documentary proof para patunayan na talagang doon napunta ang pera. Sabi ko sa iyo, yung mga dokumento, nasa HRVCB. Inalok pa kitang pumunta tayong pareho doon para tignan. Umayaw ka.-Then show it if there really is.

4. Pinipilit mo na hindi na-convict ang mga Marcos. Totoo, kasi ongoing pa yung mga kaso.-32 years na, wala pa ding conviction. Paano ba yan? Hahaha!

5. Panay ang pilit mo na ang kausap mo ang maglabas ng ebidensya sa mga sinasabi namin (burden of proof etc.), pero kapag ikaw ang tinanong kung nasaan ang ebidensya mo, either wala kang mailabas o kami pa ang sasabihan mo na maghanap sa internet.-Pinapahanap mo ko sa HRVCB. Papahanapin din kita sa internet. Bilis!

 

Kung gusto mo ipagpatuloy ito, okay lang sa akin. Pero sana naman, mag-level-up ka kahit konti. Maglabas ka naman ng kahit katiting na ebidensya. Hindi yung puro arguing from the absence of facts (ie. hindi naconvict, hindi nakulong, hindi narecover allegedly). Pakita ka ng website. O kahit libro. Kahit pdf file ng dokumento. Ipakita mo naman sa amin yung basehan ng paniniwala mo.

Speak for yourself. Dapat maglevel up ka na talagang alam mo sinasabi mo at hindi puro hearsay lang. Pakita ako ng website? You can't even show an article or document to back up your posts regarding where the money went.

 

 

Kung hindi mo kaya, eh di great. Wala na tayong pag-uusapan. Sa tingin mo wala kaming ebidensya sa sinasabi namin (kahit meron, hindi lang immediately accessible kasi physical records siya sa mga bangko o sa govt office), at sa tingin namin wala kang ebidensya dahil wala ka naman talagang maipakita. Eh di quits lang.

Because you said so?

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Ginamit for human rights abuses kasi sinabi mo?

 

No, because Sec. 7 of R.A. 10368 says so. Or do I need to provide a certified copy of the enrolled bill?

 

Nope, I am not in the denial stage. I don't easily believe hearsay. It's also not my problem if you post hearsay. Ad hominem na naman. Haha! carter, take it easy. You're losing it.

 

If you don't believe in hearsay, then you should have no problems providing documentary proof of anything you believe in with respect to the Marcoses, yes? So, how about it? Are you still going to avoid providing the proof we all know you cannot provide because it doesn't exist?

 

And please lang, stop hiding behind this ridiculous "you first" mantra of yours. What are you, 10 years old? If you have proof to support anything you claim to believe, produce it. Stop hiding behind excuses.

 

Hahaha! I asked you to show me a post wherein I claimed it was a personal rule. I never claimed nor implied that it is a personal rule. Magpapakita ka na lang ng posts, sablay pa. Posting something does not mean it is a personal rule. Your ignorance is showing, carter. Tinatawanan mo sarili mo, carter? Again, you are the one challenging my post, you prove it. That is not a personal rule, just saying. Baka sabihin mo personal rule ko naman yan. Haha!

 

It's a saying you like repeating when it comes to people you disagree with, but not when it comes to you and any of the things you believe in.

 

Ganito lang yan. Hindi naman gospel truth ang mga post mo at kelangan lahat ng kumontra ay magbibigay ng documentary evidence para lang sa katuwaan mo, at hindi ka rin naman maniniwala. Mismong nilalaman na ng batas at ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema na yung tinuturo namin, ayaw mo pang maniwala. Eh di ikaw na ang pinakamay-alam sa ating lahat dito.

 

Eh di ipakita mo na ngayong yung ebidensya mo na tama ka.

 

So, are we done? Are we all in agreement that will cannot produce evidence to save his life?

[will robie]

 

No, because Sec. 7 of R.A. 10368 says so. Or do I need to provide a certified copy of the enrolled bill?

So where is the document that states that the money from GR 152154 will be given to the ones in RA 10368?

 

If you don't believe in hearsay, then you should have no problems providing documentary proof of anything you believe in with respect to the Marcoses, yes? So, how about it? Are you still going to avoid providing the proof we all know you cannot provide because it doesn't exist?

Again, you challenged my post, you prove it. Paulit-ulit ka so I will also play your game.

 

And please lang, stop hiding behind this ridiculous "you first" mantra of yours. What are you, 10 years old? If you have proof to support anything you claim to believe, produce it. Stop hiding behind excuses.

I don't give a rat's ass if you think it's an excuse. I can also say that since you haven't answered my question by providing documents or articles.

 

It's a saying you like repeating when it comes to people you disagree with, but not when it comes to you and any of the things you believe in.

 

Did you get mortified badly?

 

Ganito lang yan. Hindi naman gospel truth ang mga post mo at kelangan lahat ng kumontra ay magbibigay ng documentary evidence para lang sa katuwaan mo, at hindi ka rin naman maniniwala. Mismong nilalaman na ng batas at ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema na yung tinuturo namin, ayaw mo pang maniwala. Eh di ikaw na ang pinakamay-alam sa ating lahat dito.

 

Try answering my questions convincingly by providing proof and stop making feeble excuses.

 

Eh di ipakita mo na ngayong yung ebidensya mo na tama ka.

After you

So, are we done? Are we all in agreement that will cannot produce evidence to save his life?

Speak for yourself, carter.

Edited September 11, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

So where is the document that states that the money from GR 152154 will be given to the ones in RA 10368?

Again, you challenged my post, you prove it. Paulit-ulit ka so I will also play your game.

I don't give a rat's ass if you think it's an excuse. I can also say that since you haven't answered my question by providing documents or articles.

Did you get mortified badly?

Try answering my questions convincingly by providing proof and stop making feeble excuses.

After you

Speak for yourself, carter.

 

1. Um, Sec. 7 of R.A. 10368. It explicitly mentions the sum recovered in G.R. No. 152154. But sure, no "documentary proof" because laws aren't documents, right will?

 

2. *yawn* Next excuse pls

 

3. Case law, black letter law are publicly accessible. Bank records are not, but we have no reason to believe PNB didn't turn over the funds accordingly. But sure, keep telling yourself that I don't have proof.

 

4. "Mortified" doesn't mean what you think it means. Also, stop being a hypocrite and just show us your proof already.

 

5. I'm not here to convince you, as it is clear your mind is made up. I'm here to let everyone else know that you're wrong and that you have no proof to back any of your beliefs. And because you refuse to show any proof because excuses, you're just proving me right.

 

6. See #3. So ano na, asan na proof mo?

 

7. Apparently I'm not alone.

 

Called shot: will is going to reply with more "prove me wrong" and "convince me" posturing without actually proving anything he claims to believe, plus more "you don't have proof" claims despite myself and several others mentioning case law, black letter law, and providing links. Tapos, I'm just going to keep pointing out all of will's tactics for avoiding having to provide proof for whatever he believes about the Marcoses, because he has *no* proof of anything he believes on the Marcoses. Bonus: he will tell us to just use the internet and research for ourselves what his proof is, because only people who don't believe in the Marcoses have the burden of proof.

[will robie]

 

1. Um, Sec. 7 of R.A. 10368. It explicitly mentions the sum recovered in G.R. No. 152154. But sure, no "documentary proof" because laws aren't documents, right will?

Show it. Otherwise, it is another hearsay.

[will robie]

 

 

2. *yawn* Next excuse pls

Speaking for yourself again, carter?

[will robie]

 

 

3. Case law, black letter law are publicly accessible. Bank records are not, but we have no reason to believe PNB didn't turn over the funds accordingly. But sure, keep telling yourself that I don't have proof.

 

Another flimsy excuse, carter. Haven't you run out of it?

 

 

4. "Mortified" doesn't mean what you think it means. Also, stop being a hypocrite and just show us your proof already.

Speaking for yourself again? No, I am using the word "mortify" based on its meaning.

Edited September 12, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

5. I'm not here to convince you, as it is clear your mind is made up. I'm here to let everyone else know that you're wrong and that you have no proof to back any of your beliefs. And because you refuse to show any proof because excuses, you're just proving me right.

Crowdsourcing, carter? Hahahaha! Pathetic. Aren't you confident about your "hearsay" posts?

 

You can believe what you wanna believe. I don't give a rat's ass, carter.

 

Based on this post, it is clear that yung puntirya mo pala ako at hindi si Macoy. Hahaha! I almost fell off my seat laughing at this post. I don't blame you if you're trying in vain to debunk me. You're not the first and you will definitely not be the last.

6. See #3. So ano na, asan na proof mo?

You challenged my post, you prove it. Asan ang sayo? I get this feeling I will be waiting in vain.

Edited September 12, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

7. Apparently I'm not alone.

 

Called shot: will is going to reply with more "prove me wrong" and "convince me" posturing without actually proving anything he claims to believe, plus more "you don't have proof" claims despite myself and several others mentioning case law, black letter law, and providing links. Tapos, I'm just going to keep pointing out all of will's tactics for avoiding having to provide proof for whatever he believes about the Marcoses, because he has *no* proof of anything he believes on the Marcoses. Bonus: he will tell us to just use the internet and research for ourselves what his proof is, because only people who don't believe in the Marcoses have the burden of proof.

I pity you, carter. You've been reduced to an ad hominem post because you just can't debunk my post. Hahaha! Pwned.

Edited September 12, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

LOL @will. So predictable.

 

Called shot: will is going to reply with more "prove me wrong" and "convince me" posturing without actually proving anything he claims to believe, plus more "you don't have proof" claims despite myself and several others mentioning case law, black letter law, and providing links. Tapos, I'm just going to keep pointing out all of will's tactics for avoiding having to provide proof for whatever he believes about the Marcoses, because he has *no* proof of anything he believes on the Marcoses. Bonus: he will tell us to just use the internet and research for ourselves what his proof is, because only people who don't believe in the Marcoses have the burden of proof.

[will robie]

@carter

 

If that inane post will make your day, go ahead.

Edited September 13, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

So, that's it? All that drama and multiple posts, and still no proof of your beliefs on the Marcoses?

K.

[will robie]

Speaking for yourself again, carter. Ayaw mo na ba magcrowdsourcing kasi isa lang pumansin sayo at yung pumansin sayo wala pang alam?

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Boring.

Eto hindi boring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRhltGGiJCg&feature=youtu.be

Edited September 15, 2018 by johncarter44

[will robie]

Paano ba yan mga dilawan? SC affirms acquittal of Imelda Marcos on 32 counts of dollar salting. The only case that these dilawans can present is a civil case which did not land any Marcos in jail. Boring ba?

Edited September 22, 2018 by will robie