We Are Awesome Thread

[Eddy Syet]

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...

[Eddy Syet]

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 November 3, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[rooster69ph]

 

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.

[Eddy Syet]

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?

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.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Eddy Syet]

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? 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?! 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 November 4, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Eddy Syet]

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. 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.

 

 

 

[rooster69ph]

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.

[rooster69ph]

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

 

Think before you post.

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.

[rooster69ph]

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 November 5, 2015 by rooster69ph

[Eddy Syet]

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!

 

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

 

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!

Edited November 5, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Eddy Syet]

Whatever, this is a forum where views, facts, allegations are exchanged. Again, what you and your fellow haters are raising are all allegations. I am stating facts that Marcos won the 1986 elections and was never convicted. If you can't accept these facts, that is your problem, not mine. Again, good luck with your cause. LOL.

 

Marcos won the 1986 Snap Elections? Yes and no. Depende yan kung fan ka ni Cory Aquino or ni Ferdinand Marcos.

 

Eto istorya nyan. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

1. The COMELEC was counting the votes for the presidential elections.

2. The counting stopped because computer analysts and tabulators in PICC walked out of their posts. They were counting votes for COMELEC. They walked out because their superiors are manipulating the election results in favor or Marcos.

3. This "walk-out" caused the election's tabulation to be officially stopped.

4. The count? COMELEC had Ferdinand Marcos ahead by more than 1 million votes.

5. The count? NAMFREL had Aquino leading by almost 800,000 votes.

6. The rule at the time was that the body who has the authority to declare a winner was Batasang Pambansa.

7. Batasang Pambansa was dominated by Marcos loyalists.

8. So in February 1986, Batasang Pambansa declared Marcos as the winner of the "halted" elections.

9. In March 1986, the same Batasang Pambansa signed a petition nullifying the declaration of Ferdinand Marcos as president of the Republic of the Philippines and named Cory Aquino as president.

10. This became more official when hundreds of other nations, including the United States, recognized Aquino's government and leadership as legit.

 

So ang nakalimutan mong ikwento sa amin, sir... eh yung pagkapanalo ni Marcos nung 1986 was "nullified" by the same Batasang Pambansa who previously declared him as winner.

 

So sige lang... push lang natin yang nanalo si Marcos nung 1986 snap elections.

 

Dun naman sa never sya na-convict eh... mahirap litisin ang patay na.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Eddy Syet]

^ Fact? Oo naman. Opinion? In your dreams. Kino-quote nga si Bongbong eh.

 

Raissa Robles was directly quoting Bongbong Marcos and there... was... no... libel... suit.

[punkee]

Easy to nullify? Masyado ka naman bilib kay Cory. Akala ko ba hindi sya magaling? And yet, in such a short time, you think she could manipulate Batasang Pambansa?

 

It took Marcos many years to take control of critical government agencies and make them do his bidding.

 

It seems Marcos was the weakling then.

[Cap™]

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

 

my point exactly. Thanks for saving me the trouble of backreads sir

[rooster69ph]

 

sa tanong mung ano nging silbi ang sagot WALA eh sira na nga db pwede nga sanang tourist spot na plano ng PTA tulad sa US.

 

ibaloi NPA well kung cno man sumira eh may kanya kanya silang dahilan..

 

So ang ibig mo bang sabihin nun pinagawa ito ni Marcos nun 1978 e binalak niya maging "tourist spot" ang mukha niya???

 

Eto kasi ang dahilan ni Tourism Secretary Gonzales kung bakit sila di pumayag na sirain ito ...""Before, this was a monument to a dictatorship. Now it is a symbol of injustice. It should remain there so we never forget how this one man ruined a nation."

 

At bakit naman sinira yan ng mga Ibaloi? Bakit ganun na lang ang kanilang pagkagalit na dapat sirain kahit na tinutulan pa mismo ni Cory ang planong pag "blow-up" dito?