wandasloan

The way it works is this.

The moment you stop being a democracy, your aide stops immediately and automacically and sanctions are AUTOMATICALLY imposed.

There is no negotiation on this in US law, you are a democracy or you are toast!! Same as happened last time for those of us who remember.

Really want to bankrupt the country as well as more civil strife? what better way than an appointed PM!!!

No it does not work that way. Please think a minute. If it worked that way Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Vietnam would not be getting aid. There is no such automatic law. If the army takes over Thailand there will be strong retaliation. Not a bit of it will be automatic, though, any more than aid was cut to Pakistan after the last military coup.

There is most certainly negotiation. There is tortuous negotiation. Consider "the last time for those of us who remember" but some of whom forget the tortuous negotiation over whether even to hold Cobra Gold. For example. Remember that? Remember the outcome of that negotiation?

US aid couldn't bankrupt or raise a small village market in Chumpol province. It is so tiny you can barely see it. If you are the grasping, greedy American type, claiming every tiny bit of credit you can, it's barely a few million dollars. In reality, it's way less. America has *huge* stick in Thailand but aid isn't really part of it so you'd notice.

.

What legal/constitutional authority does the Thai Army have to declare Martial Law?

From a 100-year-old law passed when Thailand was an absolute monarchy actually

Yes. The current Constitution (2007) specifically authorises martial law if necessary. If there is martial law, it is regulated under the Martial Law Act of 1914.

I look forward to the strictly non-partisan Prayuth making his reasoned reply.

Normally such wild accusations would be ignored as it's clear that no one would accept Gen. Prayuth as neutral interim PM. It seems more the accusation of someone desperate to attract more followers for the 17 - 19 May battle.

Mind you one of the reasons chief CAPO advisor Surapong wants martial law installed might be to make it easier to have Gen Prayuth as non-neutral interim PM. Is k. Surapong secretly in favour of a coup in disguise?

Anyway, Prompong tactics. Accuse and demand the other proves somehow the accusation is not true.

BTW if I stated the Moon is made of Roquefort cheese, could I demand you prove me wrong. Furthermore would you bother?

Yeah, it would never happen. Wild rumours.

But... well, you know, you might want to look into that Roquefort story just a little more closely. Just in case?

People who never say "never" in Thailand have lots of fun laughing at people who do. Thailand is almost the final proof that if something can happen, it will. Although the idea of Prayuth setting himself up as peacemaker at gunpoint was hardly ever out of the question. "No one would accept him" ignores the fact he doesn't need anyone to accept him, he has big guns, and I didn't misspell "buns".

.

.

Yeah sure. I should not drag this story on because it is 2014......but the Khmers created it although no origin has ever been found. If you go ahead with your insuniations and in the mean time ask posters to back of. Are you a Narcist?

You can prove I'm wrong and I won't hurt you. Don't be afraid, baby. Go ahead, you don't have to cry. Three ridiculous, really crazy posts and not a shred of proof. Here, try these. After you spit on them, be sure to post the proof these posts are invented and you have posts proving they're wrong and I'm wrong. And like I say, I promise I won't hurt you.

"Ms. Pimbongkod said. "I thought Thai people dislike those who don't speak Thai well."

It's okay love, Thais hate all farang (if you read TV a lot) so join the club

I would say there is a portion of Thais (the Suthep's yellowish/black) who hate all farangs and half of Thais too.

They hate just everybody in this planet except their group of ultra racist pluriassassins.

There is another portion of Thais, mostly for North and Northeast who don't hate farangs or other nationalities. These are the true Thai people in my opinon, not the Chinese/Indians/Malays of Bangkok towards South who think they are the owner of the world and the sinking Bangkok is the center of the Universe.

Where do you get this inane drivel from?

I was going to write that and then suggest Khun Max should live in Thailand for a while. Even if his passport says he is here, he actually isn't.

My latest suggestion for the last couple of years, when available, is to go and mingle with the mobs, all of them. FEEL the hatred, 5555.

.

Huh? "......Whether it was a mistake, stupidity or because of evil intentions, we shall never know — but it was totally, completely of Cambodian origin, by Khmers......." Are you sane? We will never know the origin of this but we accuse the Khmers? And yes, public excuses have been made. After the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh got thrown with objects and hundreds of angry Cambodians present. You are over creative in your defence. Celebrities should at least try to play a model role in society and drumming up sentences as "They should all be executed" followed by "sorry sorry, sorry, I am only 22 and haven't seen anything yet outside the K Bar" would be a bore if it wasn't so incredible inhuman to say. It just proofs again how High So's think and the gap in Thai society will never be narrowed with a young generation of this kind of Abhisit alikes.

No Thai including Kob said anything about Angkor Wat, good or bad. Ever. The report she said something was made up, it did not happen. No Thai official, embassy or government uttered excuses, public or otherwise.

It has nothing to do with a defence. The FACT is that Thais had nothing to do with starting that riot in Phnom Penh. It was a rumour that started a mob that turned into a full-scale anti-Thai, anti-Thailand riot. Yes, show business people often say really, really stupid, mostly because they are really dumb. But in the case of the Cambodian anti-Thai riots, no movie star said anything dumb at all.

Please do not take this urban legend any further. This is 2014 for heaven's sake. You can consult hundreds if not thousands of sources and determine what happened. No matter what one you read you will NOT find one where any Thai including Kob said anything about Angkor Wat, in any manner.

You could prove me wrong by providing a source that says otherwise. But of course you can't. Your memory doesn't count. Neither does mine. You can PROVE a movie star started that, or you can withdraw your foolish urban legend about that very unfortunate 2003 riot in Cambodia. Your memory is wrong. Please don't try to further this story further.

.

I don't really care what you do, you nasty, condescending trollette, but DON'T TWIST MY WORDS !

I did not call for anything, it is all in your head. You are just trying to start an argument, please pick on someone else, I am not interested in conversing with you.

Even though you just did both.

What a strange man.

.

Almost 300 comments on a topic about a pretty girl saying the redshirts are dirty and should be executed ! Thank God there is not a big hoo-ha every time someone said something similar. Amazing indeed.

I did not bother reading most of the comments because I knew they would be ThaiRouge fans calling for the girls scalp. Fair enough, say she is dirty and should be executed, if it makes you feel better.

Why do you care if you didn't even read the thread?

The point is: Does it make YOU feel better to wish someone killed because, well, because you can make that wish? You don't yet realise you are the very first one in this thread calling for or joking about or playing around with an actual life of an actual, identified person, someone who (my assumption; correct me if I'm wrong) never has done anything to or for you - so how does it make YOU feel? Better? Is it good for you? I'm interested.

.

Your definately crazy, i only wondered if it was truly what she said as the red propaganda machine called khaosod is not reliable.

I and I guess even the red supporters with their proven tendency to violence would never stand for mass murder. I would love to see where i said that.

So if you could show me where i said that i want to execute red shirts you could put me to shame. You could also read my posts and see one of my posts in this topic before you made your post condemning it.

I just frankly don't believe you are stupid. I refuse to believe it. You can review your posts. On top of that, we have already discussed the post where you agreed with the people who want to kill others. You actually discussed (and defended) that post. So don't disrespect yourself that way, and others reading your posts.

If you want to disassociate yourself from these slimy pro-genocide posts, no one can stop you. If you want to deny you want to kill millions of Thais, unlike far too many other posters, go ahead and say so. I can't make you support genocide and I can't make you oppose it. I give *my* stance on it. I'm against it, right from the get-go when I took your post as a sorry example, and stated my views strongly and solidly. And I think anyone who mildly, sort-of maybe supports this genocide call is the lowest of the low.

Unlike me, you brought up and accepted the Khaosod article and alleged quotes by the woman, both, fully. You gave them full credence. And THEN you supported them. Try to remember. Either you or someone using your logon posted:

The government are supposed to serve all of Thailand and all Thai - not just the large minority that voted their way, or one family and its cronies or one man.

One Man, One Family, One Party - has a strangely familiar ring to it.

Right, and the posturing, simpering self-congratulating back-slappers in this thread, agree with you and with me that this is a bad policy. And they would all, to a man-jack, replace that with a regime they want to murder millions and millions of people. We know that because they've written that. And you haven't written that, so what is YOUR alternative to this government you don't like? You on the kill-them-all side? You seem to be leaning that way. Go ahead and commit.

I'll always take the government that doesn't murder by the millions. For all its flaws and horrors and corruption and arrogance and selfishness and greed, in a two-party race I will always take the one that's not openly in favour of killing millions and millions of its own people as the cretins in this thread favour. Always.

How about you?

.

Poor baby... i hope you can sleep at night.

First off its a khaosod article... one has to wonder how much truth it has

Did I mention the Khaosod article?

Did I mention the Khaosod article? Check again.

Poor baby. I hope you can make it through the night being lumped in with supporters of genocide.

If you don't support killing millions of people at a stroke, well, that's wonderful. Strange you have to mention it, seems pretty sensitive to me for someone with a man's name. You didn't even read my post, based on your first two responses which addressed my non-existent opinion about the Khaosod article. To be clear if you still refuse to read my post: I never MENTIONED the Khaosod article.

I'd appreciate it if you'd attack my actual post, not the one you thought up all by yourself. And also don't think you can out-pander me. If you can't attack a post and be respectful, that will make two of us with that problem.

.

She definitely won't win Miss World now.

That's for sure. There's never been a case of a Miss Universe winning and there never will be.

.

I admire her honesty and being on the side of right and justice, besides anyone against the Shins cant be that bad.

It is disgusting. I would have thought it beyond belief that people on Thai Visa would actively support someone who wants to do five or eight times more killing than Pol Pot, and for even less reason. At least sometimes Pol Pot managed to kill actual mortal enemies. You are truly disgusting people. I never realised your idiotic white man's burden was THIS heavy, but it's another insight into colonialism, that's for sure. If you even mention the word "civilised" again you should feel shame, you posturing barbarians.

And from now on, every time some ham-handed, heavy-fingered immoderate "moderator" censors ANY thread, he should be sickened by his own hypocrisy for thinking that any thread could be worse than this one. Thank goodness Google and the internet never forget. This thread definitely deserves to live forever as one of the all-time Bad Examples..

.

And the idiotic caretaker PM true to his idiotic predecessor convicted crim's puppet is to busy in Issan. To busy for the sake of the country. Idiots and clowns to the left and the right. The sooner all these pathetic politicians are stood down and an interim administration is set up for a short term solution for reform before an election the better. Failing that it will be the Army imposing martial law.

They movef Chiang Rai to Isan? Who knew.

Yes, the government, just like the senate, isn't functioning. Yes, the acting PM, just like the self-appointed hoo-haw at the heads of the major street rabble groups, can't impress any interesting number of citizens to their cause. Yes, Thailand is deeply divided and most people don't agree with you and most people also don't agree with any specific statement or theory.

And sadly, you could be right that the military that can't even protect teachers in Yala province ("not enough men") will try and will violently fail to impose its will on the country. I hope you're wrong. The current state of affairs is quite a mess. But they can get worse, way worse. And to make them worse really fast, let's have Prime Minister Prayuth, yes, that will do it.

The only good thing I can imagine about the military stepping is that after a while, and after all the bodies have been cleared away, things could probably only get better because after the military steps in they will probably hit bottom.

.

When is the constitutional court going to rule on the amnesty bill and throw each and every one of the bums that voted for it out of office?

You're kind of clutching at straws. The case may proceed, but all the Court can do is disqualify 312 MPs who are no longer MPs because the House has been dissolved. There wouldn't be any/much effect on government. There are various suits and charges floating around that might better serve your cause. This is now pretty much a moot case, essentially a dead issue so far as your efforts to unseat the current government.

Ahh, OK sounds great, so where is my prize?

Sorry to be a little late.

They have to carry guns to make it peaceful? I know the majority of neighbours in my suburban neighbourhood, which is peaceful, and no one carries guns!

Therefore peace can be obtainable without guns.

That's a good one. And you know that how, because of the American culture that as soon as one gets a CCP she knocks on all the doors on the street to tell everyone, starting at your home?

Look. For all you know, and definitely for all I know, maybe you're right. It's very possible and credible. It's just not possible that you know about it, either way, that's all. When my son takes me out to dinner, *I* don't usually know if he is armed, and I bought him the darned gun! I do know that sometimes he is(n't) because sometimes he has remarked on it.

No one wants you to carry, or not carry. Almost no one cares at all. And I think your little homily at the end there is cute. Spend a bit of time, cut in down just a bit, get it on a T-shirt. Remember how well this worked?

.

Perhaps I should of been more specific, I'm talking Automatic weapons and some semi automatic weapons.

Why? Automatic weapons are not legally owned and pretty well not owned at all by Americans. Almost no American gun owner wants an automatic weapon. Why are you talking about a mythical beast in a discussion about reality?

Have another go, only with facts this time.

.

Are you joking? The King cannot appoint a PM but an appointed senator from a military coup could? and why? because the looser of the election sabotaged 1 election and now are saying that one of their people can be a dictator..ridiculous

Stop imputing political motives to the King and mixing His Majesty into the political mix. It is very disrespectful, not to mention you can't even write a one-sentence summary about it correctly. So just stop. Really.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that an appointed senator may succeed in nominating and appointing an interim prime minister. Yes.

Comparing him in any manner, and comparing his actions in any manner to the monarch is ... well some people who really care a lot would say "actionable". But you should stop. Completely. Don't do it. You *will* not prevail.

.

Does that constitute a ruling by the CC? I don't think so.. will the CC rule on the issue, it sounds like a ludocrous suggestion that the yet to be rolyally endorsed senate speaker, can by himself select and install a PM, when the Senate itself is out of session,so he doesn't even have a senate vote on this,AND the king said you cannot use section 7 to appoint a PM!

It's really noteworthy how many ways this can be distorted and misrepresented, accidentally or maybe not.

The King said HE could not use Section 7 to appoint a PM, and he refused publicly to name a PM, saying that if HE used Section 7 it would be unconstitutional.

Every other spin on this including yours Khun Peaker, is wrong for a very obvious reason. Your wrong report on what happened says that the king directly involved himself in a political and legal decision, saying what Section 7 is and what it can do. He has NEVER done this, ever, including in this case. The king did not comment on what Section 7 could or could not do - not as you claim, not as other wrong reports claim, not in any way at all. His Majesty refused to name a PM, period, nothing else happened.

If you remain seated, especially in a public place, you're likely to be berated for ill-manners.

We are guests in their country, their king.

No kidding, because anyone who remains seated does indeed have ill manners.

What a boorish comment he made and then unbelievably reinforced, that people should not stand up for the national anthem. In any country. Under any circumstances. I will except people in their own country who might want to refuse for political reasons, such as Canadians in the 1950s and 1960s, for example.

But a visitor and guest in a country who refuses to stand? He's getting off lightly if it's only pointed out loudly and often that he has ill manners. And in Thailand, if it is the royal anthem rather than the national anthem, you might not get off at all lightly, to which I could only add, "good". What a boor. Just that comment leaves all his claims about being pushed around by immigration just a bit suspect, what?

.

1. Can all Americans own guns? No.

2. Can all Americans carry guns? No.

3. If you have a certificate to carry in one State or city does that apply to all cities in the USA? No.

You are spreading misinformation here, at least partly by using "guns" to mean one variety of guns, handguns.

All Americans can own guns with the exception of some convicted felons. There are a few places that have bothered to put an age limit on those who can own guns, so there are some children who can't own guns.

Also, all legal immigrants can own guns in America, even though they are not Americans.

There is more rigorous regulation of those who wish to carry concealed handguns - in some places much more rigorous, although an outright ban on this is now illegal, by the Supreme Court ruling. Your post is largely correct about this, but you didn't say that is what you were writing about. While writing about handguns and stating you were writing about guns, you confused or misinformed those you were hoping to inform.

.

^{When I got my FOID card (firearm owners ID) I mailed in a photo that I took myself with $10. Could have been a picture of anyone, pretty ridiculous. That is all you need to handle or buy a gun and ammo in the good old US of A.}

Is probably more than they do for most weapons that are in Thai hands at the moment

Maybe they compared it against your driving licence and passport pic without you knowing about it? USA is not exactly transparent when it comes to security measures

This is obviously causing the common problem for people reading about America.

There is no such thing as a US FOID. Or driver's licence. These are local documents, vary greatly from place to place. (In fact the FOID is rare, period.)

The only real gun licences in almost all the US are licences to carry a concealed handgun when outside your home. Such documents are issued very locally by your police or sheriff. FOID are quite rare, in only a few places in the US. In almost all of America, you need no such "FOID" or any kind of licence to buy, own, keep, store, transport or use. In Colorado, for example, you need no licence at all to keep a fully loaded handgun in your car because Colorado law defines your car as part of your home — where of course you certainly need no licensing or supervision to keep tools on hand to defend yourself and property.

The American amaart above who posted how guns are loved by non-coastal compatriots apparently has not been to coastal America. The nation's most lax gun laws are in Vermont, not far from New York.

When buying almost any gun you will have to provide some ID such as a driver's licence, which is used for a quick (10-minute, maybe) check through the US Federal records to see if you have a record that would prohibit you from owning a gun. I learned all this not long ago when buying a very nice gun for my son at a Wal-Mart store. And I handled quite a few before buying, without any ID, with the generous and knowledgeable help of some clerks. And I bought ammunition without ID.

I think Khun Taco might well be from Chicago, for example, because in almost all of the United States you do not need any such special ID as his FOID to buy or handle any long or hand gun or ammunition — but in most places (not all) only to carry a handgun concealed on your body. Chicago, murder capital of America, has by far the tightest gun laws although it has been ordered by the courts to lighten up.

.