maxme

What the heck did I just read?!

"Gen Prem told Gen Prayut's delegation to take pride in the May 22 power seizure."

Still anyone doubting that Sutheps roadshow and the following coup was orchestrated by the feudal masters and their mighty sponsors??

Please identify these "feudal masters and their mighty sponsors".

Please provide evidence that you are not on government's PR office payroll or here to silence any opinion that doesn't correspond with yours.

Any idea what name he went under previously?...

Of course he would.

Maxme - Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

do you think Bush and Blair's decision about WMD was a responsible and fine decision? if not you think they should be sued? or do you think people in public office should OPENLY be scrutinized and criticized by the public and the press without restraint and censorship? also people in public office should get protection after their service has ended? if all people who serve in governments are open to law suits after their term finished NO ONE would serve. wise up this is a Thai witchhunt

So, either sue all of them or sue not one of them? What has the (alleged) lies of some foreign leaders to do with the negligence of Ms. Yingluck?

BTW Ms. Yingluck was already under investigation BEFORE her office ended in February or March 2014. Remember she stated the law didn't allow her to resign?

So was Suthep, has the court reached a verdict yet?

Was Suthep involved in the Rice Price Pledging Scheme?

So no fairness for all. As long it doesn't involve co-conspirators of the coup it's open season you mean. I see...

To correct the earlier typos in my reply to maxme:

maxme, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:48, said:

"Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please."

You consistently claimed that the was no malfeasance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme.

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

You didn't ask anything of the sort. You hitchhiked whybother's post. Then you have been spinning every post in order to score some brownie points. If we going to continue this charade read your quote above and answer me first, no quacking, where did I defend the scheme (in other threads I've said some had good intentions about it but in general was a bad idea)?

Also defending PTP when I said there are more political parties involved in this would suggest that I don't think the former party is totally innocent but there are others involved and it is ridiculous that Yingluck should take the whole blame for this mess.

This government isn't even elected and so on a deception level how are they in any position to judge who or how. If we had an independent judiciary that investigated while PTP was still in power, this would have been fine.

But there are more than one party in cohoots with the current regime and that makes this case moot and will just start up another vendetta. Because why should PTP take the sole blame when there are others involved.

I cannot believe members are posting links to and quoting from that poor excuse for a website, Prachatai. It is full of red propaganda and anti-monachy ramblings, enough material on any one page to get you banned from the forum.

It links to such sites as - Bangkok Pundit, Political Prisoners in Thailand, Asia Sentinel and Khaosod, all blatantly red propaganda sites.

Fab4 would be proud of you.

You are hilarious. Being red is bad, but being a coup loving westerner is cool.

Fascism is the new black? Sometimes, it really becomes apparent that a western education is really wasted on a lot of people.

perhaps it might be more accurate to describe Red as being the new Fascism.

So yellow is part of the old facism?

Yes, he does, doesn't he?

I'm waiting Daffy

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

And I'm sure this is your attempt trying to make a name for yourself before you reach your 1000 post, so not so little compared to you my color-tainted friend.

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

Did you find the posts? Didn't think so. You're not special Daffy, just another lost sycophant trying to establish something you will never have... An opinion of your own.

Keep reciting the ramblings of longway and djjamie. That will surely help your cause. Done you good in the past, right?

I'm waiting Daffy

To correct the earlier typos in my reply to maxme:

maxme, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:48, said:

"Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please."

You consistently claimed that the was no malfeasance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme.

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

God the tenacity. So you took the quote where I asked you to prove in which post I defended the rice scheme, yet you failed to produce the posts or quotes where I supposedly said that. Interesting logic, are you going to continue this one man crusade, just yapping or are you gonna come up with this undeniable evidence you talk so much about... Just wondering.

Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please.

You consistently claimed that the was no false askance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme. No need to even go back - it's plain to see.

Poor boy gone desperate now, like his sidekick, Sideshow Longway. Well first of all, Merry Xmas and second wasn't it you who said one need to back up statements with evidence.?

If you don't wanna be taken for the no 1 hypocrite on the forum, I suggest you follow your own rules.

" charter protectors committee" to scrutinise the government's work in a similar manner to China's Politburo committee. "

So we getting closer to the true story behind the coup !

It depends which conspiracy theory you want to listen to.

whether they literally continue to stay in power under a different name or just rig the game (again) to keep control doesn't really matter.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's observation of current events.

"Game of Thai Elites"

Didn't he say just before the takeover that there will be no coup?

You wanna go down the path of Russian submarines, again?

Well, well, if it isn't the gay stalker. Little too attached to me aren't you.

Do you wanna go down the path with the rice scheme. Or does little Daffy want to do what he always does, stalk people and post inane and useless comments instead of giving his own opinion about the topic.

Stalk? Feeling a little self-obsessed, are you?

You brought up the submarines, and then, when it was pointed out that you were dead wrong, ran as fast as you could, instead of just admitting that you're wrong.

This impacts your credibility (as in, loss of) in every subsequent thread you post, like here.

Stalking? You wish.

What credibility do you have? Trying to impress some posters. Don't flatter yourself. You haven't posted an opinion even. You jump the group band wagon to belong somewhere, sad little master.

If this is your belief then I let you have it. Because this is all you ever be here.

Good luck!

Interesting comments from posters here.

Now if Anupong had said "no comment" the assumption would probably be "see, see, they want to stay" and a "probably" a "I told you so".

Two sides of the same coin, uncle rubl. You do the same when it comes to the UDD or the PTP. At least we can agree to disagree, wouldn't you say?

Didn't he say just before the takeover that there will be no coup?

You wanna go down the path of Russian submarines, again?

Well, well, if it isn't the gay stalker. Little too attached to me aren't you.

Do you wanna go down the path with the rice scheme. Or does little Daffy want to do what he always does, stalk people and post inane and useless comments instead of giving his own opinion about the topic.

Didn't he say just before the takeover that there will be no coup?

Nope it was related to the deal made in 2012 that eventually went south. However I'm still searching. Unlike you I have better things to do than to click like on posts made by morons that have absolutely nothing to do than post inane posts.

Now, let's go back to you finding sources for those Russian subs you claim Thailand bought - you made the claim, so support it. No moving the goalposts, or changing the subject, or attempting to brush this under the table.

Of course, you could just admit that you were wrong - if you're capable of doing that.

Actually I have done that on a few occasions. I don't answer a question with a new question like your co-conspirator.

But since my original post none of you quacks, even you Daffy, has been able to answer MY question and you have just ridden along the show to score a brownie point with your friends there.

So excuse me for not giving a hoot what you have to say.

I looked. I can't find any evidence that the democrats or the current government are responsible for any of the losses of the rice scheme, therefore it is solely the responsibility of the Yingluck government.

And the evidence is based on that either you don't know who was behind it, or a nimcompoop trying to pull a fast one?

From everything I've seen, the Yingluck government were behind it. They came up with the idea. They implemented the idea. They kept it going when it started showing that it was going to lose money. They kept it going when there was suspicion that people were rorting the system.

Do you have evidence that someone else was behind all the losses? I'd like to see that.

Tell me, what is the weather like on your planet?

Nope it was related to the deal made in 2012 that eventually went south. However I'm still searching. Unlike you I have better things to do than to click like on posts made by morons that have absolutely nothing to do than post inane posts.

Speaking of which, if google is your friend, please find me the evidence that Yingluck and her party, not the democrats or any curreny government officials, are soley responsible for this unholy mess.

I looked. I can't find any evidence that the democrats or the current government are responsible for any of the losses of the rice scheme, therefore it is solely the responsibility of the Yingluck government.

And the evidence is based on that either you don't know who was behind it, or a nimcompoop trying to pull a fast one?

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

Here's a statement. Anyone who sides with the PT in the rice scam is someone who has reached into his skull and twisted his brain into the shape of a pretzel and then repeatedly stabbed it with a fork. To back it up I can use any post of maxme.

Oh is that right? Good luck on that little master.

I don't need luck I just need you to keep on posting.

Whatever you say son

No in fact it just the opposite, its about what YOU say.

Childish but totally expected from someone of your kind.

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

He doesn't want to back up his statements with evidence either.

Seems consistent with every other Shinawatra acolyte in this thread

Another sheep joins the herd. This one even learned a few new words.