Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:13 pm

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13248 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862 ... 884  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 24845
:lol:

Pelu, hindi ka pwede mag insinuate kasi ito ay hindi factual. mag i insinuate ka na me mali sa Constitution, tapos gagawa ka ng conclusion how to remedy this? kahit ano pa yang mga claims mo, ay sadyang ganyan lang yan, "claims".

kasi ni minsan hindi naman naging issue yan sa kahit anong ahensya ng gobyerno: executive, legislative at judiciary.

ang kaso laban sa RA 9522 ay nagpapatunay na walang problema sa Constitution base dun sa claim sa Sabah. kung ano man ang interpretasyun mo sa opinion ni Bernas, ay sadyang hanggang dyan na lang yan: opinion.

kasi ang huling opinion, sa gusto man natin or hindi, ay nasa Supreme Court laang.

ngayon, sa uulitin, walang mali sa Constitution kasi hindi sinabi ng Supreme Court na tama ang complaints ng mga petitioners laban sa RA 9522. ang factual eh sinabi ng SC walang katotohanan na inabandona ng RA 9522 ang claim ng PH sa Sabah. nag quote na nga ako ng disisyun.

alam ko, napakasakit na malaman ang katotohanan sa tulad mo, sa kadahilanan na ikaw ay sanay at lugmok sa Fake News. isa pa, hindi mo alam ang disisyun ng SC sa RA 9522. pero kahit alam mo na, eto ka pa rin, SPAMMING ng walang katuturan na posts.

kung isip bata ka, i-continue mo ang pag post ng SPAM. pero kung gusto mong patunayan sa lahat dito na isa kang seryoso na tagapagbigay ng opinion dito sa Politics forum, itigil mo na yan.

gawain lang yan ng amateurs.

:lol:

_________________
"I will make you an offer you can't refuse." - Michael Corleone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
iba na naman ang tema ng todo-paliwanag ngayon :shock: nung una pabagobago daw, tapos paulitulit naman, pabagobago na naman.....ngayon paulit ulit na naman in short nanglabel ng "spamming" hihihihihih


insinuation ? hihihihihih pakisabi naman kay Fr. Joaquin Bernas yan, nagtodo-paliwanag pa ang lolo to explain their omission :lol: duda ko Loyalista talaga yang isang yan, naka-disguise lang na Coryista wahahaha :lol:

"spamming" ba ang pagpapakita ng tutoo, yun lang ayaw maisiwalat ang katotohanan ang mahilig pumigil sa pagsasabi ng tutoo hihihih....tignan mo nga, ikaw kung anuano na ang approach, kung anuano na ang pinagsasabi.......but everything that you say can always be answered by my original posts :biglaugh: so dahil wala ka na maisagot sa position ko you'll cry "spamming" just to avoid being confronted with something you obviously cannot refute,............




Quote:
It came to light that as our Sabah claim gained international prominence during the early 1960s we were asked, “If Sabah is really yours, why is it that it does not even appear in the records of the 1935 Philippine Constitution?”


and so
1973 Constitution wrote:
“all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”


but this happened
Image

so
1987 Constitution wrote:
deleted
:shock:


to justify the ambiguity they themselves created in the 1987 Constitution
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. wrote:
“The validity of our territorial claims does not rest on constitutional sanction but on our historic rights……” “…….on the other hand, would a constitutional definition of territory have the effect of legitimizing a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected by international law ?"


Lord Pelu wrote:
the SC decision made in 2011, interpreted favorably for the country on the ambiguity created by Santa Cory's blatant attempt to renounce the claim.....does this erase Santa Cory and her henchmen's attempts to finally abandon the Sabah claim? .....the SC deserves patriotic praise for its interpretation of the wordings of the 1987 Constitution with its notorious "omission" admitted by Bernas himself :shock:, certainly.....but to absolve Santa Santita because of this SC decision? hihihihihih you must be a Dilawang uto-uto ak ak ak :biglaugh:




I think everything has been very clear here already, as clear as this post of mine a few pages back :lol: in short it's time for a "recap" now :biglaugh:



Lord Pelu wrote:
Dropping of Sabah Claim

Marcos, 1977.......negotiating ploy, did it push thru? :biglaugh:

Ninoy, 1983......scheme of a very ambitious politician, didn't push thru because tinigok

Cory, 1987......."1987 Constitution" :biglaugh:

Image

Image



:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 24845
:lol:

Pelu, ano ba stand mo ngayon sa 1987 Constitution in relation to Sabah claim? Iya para klaro. Malabo pa rin ba ang pag claim nito on Sabah?

kasi napaka klaro na walang sinasabi ang 1987 Constitution na nag give up na sa Sabah claim. Mismo ang Supreme Court na nagpatunay.

ang tanong dito ba't pa ulit ulit mo pino post ang mga dati mong mga posts na klarong moot and academic na, ngayong nalaman mo na ang kaso sa RA 9522.
pwede natin i-excuse ang mga posts mo na ito dati, kasi nga hindi mo pa alam ang kaso sa RA 9522. ngayong alam mo na, wala na itong saysay at dapat hindi na inuulit ulit.

kaya spamming na yang ginagawa mo kasi wala namang issue ang 1987 Constitution towards the claim on Sabah.

sa uulitin, sinabi mismo ng Supreme Court yan.

marunong ka naman siguro magbasa at umintindi. kahit ikaw ay... amateur.

:lol:

_________________
"I will make you an offer you can't refuse." - Michael Corleone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 am
Posts: 28436
Location: JARO,Iloilo
Actually may kapalit na dyan ang BBL . :lol:

_________________
Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
hihihihihih hindi pa ba yan nasagot ng posts ko panay reklamo ka pa nga di ba paulitulit sabi mo :lol:


eto ulit, that you labeled "spamming" :lol:
Lord Pelu wrote:
the SC decision made in 2011, interpreted favorably for the country on the ambiguity created by Santa Cory's blatant attempt to renounce the claim.....does this erase Santa Cory and her henchmen's attempts to finally abandon the Sabah claim? .....the SC deserves patriotic praise for its interpretation of the wordings of the 1987 Constitution with its notorious "omission" admitted by Bernas himself :shock:, certainly.....but to absolve Santa Santita because of this SC decision? hihihihihih you must be a Dilawang uto-uto ak ak ak :biglaugh:



meron ka pa ba itatanong ulit na nasagot na ng posts ko ? just go ahead, as I said hindi naman ako mapapagod magrepost, I can make adjustments for imbetards wahahahahaha pahiram torni :lol:


so as I've been saying in my last post, this "recap" is now overdue :biglaugh:



Lord Pelu wrote:
Dropping of Sabah Claim

Marcos, 1977.......negotiating ploy, did it push thru? :biglaugh:

Ninoy, 1983......scheme of a very ambitious politician, didn't push thru because tinigok

Cory, 1987......."1987 Constitution" :biglaugh:

Image

Image



:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 24845
:lol:

sabi ko nga, kathang isip mo lang yang 'ambiguity', kasi yung decision ng SC sa RA 9522 wala namang na mention about ambiguity. paano ma absolve ng 'ambiguity' ang 1987 Constitution eh 'claim' lang naman ng mga tulad mo. kasi kung meron man, dapat na mention ng SC even as a side note.

hindi ba klaro sa iyo ang sinabi ng SC? walang 'ambiguity' binanggit dun. ibig sabihin, klaro sa SC ang stand ng 1987 Constitution. hindi ka pwedeng mag claim ng wala. hindi ka pwede mag claim na ang decision ng SC ay nag ABSOLVEd kasi wala namang nag hain ng reklamo sa SC about the 'ambiguity' of the 1987 Constitution sa Sabah claim.

kasi hindi ka pwedeng patawarin ng korte kung wala ka namang kaso.

meron ba naghain ng reklamo sa SC about the 'ambiguity' of the 1987 Constitution on Sabah, Pelu?

kung wala, ibig sabihin, guni guni mo lang yang 'ambiguity'.

guni guni ng isang amateur.

:lol:

_________________
"I will make you an offer you can't refuse." - Michael Corleone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
hihihihihihih todo paliwanag na naman ang profeysiyunal imbetard na hindi marunong magbilang, hindi marunong magbasa at hindi marunong sa isfeling :lol:


"insinuation"..."kathang isip"...ano pa bang label ang gusto mo itawag sa "ambiguity" na ginawa ng idol mong Santa Santita Cory hihihihihih

kathang isip lang pala iyan ni Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J. :lol: ito din ba "kathang isip" din
Image

teka alam mo na ba kung sino ang nagsulat niyan wahahahaha kawawa na naman :lol:






at para hindi ka makatakas sa pagkakabitag mo :lol: at para mas madali mong maintindihan ..... :shock:

Quote:
It came to light that as our Sabah claim gained international prominence during the early 1960s we were asked, “If Sabah is really yours, why is it that it does not even appear in the records of the 1935 Philippine Constitution?”


and so
1973 Constitution wrote:
“all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”


but this happened
Image

so
1987 Constitution wrote:
deleted
:shock:


to justify the ambiguity they themselves created in the 1987 Constitution
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. wrote:
“The validity of our territorial claims does not rest on constitutional sanction but on our historic rights……” “…….on the other hand, would a constitutional definition of territory have the effect of legitimizing a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected by international law ?"


the SC decision made in 2011, interpreted favorably for the country on the ambiguity created by Santa Cory's blatant attempt to renounce the claim.....does this erase Santa Cory and her henchmen's attempts to finally abandon the Sabah claim? .....the SC deserves patriotic praise for its interpretation of the wordings of the 1987 Constitution with its notorious "omission" admitted by Bernas himself :shock:, certainly.....but to absolve Santa Santita because of this SC decision? hihihihihih you must be a Dilawang uto-uto ak ak ak






Lord Pelu wrote:
Dropping of Sabah Claim

Marcos, 1977.......negotiating ploy, did it push thru? :biglaugh:

Ninoy, 1983......scheme of a very ambitious politician, didn't push thru because tinigok

Cory, 1987......."1987 Constitution" :biglaugh:

Image

Image



:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 24845
:lol:

Pelu, paki explain pano meron ngang "omission" or "ambiguity" sa Constitution kung ang RA 9522 at RA 5446 ay valid laws.

hindi pwedeng mas mataas ang RA sa Constitution.

any "claims" before the SC decision on RA 9522 ay answered na during the deliberation of RA 9522.

ikaw na lang natitira ata nag ke claim ng 'ambiguity' or 'omission' matapos ng SC decision.

kasi nga... amateur.

:lol:

_________________
"I will make you an offer you can't refuse." - Michael Corleone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 18248
as usual lampaso na naman ang mga walang kasusta-sustanysang mga argumento.



pero at least may opinion.........................puro sabaw nga lang.



:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

_________________
"at least 2 years pa lang kaming nauuto ng tatay digong namin"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:56 pm
Posts: 2490
:cry: :whistle:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:15 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
pobreng retarded wrote:
:lol:

Pelu, paki explain pano meron ngang "omission" or "ambiguity" sa Constitution kung ang RA 9522 at RA 5446 ay valid laws.

hindi pwedeng mas mataas ang RA sa Constitution.

any "claims" before the SC decision on RA 9522 ay answered na during the deliberation of RA 9522.

ikaw na lang natitira ata nag ke claim ng 'ambiguity' or 'omission' matapos ng SC decision.

kasi nga... amateur.

:lol:


hihihihihih ilang back pages ago na ba nung una ko ipost eto, pero lahat ng sinabi ng imbetard since that time sinagot na nito.......tapos magrereklamo ng "spamming" :lol:

Lord Pelu wrote:
the SC decision made in 2011, interpreted favorably for the country on the ambiguity created by Santa Cory's blatant attempt to renounce the claim.....does this erase Santa Cory and her henchmen's attempts to finally abandon the Sabah claim? .....the SC deserves patriotic praise for its interpretation of the wordings of the 1987 Constitution with its notorious "omission" admitted by Bernas himself :shock:, certainly.....but to absolve Santa Santita because of this SC decision? hihihihihih you must be a Dilawang uto-uto ak ak ak


lumang estilo na kasi yan, pilit tinatago ang isa na namang kawalanghiyaan ni Santa Cory, by recent developments :shock: .....

so, yun bang Hacienda Luisita hindi nangyari na kinamkam ng angkan ni Santa Santita, because the Supreme Court decided with finality to distribute the land to farmers? wahahahahaha kawawang uto-uto :lol:


nakakaantok naman kausap ang profeysiyunal imbetard, lahat ng sinabi did not need a new post from me :? no match ......wala ng challenge ak ak ak :lol: :lol: :lol:




so, let's recap "again" para matorture na naman ang wala ng maisip para pangontra hihihih

Quote:
It came to light that as our Sabah claim gained international prominence during the early 1960s we were asked, “If Sabah is really yours, why is it that it does not even appear in the records of the 1935 Philippine Constitution?”


and so
1973 Constitution wrote:
“all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”


but this happened
Image

so
1987 Constitution wrote:
deleted
:shock:


to justify the ambiguity they themselves created in the 1987 Constitution
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. wrote:
“The validity of our territorial claims does not rest on constitutional sanction but on our historic rights……” “…….on the other hand, would a constitutional definition of territory have the effect of legitimizing a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected by international law ?"







finally,

Lord Pelu wrote:
Dropping of Sabah Claim

Marcos, 1977.......negotiating ploy, did it push thru? :biglaugh:

Ninoy, 1983......scheme of a very ambitious politician, didn't push thru because tinigok

Cory, 1987......."1987 Constitution" :biglaugh:

Image



:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:19 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
Tito 'Nano wrote:
as usual lampaso na naman ang mga walang kasusta-sustanysang mga argumento.



pero at least may opinion.........................puro sabaw nga lang.



:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

wahahahahahahaha sakses na sakses ! :lol:


may nanggagalaiti na naman hihihihih


nasaktan na naman, this time ang culprit ay........................


















......................................."opinion" :shock:


wahahahahahaha

I love this game

:bounce1:



para sa mga hindi pa updated, eto siya o hihihihih before and after matodo pikonized :lol:
Go DDS!

Duwendeng Dyutay Shorty!


Image

:celebrate:

kawawa :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 24845
:lol:

Pelu, nag decide na ang SC both sa issues with Hda. Luisita and Sabah. parehong wala namang reklamo sa hatol ng SC sa dalawa. kung ano man ang nangyari sa Hda. Luisita, hindi naman ito pinigil ng SC, bagkus kasama na ito sa 'history'. kung me kamalian ang mga involved na personalities wit Hda. Luisita, me nahain na sapat na kaso sa mga korte. kung wala or kulang pa, pwede pa ang mga 'biktima' maghain. walang batas na pumipigil sa kanila.

pero yung nirereklamo mo sa 'ambiguity' o 'claims' sa Constitutions sa Sabah, ay kathang isip mo lang. kasi walang na mention na ganito ang SC.

amibiguity sa 1987 Consti? paano makapag bigay hatol ang SC sa isang bagay na hindi nag eexist?

well, unless ang SC ay mga... amateurs.

:lol:

_________________
"I will make you an offer you can't refuse." - Michael Corleone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
hihihih wala na talaga :lol:


dahil diyan pagtitiyagaan ko na naman ang mga tabinging banat mo, tulad nito

pobreng imbetard hihihih wrote:
:lol:

Pelu, paki explain pano meron ngang "omission" or "ambiguity" sa Constitution kung ang RA 9522 at RA 5446 ay valid laws.

hindi pwedeng mas mataas ang RA sa Constitution.

any "claims" before the SC decision on RA 9522 ay answered na during the deliberation of RA 9522.

ikaw na lang natitira ata nag ke claim ng 'ambiguity' or 'omission' matapos ng SC decision.

kasi nga... amateur.

:lol:


:shock:

para sa isang nagke-claim na siya'y profeysiyunal (imbetard nga lang hihihih) I'm surprised na kailangan mo pang mag-rely sa ibang tao para maka-form ng sarili mong stand :lol: :lol: :lol: kung wala kang ibang makita na may ganyang sinasabi does it mean hindi tutoo? hihihih hindi ba puwede na ang tintignan mo ay limited to people with just the same opinion as yours? mas malala, you are engulfed in the same perpetuation of familiar myths about the EDSA alliance, starring of course, Santa Cory and her family hihihih :lol: :lol: :lol: magkano ang take mo sa racket na ganyan, lemme guess.....P800 or gasp :shock: P500 per, tama ba wahahahahahha "profeysiyunal" na "profeysiyunal" nga :bounce1:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BBM for president
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 6104
Location: Mithrandir
kaya naman......... :lol:

hihihihihih ilang back pages ago na ba nung una ko ipost eto, pero lahat ng sinabi ng imbetard since that time sinagot na nito.......tapos magrereklamo ng "spamming" :lol:

Lord Pelu wrote:
the SC decision made in 2011, interpreted favorably for the country on the ambiguity created by Santa Cory's blatant attempt to renounce the claim.....does this erase Santa Cory and her henchmen's attempts to finally abandon the Sabah claim? .....the SC deserves patriotic praise for its interpretation of the wordings of the 1987 Constitution with its notorious "omission" admitted by Bernas himself :shock:, certainly.....but to absolve Santa Santita because of this SC decision? hihihihihih you must be a Dilawang uto-uto ak ak ak


lumang estilo na kasi yan, pilit tinatago ang isa na namang kawalanghiyaan ni Santa Cory, by recent developments :shock: .....

so, yun bang Hacienda Luisita hindi nangyari na kinamkam ng angkan ni Santa Santita, because the Supreme Court decided with finality to distribute the land to farmers? wahahahahaha kawawang uto-uto :lol:


nakakaantok naman kausap ang profeysiyunal imbetard, lahat ng sinabi did not need a new post from me :? no match ......wala ng challenge ak ak ak :lol: :lol: :lol:




so, let's recap "again" para matorture na naman ang wala ng maisip para pangontra hihihih

Quote:
It came to light that as our Sabah claim gained international prominence during the early 1960s we were asked, “If Sabah is really yours, why is it that it does not even appear in the records of the 1935 Philippine Constitution?”


and so
1973 Constitution wrote:
“all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”


but this happened
Image

so
1987 Constitution wrote:
deleted
:shock:


to justify the ambiguity they themselves created in the 1987 Constitution
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. wrote:
“The validity of our territorial claims does not rest on constitutional sanction but on our historic rights……” “…….on the other hand, would a constitutional definition of territory have the effect of legitimizing a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected by international law ?"







finally,

Lord Pelu wrote:
Dropping of Sabah Claim

Marcos, 1977.......negotiating ploy, did it push thru? :biglaugh:

Ninoy, 1983......scheme of a very ambitious politician, didn't push thru because tinigok

Cory, 1987......."1987 Constitution" :biglaugh:

Image



:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mines of Moria


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13248 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862 ... 884  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group