will robie Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 Nun sinagot kita iibahin mo reference. Hahaha pwnedIf it will make you sleep better at night, sige na lang. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 If marcos did not acquire his wealth legally then obviously he is a thief. And since you can debunked this then he obviously is. Again, from who did he steal? I won't hold my breath because you don't have an answer to my question. You're way too easy. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) As to who exactly he stole from...as i said do your research and at the same time remove your blinders. Baka sakali makita mo sagot sa tinatanong mo. HahahaYour post has already been discredited when you made a ridiculous reply after I asked you where the Marcoses stole from since you said that they were thieves. No need to belabor your vacuousness. Edited November 21, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) https://www.manilatimes.net/colossal-propaganda-lies-over-sandiganbayans-imelda-decision/471060/?fbclid=IwAR2N3gQCMOPkluaq14iwq7usSVCRTqEnPJT8bvujB0VklMlujSWWynghibM How in the world could Imelda be convicted in 2018 for charges filed in 1991 to 1993, for alleged crimes committed from 1968 to 1970 (when the foundations were organized) based on a provision in the 1973 Constitution, that was deleted in the present 1987 Constitution that is the fundamental law of the land? Note that the 1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has a 10-year prescription period. What is so suspicious is why the Sandiganbayan decision did not address at all this obviously significant argument against the charges against Imelda, which was one of the most important defenses her lawyers brought up. Edited November 21, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
mamipokodiapers Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 Marcos magnanakaw. Forever and ever. Imelda shuld be in a selda. Quote Link to comment
camiar Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 Marcos magnanakaw. Forever and ever. Imelda shuld be in a selda. Most of the replies to our questions asking to prove Marcos really stole from government coffers is that "...we don't need to prove anything... because we know in our hearts na magnanakaw si Marcos..." Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 Marcos magnanakaw. Forever and ever. Imelda shuld be in a selda.Fatchubs, is that you? Quote Link to comment
rooster69ph Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 Most of the replies to our questions asking to prove Marcos really stole from government coffers is that "...we don't need to prove anything... because we know in our hearts na magnanakaw si Marcos..."WRONG...the fact of the matter is it has been proven. How? The mere fact that they claim to own all these assets but can’t prove how they were able to amass this legitimately. the court has decided on such basis. i wonder, if the marcoses can’t, can any marostard loyalist prove it? lol. Quote Link to comment
camiar Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 WRONG...the fact of the matter is it has been proven. How? The mere fact that they claim to own all these assets but can’t prove how they were able to amass this legitimately. the court has decided on such basis. i wonder, if the marcoses can’t, can any marostard loyalist prove it? lol.So, tell me, where was it proven that anything was stolen by Marcos from government coffers? People in power can create wealth without having to steal taxpayers' money. You can't prove that they stole money. All you can offer are ad hominems. Quote Link to comment
moneyball Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 So, tell me, where was it proven that anything was stolen by Marcos from government coffers? People in power can create wealth without having to steal taxpayers' money. You can't prove that they stole money. All you can offer are ad hominems. I can, with Imelda's recent conviction at the Sandiganbayan. That should more than suffice. Unless you're being you. HELLOOOOOO, EARTH TO CAMIAR. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 WRONG...the fact of the matter is it has been proven.How? The mere fact that they claim to own all these assets but can’t prove how they were able to amass this legitimately. the court has decided on such basis. i wonder, if the marcoses can’t, can any marostard loyalist prove it? lol.Don’t act so righteous when the verdict is not yet final and executory. Read and understand the article I posted. Imeldific was convicted of a law that does not exist so don’t act so righteous when you are clueless of the conviction. Yellowtards should really learn to use the grey matter between their ears. Quote Link to comment
rooster69ph Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 Dont act so righteous when the verdict is not yet final and executory. Read and understand the article I posted. Imeldific was convicted of a law that does not exist so dont act so righteous when you are clueless of the conviction. Yellowtards should really learn to use the grey matter between their ears. Sabi ko naman sa iyo mag research ka at hindi yun nabubuhay sa kahibangan. Ang problema sa iyo etong latest ruling lang ang may idea ka. Makikisawsaw ka na lang di ka pa nag effort magbasa isinubo na nga. Hahaha Quote Link to comment
rooster69ph Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 So, tell me, where was it proven that anything was stolen by Marcos from government coffers? People in power can create wealth without having to steal taxpayers' money. You can't prove that they stole money. All you can offer are ad hominems. Eh di patunayan mo na legit yan... Kasi tinanong na din ang mga marcoses kung paano naging ganun kalaki ang wealth nila. Di naman nila maipakita o maipaliwanag kung paano. Baka ikaw kaya mo Quote Link to comment
moneyball Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 Don’t act so righteous when the verdict is not yet final and executory. Read and understand the article I posted. Imeldific was convicted of a law that does not exist so don’t act so righteous when you are clueless of the conviction. Yellowtards should really learn to use the grey matter between their ears. It should be final and executory, but the gray matter between your ears is mostly composed of pond scum, so it says it's not. Now do us a favor and go fly a kite with camiar and the other dregs of society. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 It should be final and executory, but the gray matter between your ears is mostly composed of pond scum, so it says it's not. Now do us a favor and go fly a kite with camiar and the other dregs of society.Typical yellowtard reply. A ridiculous ad hominem for lack of an intelligent reply. By the way, your reply shows who between us has pond scum between the ears. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.