Apo Marcos : Facts And Myths

[haroots2]

Yeah sure, publications, articles, short stories, or you can even throw in novels. They don't change the fact that Marcos never got convicted.

 

He did convited of murder. Na reverse lang ng Supreme Court just because nanghihinayang sila sa tao since they saw Marcos has a great future ahead of him.

[punkee]

why is it we seem to expect perfection from our presidents? marcos left the country with humongous debts and problems that an ordinary leader would not be able to solve in one term. and Cory was not the greatest president so let us stop blaming her. her legacy is bringing back our rights to speak and act freely. for that, she is way way better than any Marcos combined.

 

I blame those who keep supporting the obviously evil and corrupt. it is because these corrupt politicians are still very popular that we are always forced to settle. Erap was still popular so we settled for PNoy. And since Binay & Bongbong are also popular we will most probably be forced to settle again.

 

for those who seem to have seething hatred for PNoy, I say it is better to have seething hatred for corruption, lying, hypocrisy and thievery. palpak si PNoy. let me emphasize that. but I will take the incremental improvements that our country has experienced with PNoy anytime than a return to a corrupt system that has kept us as a slow, underachieving country.

[punkee]

with a leader like marcos, the loyalists will never have the chance to air their side (albeit twisted) on social media. the freedoms you experience now are those your APO took away while he was not yet a wax dummy.

[rooster69ph]

can you convict a dead man???

[darksoulriver]

Yet the Philippines became the sick man of Asia, while Singaporeans now enjoy the second highest per capita income in the region after Japan.”

 

Singapore citizens follow even the smallest rule of law..in the Philippines you still need to remind them!

 

the Philippines current state is not entirely Marcos fault...

 

yes he's part of it but why still more filipinos think Marcos is the better than the past and present President.

 

were angry because Marcos proclaim Martial Law. but we still vote Ramos and Enrile.

[rooster69ph]

How sure are you he would have been convicted had he lived long enough?

 

The same as to how sure you would be to his acquittal had he lived long enough.

 

Arguing whether or not he would have been convicted if he lived long enough is pure speculation at this point. Considering the fact that he died, the better question to ask is if you can you convict a dead person???

 

Bottomline, arguing that he was not convicted to prove his innocence does not hold ground since he was neither acquitted right? In fact was he even "healthy" enough to attend trial?

Edited November 5, 2015 by rooster69ph

[Edmund Dantes]

can you convict a dead man???

 

Actually andyan pa si Imelda at mga pamilya nya. Ang daming kaso sinampa sa kanya pero ni isa man lang dun hindi sya mapakulogn. Ano na ba nagawa ng PCGG? Bakit ni isa sa mga sinasabing swiss accounts hindi naman mabawi?

 

 

 

Yet the Philippines became the sick man of Asia, while Singaporeans now enjoy the second highest per capita income in the region after Japan.”

 

Singapore citizens follow even the smallest rule of law..in the Philippines you still need to remind them!

 

the Philippines current state is not entirely Marcos fault...

 

yes he's part of it but why still more filipinos think Marcos is the better than the past and present President.

 

were angry because Marcos proclaim Martial Law. but we still vote Ramos and Enrile.

 

I agree, the problems we have today were caused more by the leaders that replaced APO, than APO himself. Marcos is a convenient bad guy. Is is an escape goat. Lahat na lang ng kapalpakan ng kasalukuyan na ayusin mga problema ng bansa laging kelangan isisi kay Marcos. 50 years daw kasi aantayin para ma-undo damage ng ginawa ng diktador. Ganun din ba katagal bumangon ang Spain pagkatapos ni Franco? Ang Italy pagkatapos ni Mouslini? Tignan natin sabi ang indonesia. Naghirap din naman husto bansang yun dahil kay Suharto. Mas nauna pa tayo lumaya sa kanila, pero ngayon magkakaroon na sila ng bullet train

[rooster69ph]

 

Actually andyan pa si Imelda at mga pamilya nya. Ang daming kaso sinampa sa kanya pero ni isa man lang dun hindi sya mapakulogn. Ano na ba nagawa ng PCGG? Bakit ni isa sa mga sinasabing swiss accounts hindi naman mabawi?

 

 

 

 

Well ako kasi ang tingin ko sino ba ang nasaposisyon na nagnakaw at ang pangunahing kinasuhan? SI Ferdie yun pero patay na...

 

 

As to the other family members, well depende kung ano ang kasong naisampa. Pero sa aking pagkakaalam na convict na si meldy nun 1993 if i remember it correctly. Pero binaligtad nun 1998 ilang buwan matapos naupo sa pwesto si Erap. Hindi naman ako nagtataka kung bakit ...while tumakbo si Meldy nun 1998, last minute inendorso niya si Erap. At saka, ano ba ang connection ni Erap sa mga Marcos? Etong nagannounce si BBM na tatakbo bilang VP sino ba ang nasa tabi niya at nagtaas ng kamay? I guess you can deduce kung ano ang nangyari in between. As I told you earlier, hindi mo pwedeng sabihin walang naganap na krimen at suicide ang dahilan ng pagkamatay ng isang tao na may 3 tama ng bala sa ulo kahit na walang nakakita kung sino ang gumawa ng krimen at higit sa lahat walang na convict.

 

As to the issue na walang nabawi ang PCGG, again, you may want to check your facts. Meron pong nabawing nakaw na yaman although it is not as much as expected. Why? Various factors ... hindi ko alam kung dahil purely incompetent, dahil may napabalitang na dismiss yun kaso sa technicality dahil sa pinaggagawa ng PCGG. Dahil magaling ang pagtatago ng yaman kaya mahina ang kaso o di kaya nasusuhulan ang mga nakaupo kaya in the end masabing may nagawa lang ayun compromise agreement pumapayag na. For the record, BBM has been quotedas as saying they have been negotiating for compromise agreement and will continue to do so.

Edited November 5, 2015 by rooster69ph

[haroots2]

 

Actually andyan pa si Imelda at mga pamilya nya. Ang daming kaso sinampa sa kanya pero ni isa man lang dun hindi sya mapakulogn. Ano na ba nagawa ng PCGG? Bakit ni isa sa mga sinasabing swiss accounts hindi naman mabawi?

 

 

Mahirap talagang bawiin ang mga Swiss Acct.s, hindi dahil may kapangyarihan pa si Marcos kundi yun ang mahigpit na policy ng mga Swiss Banks. kaya nga sila sikat dahil sa kanilang bank secrecy law. If those swiss banks gave those accts. to the Phil. govt., many depositors will react to their policy and may result to mass withrawal of accounts.

[rooster69ph]

Then why ask the question in the first place when you're not even sure if he was gonna be convicted had he lived?

 

Because you said he was never convicted hence the question ... I don't speculate and deal only with the fact that he's dead and there was no acquittal during his lifetime. Bakit pwede bang ma convict ang isang patay? Kung buhay siya, then na acquit then that's the time you tell me he was never convicted.

 

tell me .. ano ang hindi mo naintindihan dito sa sinabi ko? "Bottomline, arguing that he was not convicted to prove his innocence does not hold ground since he was neither acquitted right? In fact was he even "healthy" enough to attend trial?"

Edited November 5, 2015 by rooster69ph

[rooster69ph]

Do you have proof that he was healthy enough to attend the trial?

 

Hindi ba ang tanong ko was he even healthy enough to attend trial?

Edited November 5, 2015 by rooster69ph

[rooster69ph]

Inumpisahan mo yung statement mo ng in fact. There shouldn't even be the phrase "in fact" when asking a question. So, do you even understand the word "imply"?

 

 

OK ka lang? gusto mong maglabas ako ng proof na healthy siya to attend trial e yun health issues nga niya ni-raise ko thus the question " was he even healthy enough to attend trial?"

[rooster69ph]

Yes, he was never convicted. So? Your question, "can you convict a dead person?" implies that you believe that he would have been convicted had he lived. Do you understand the meaning of the word "imply"? Do you have proof that he was healthy enough to attend the trial?

 

Nope I never implied that ...

 

The argument is plain and simple as I have explained earlier in the same post ... "Bottomline, arguing that he was not convicted to prove his innocence does not hold ground since he was neither acquitted right?

 

 

 

So uulitin ko ano ang hindi mo naintindihan sa sinabi ko?

[rooster69ph]

Ok. So Marcos was sick. Again, no one would really know, unless that person was a clairvoyant, that Marcos would have been convicted or not. Your question "can you convict a dead man" is an implication that you believe that he would have been convicted had he lived.

 

Ayun naman pala e ... he was sick. Did he attend trials? Was there a conviction nor acquital? Wala ... Hence sabi ko nga "Bottomline, arguing that he was not convicted to prove his innocence does not hold ground since he was neither acquitted right?

 

Did I imply anything other than what I've said? I don't think so ... maybe ...jyou have problems with your comprehension. As a matter of FACT, ayun o hinihingan mo ako ng proof na healthy siya to attend trials when hindi naman yun ang sinasabi ko.

 

Wag kang pauso para maka-score.

[rooster69ph]

 

Because you said he was never convicted hence the question ... I don't speculate and deal only with the fact that he's dead and there was no acquittal during his lifetime. Bakit pwede bang ma convict ang isang patay? Kung buhay siya, then na acquit then that's the time you tell me he was never convicted.

 

tell me .. ano ang hindi mo naintindihan dito sa sinabi ko? "Bottomline, arguing that he was not convicted to prove his innocence does not hold ground since he was neither acquitted right? In fact was he even "healthy" enough to attend trial?"

 

 

Really? The fact that you asked that question "can you convict a dead man?" is an implication that you believe that Marcos would have been convicted had he lived. I understood every word you said. Did you understand your own question? If you understood your question, why ask the question in the first place?

 

 

sinagot na kita earlier ...paikot-ikot ka lang.