jayboy

So is this guy Idi Amin Mark 2?

Uganda the Pearl of Africa?

Cannibalism aside, Idi ruled for 8 years, Museveni has 26 years.

Not sure about pearls, but Uganda has rough diamonds that Thaksin is involved in.

That and highly advanced telecom companies that he also looked into during one of his trips to Kampala.

from Thaksin's public Picasa Web Album page

.

Don't be too surprised but my view that the state visit by this nasty old brute Museveni is a disgrace.It seems depressingly plausible this is something Thaksin has cooked up, once again exploiting the state for his own business interests.This is a reminder why despite his undoubted strengths, the man remains fatally flawed.As another member commented another depressing aspect is the complete lack of interest, as far as I know, the Thai press has taken in exposing this story.

A review of the non-misrepresentative reality of those posts reveals I simply asked the question if it was significant, certainly far from the "ground rolling" you're doing in this thread.

Without anything to effectively justify the term, you're right about "snub" being too strong. Could you point out any examples of this "perception of rejection" that are supposedly "out there"?

With the extreme time constraints and his trip's focus more important Myanmar leg, it's quite understandable he didn't meet with Abhisit. Have the other U.S. presidents that visited Thailand also met with opposition leaders?

.

May I point out we are just a bunch of codgers with time on our hands shooting the breeze so no need to pretend to be wordy lawyers -

"A review of the non-misrepresentative reality of those posts reveals....etc".In other words please lighten up.Using that kind of pompous language is just ridiculous.

As for Abhisit you may be right.Perhaps there was just no time even though Obama really wanted to meet him especially since Abhisit is a laugh a minute.Who knows why normal protocol was set aside on this occasion?

Still it seems odd that you were very keen to demonstrate that when Aung San Suu Kyi visited it was all terribly significant when she met Abhisit first.Now that Obama couldn't find the time to see Abhisit it isn't significant at all and we shouldn't be specualting on the subject.Hmmm.Something don't compute.Anyway that's my lot on this rather silly business.

Anybody here know how she perfroms when she speaks in Thai? I mean, I am sure she is fluent, but is she a good speaker, or.....

I'm afraid her Thai is poor too, in Thai if you want to make an adjective into a noun you add khwam at the front, for example, able- samart สามารถ becomes ability- khwamsamart < Thai script removed, you can use Thai script in the Thai language forum, not here >

whilst verbs become nouns by adding kan, ie smoke soob buree สูบบุหรี่ becomes smoking kansoob buree การสูบบุหรี่ but our beautiful Prime Minister often mixes them up, so you get, for example, kansamart,ugh!

It's the sort of mistake a rather slow primary school student will make!

A very well educated Thai friend told me that her Thai is not very elegant but pretty much what is expected from a native speaker.He said from his perception what was characteristic was a stronger Northern tinge than what might have been expected given her wealth and overseas experience.

Anyway it's interesting that her critics concentrate on her grammar at this juncture.Not that hard to work out why.

Incidentally in the UK Attlee's government after WW2 contained many brilliant and effective ministers, many with working class accents and imperfect English.Historians now accept Attlee's administration was one of the best inBritish history

Speaking after a welcome speech by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Obama greeted the audience by saying "sawaddee krub" and hailed the prime minister's English as "much better than my Thai".

This statement makes me laugh, he must know the low down on how she got into power, is he laughing at her poor English?

We can see from the pic that the pleasure is all hers, I guess she will gain credibility from this meeting.

I'd love it if he met Abhisit as well, for a proper conversation, I expect he's thinking the same thing in this pic

Actually that subject is generating a great deal of interest.Why exactly did Obama not meet Abhisit since it is absolutely normal, indeed protocol, to meeet the leader of the opposition on visits like this?

In the UK for example Obama met up with Ed Miliband and of course in Myanmar today he met both Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi.Some have argued that this apparent snub to Abhisit and the Democrats was simply because no time was available though even on such a short visit this isn't really credible.Others have argued that Obama and Hilary Clinton are simply making a point about democracy, elections and the need to abandon military interference.I doubt whether it's anything personal.Abhisit made an excellent impression on Bill Clinton when Chuan visited Washington during the former's presidency when Abhisit was his chief aide.

My hunch is that in the eyes of some foreign leaders Abhisit is damaged goods not so much because of his rather murky path to power (though his reliance on extreme right wingers and military thugs can't have helped,) but more because he is tainted by the events in Bangkok of early 2010.

OR, it could just be that with only 10 waking hours in Bangkok and meeting His Majesty the King and the PM, and the widely-reported Wat Arun tour...plus a couple of meals, and commuting time between the aforementioned, there really wasn't much time left.

.

Although hunching for some deeper meaning on a superficial issue can be entertaining, sometimes things just really are what they logically and literally seem.

.

It could be of course and quite often, as you suggest, there is less than meets the eye in these things.Nevertheless in this case despite being a short visit Obama managed to find time to do a great many things including a long chat with a monk at Wat Pho.I think that if had wanted to squeeze Abhisit in it would not have been impossible.No, this has all the signs of a "snub", actually probably too strong a word but at least making a point.But if you have any hard evidence to the contrary let's hear it.What's undeniable is that the perception of rejection is out there.I am afraid that the Democrats and particularly Abhisit cannot shrug off as easily as they would like the deaths of so many in early 2010 but equally important Obama recognised that Yingluck had, unlike Abhisit, a proper democratic mandate.I'm not making a party political point here:If hypothetically Thaksin had been around, I don't think Obama would have seen him either at a personal meeting

Incidentally talking about "hunching for hidden meaning" weren't you the one trying to persusade the forum that when Aung San Suu Ky visited Bangkok it was all terribly significant that her schedule included a meeting with Abhisit before one with Yingluck? That's not "hunching": thats rolling around on the ground!

I love the expression (s) on Yingyuck's face when the Bloomberg reporter asked her about Obama requesting prayers from the Monk at Wat Po... she obviously was totally lost and almost in a panic as she summoned someone to come and translate for her.. ...what is she saying...? What did she ask..?? Hellllpppp?? Someone Hellllppp!

I saw that and agree it wasn't her finest moment, though the absolute consternation on her face and the rapid summoning of a flunky I must confess made me snigger.Still what did we expect, Talleyrand or Metternich?

However I had the impression her consternation was mostly related to the other part of the Bloomberg reporter's question, namely her view - I'm paraphrasing - on western style democracy or the Chinese model (free markets without other freedoms).It's actually a really good question and it would be interesting to know where she stands (I'm guessing she doesn't really think about such things!).I suspect most other Thai politicians (including both Thaksin and Abhisit) may , despite democratic rhetoric, far prefer the Chinese model.

jayboy, on 2012-11-17 21:45:18, said:

To be honest I'm more concerned with truth, intelligence,wit and good judgement than the good esteem of a bunch of not very well educated oldsters.

You know fellers I really like it when some young whipper snapper feller comes along thet is sooooooooo much smarter in book learnin than the rest of usuns not very well edgurcated oldsters, i guess he means us old timers. It sure is a good thang usuns can get edgercated from this here jayboy feller. I wonder if he is one of them there rocket siences fellers from NASER and did us good by sending them there other fellers to the moon? Me and Ma seed that on tv. That was a good un and made us proud.

I don't really no much bout intellergence and have no idee what wit is but I do know this. jaboy it looks like you have got way above your rasin little feller and exposed yooself fer what you really are.

Anyways keep them cards and letters comin and we'll get one of them edgurcated fellers to read um fer us.

Delighted to have been of assistance.Meanwhile back in the real world, a tweet just in:

"Obama is proud to be standing beside democratically elected Thai leader, Ouch..Pitak Siam"

I'm guessing that those with a headache now are the anti democratic coup mongerers of Pitak Siam.Talk about bad timing.

I can see the evidence for expenses paid is not really there.

By suggesting that Pitak Siam supporters were paid, you were very active in deflecting. Now saying 'the evidence is not really there' after all the previous statements and 'facts' you wrote is not even a weak confession of having been wrong. Of course, it's not easy for some to admit 'I was wrong', or just' evidence for being paid is really not there'. Since you studied in Cambridge you should understand the difference that position of that simple word 'really' makes in this.

Anyway, hope the rally doesn't give you a headache

And to think it took only an aggregate total of around 30 posts before finally, mercifully, arriving at that first concern.

To be honest I'm more concerned with truth, intelligence,wit and good judgement than the good esteem of a bunch of not very well educated oldsters.

.

This kind of post not only proves my point but heavily underlines it.

'"It's best not to choose sides," Prapat concluded, adding that China and the US were also interdependent on trade with one another. "We can still play a Janus-faced [role]," he said, referring to the two-faced Roman god.'

Simply astounding. What do you say about someone--or a government--that thinks it's a compliment to be considered "two-faced".

It's not really astounding because its entirely consisistent with Thai/Siamese foreign policy for over two centuries.Perhaps not admirable but realistic and effective.

A search on the other site just gave me

"He denied claims that the rally was being funded by the same group who financed the Sept 19, 2006 coup that toppled the Thaksin Shinawatra government, or with money from illegal casinos or the drug trade. The rally would be purely voluntary, he added."

That seems a bit different from your

"Actually it appears that many attendees at the previous Pitak Siam rally , particularly from the provinces were paid a modest per diem"

"Have no idea how much they received."

"None of their political opponents have raised objections as far as I know anway"

"As to the funding of expenses I think this was quite widely reported, specifically for those who came from the provinces."

"It's been widely reported including the other paper."

"How the usual suspects twist and turn, desperately looking for a way to deflect attention from the fascist agenda"

Praise, og wise one, tell us the secret of your searching success

I wasn't going to bother but just did a search of the other paper and in ten seconds came up with reports of "redshirts" being offered Bt 400 to attend the Pitak Siam rally.Not much and rather odd sounding I agree.

I have often noticed that the usual suspects start a flame war when they think they have found a weak piece of evidence in an opponents argument, so that the main points can be buried and ignored (in this instance the unsavoury nature of Pitak Siam leadership).It was ever thus.

a combination of 'pitak siam' and '400' only gives me a reference from 2007

"

Deputy Prime Minister Yutthasak Sasiprapa, who is in charge of security affairs, said that according to Pol Maj-Gen Chanchai Phuthong, 2nd Army deputy commander, the rally on Oct 28 would likely be joined by a group of national development participants, who were former communist insurgents who defected to the authorities a long time ago.

He said there are five groups of "national development participants" and those joining the rally belong to a group of 300-400 people who had already received assistance and compensation from the government while Gen Surayud Chulanont was prime minister."

No reference to 400 Baht in combination with Pitak Siam.

But don't worry, even with this faux pax and constant zig-zagging I still love you

You proved me right, and I was amused by the trail of the usual suspects following you giving further credence to my theory they concentrate on the insignificant so the larger issues can be dodged

But MikeOboe57's advice is sound, and I can see the evidence for expenses paid is not really there.

I wasn't going to bother but just did a search of the other paper and in ten seconds came up with reports of "redshirts" being offered Bt 400 to attend the Pitak Siam rally.Not much and rather odd sounding I agree.

I have often noticed that the usual suspects start a flame war when they think they have found a weak piece of evidence in an opponents argument, so that the main points can be buried and ignored (in this instance the unsavoury nature of Pitak Siam leadership).It was ever thus.

So, Korkaew saying that red shirts were offered 300-500 baht to attend the upcoming rally is "many attendees at the previous rally were paid to attend".

I'm surprised that you couldn't give a link to this as this comment by Korkaew was reported in Thai Visa.

Are there any other references to anyone (besides redshirts) being paid to attend the previous or upcoming rallies?

"I have often noticed that the usual suspects start a flame war when they think they have found a weak piece of evidence in an opponents argument, so that the main points can be buried and ignored." Will you prove me right or wrong?

A quick internet search would indicate expenses are being paid

Removing all the other hubris from your post, perhaps you've missed that others have tried internet searches and turned up nothing.

Can you simply provide a link to even just a couple of quotes of your alleged "widely distributed" news?

It's not difficult and very routine (I dare say, expected) to do so when one interjects new information into a news forum thread.

It shouldn't require five requests to follow normal netiquette... but it has. Thus far, without success..

Oh dear poor Sriracha Jack had forgotten how to use the Bangkok Post search facility.Never mind.

A search on the other site just gave me

"He denied claims that the rally was being funded by the same group who financed the Sept 19, 2006 coup that toppled the Thaksin Shinawatra government, or with money from illegal casinos or the drug trade. The rally would be purely voluntary, he added."

That seems a bit different from your

"Actually it appears that many attendees at the previous Pitak Siam rally , particularly from the provinces were paid a modest per diem"

"Have no idea how much they received."

"None of their political opponents have raised objections as far as I know anway"

"As to the funding of expenses I think this was quite widely reported, specifically for those who came from the provinces."

"It's been widely reported including the other paper."

"How the usual suspects twist and turn, desperately looking for a way to deflect attention from the fascist agenda"

Praise, og wise one, tell us the secret of your searching success

I wasn't going to bother but just did a search of the other paper and in ten seconds came up with reports of "redshirts" being offered Bt 400 to attend the Pitak Siam rally.Not much and rather odd sounding I agree.

I have often noticed that the usual suspects start a flame war when they think they have found a weak piece of evidence in an opponents argument, so that the main points can be buried and ignored (in this instance the unsavoury nature of Pitak Siam leadership).It was ever thus.

"... Prapat said Thailand needed to find a "soft balance" between the two superpowers."

An intelligent assessment and suggestion at last but not from any politician.

but learn from countries like Japan, which can shake hands with the US without declaring itself an enemy of Chin

But still contaoning some weird views of the world.

Very peculiar example of Japan given as country with balanced relations with both US and China.Japan has very close alliance with the US and extremely bad relationship with China.

You don't want to explain your post so we can get to the bottom of your misunderstanding of my post. Perhaps your unusual presence at this time of night and fatigue stops you from doing so.

Fair enough.

But as far as your completely unsupported projection, "nobody understands", you might wait and let others speak for themselves. Until then, the only one that doesn't understand is yourself.

.

Wow monitoring the times of my attendance on the forum.Creepy.

Don't flatter yourself.

Your uniquely abrasive style stands out quite noticeably.

It's hardly "monitoring".

It's just that I'm often posting late and have never noticed you posting at this time of night.... until now.

No big deal, but I just thought it might explain why your abrasiveness is even more so than normal now.

Yeah sure.Its not as though you have that reputation.

Jayboy is one of these internet characters that feeds on winding others up. it is clear from almost every word in every post. Ignore him, you all know he is wrong, he is sat back getting cheap thrills from winding people up. Sad, I know but there are many on the net that do it.

And equally there are those who rely on personal abuse when they cannot address rational and well made arguments

There was no personal abuse, and so far no rational well made argument....from you, so when there is I may address it.

Others will be the judge of that but I am flattered you are keen on bar fining me.

A quick internet search would indicate expenses are being paid

Removing all the other hubris from your post, perhaps you've missed that others have tried internet searches and turned up nothing.

Can you simply provide a link to even just a couple of quotes of your alleged "widely distributed" news?

It's not difficult and very routine (I dare say, expected) to do so when one interjects new information into a news forum thread.

It shouldn't require five requests to follow normal netiquette... but it has. Thus far, without success.

.

Oh dear poor Sriracha Jack had forgotten how to use the Bangkok Post search facility.Never mind.

You don't want to explain your post so we can get to the bottom of your misunderstanding of my post. Perhaps your unusual presence at this time of night and fatigue stops you from doing so.

Fair enough.

But as far as your completely unsupported projection, "nobody understands", you might wait and let others speak for themselves. Until then, the only one that doesn't understand is yourself.

.

Wow monitoring the times of my attendance on the forum.Creepy.

How the usual suspects twist and turn, desperately looking for a way to deflect attention from the fascist agenda of their idols.A quick internet search would indicate expenses are being paid,hardly the critical issue and one that nobody is interested in.will the usual subjects defend the anti democratic agendas of the dinosaurs.No they won't - best look for a a meaningless quarrel that might divert attention from their masters agenda

After you do that quick internet search, feel free to post a link to make us all feel humble.

You seem to have woven a tangled web, and caught yourself in it.

Er not really.check out the other paper search facility before you make more of a fool of yourself

Seriously &lt;deleted&gt; are you babbling about ?

Perhaps it might help your understanding if you explain what this "babble" is about in the first place:

Anyway it's always good for a laugh to see how some contrive to bring irrelevant abuse of Yingluck into the most unlikely of threads.

I interpreted it to mean what I posted,

your attempt to put forth that Yingluck is somehow not pertinent to the discussion

and further, added,

If pointing out what she said herself and the situation in which she said it is somehow abuse, I think most would differ with that opine.

If that's not an accurate interpretation of what you posted, then please explain your intent with that post.

.

I don't wish to be unkind but in all seriousness nobody has the faintest idea what you're talking about.Go to bed and see whether you can be more articulate tomorrow.

How the usual suspects twist and turn, desperately looking for a way to deflect attention from the fascist agenda of their idols.A quick internet search would indicate expenses are being paid,hardly the critical issue and one that nobody is interested in.will the usual subjects defend the anti democratic agendas of the dinosaurs.No they won't - best look for a a meaningless quarrel that might divert attention from their masters agenda

As a reminder for those that don't read thread before posting and prefer to initiate inflammatory misrepresentation, a reminder of just how Yingluck entered the thread (at the beginning of it) and how if she had done her self-stated duty, there wouldn't be this thread in the first place.

What is he on about?

< flaming snipped >

Does anybody understand what he means?

I think most understand that your attempt to put forth that Yingluck is somehow not pertinent to the discussion (your quote below) fails when it was already shown that her dutiful intervention might have easily pre-empted the current request for intervention to Obama.

If pointing out what she said herself and the situation in which she said it is somehow abuse, I think most would differ with that opine.

Anyway it's always good for a laugh to see how some contrive to bring irrelevant abuse of Yingluck into the most unlikely of threads.

Seriously &lt;deleted&gt; are you babbling about ?

As a reminder for those that don't read thread before posting and prefer to initiate inflammatory misrepresentation, a reminder of just how Yingluck entered the thread (at the beginning of it) and how if she had done her self-stated duty, there wouldn't be this thread in the first place.

What is he on about? Ludicrous, obsessed and irrelevant.Does anybody understand what he means?

A stupid electorate.The view of the usual suspects - contempt and hatred for the Thai people.Does anything more really need to be said?

[

I don't know if he will or not as it wouldn't be the first unpredicted action he takes, but I can certainly appreciate the exposure it gives to the situation whether he assists or not. It's also good as well as exposing yet another failure of Yingluck to do her duty (in this case, one she voiced and imposed on herself).

At the end of the day, there's no real harm in just asking for his assistance. I'm sure he gets a myriad of requests from all sorts of organizations/politicians/NGO's in every country he visits.

I doubt whether POTUS would want to become involved in a matter which is entirely the concern of Thailand.Troubled though Thailand appears to be to some of us, lets recognise that compared to most countries it is an oasis of decency (whether under Abhisit or PTP).

Anyway it's always good for a laugh to see how some contrive to bring irrelevant abuse of Yingluck into the most unlikely of threads.

You keep up with posts like.

"Thailand appears to be to some of us, lets recognise that compared to most countries it is an oasis of decency"

and you will bring the wrath of 75% of the posters here down on your head.

To be honest I'm more concerned with truth, intelligence,wit and good judgement than the good esteem of a bunch of not very well educated oldsters.

@KinM

I'm not sure where you studied history but hitler destroyed the whole idea of democracy in Germany. The Weimar Republic was a functioning democracy that did not have the strength to survive the great depression and the vindictive terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It seized by the nazis through a mixture of exploiting the democratic process and eliminating/banning it's rivals. Once the grip was strong enough democracy was over. Hitler brought nothing but hate, fear, misery, disaster and mass murder to Germany.

If I may add, one of the first steps was to form a private militia of thugs (identified by the colour of their shirts) used to disrupt rival political parties' rallies, meetings and social events, and to intimidate canvassers and candidates. Sound familiar?

Yes it does, and if you had been here in 1976 (or had done any reading or research) it would be familiar to you too.Sponsors and financial supporters of the Red Gaurs were much the same as those that gave moral support to the yellow fascists.

Including the late Samak who seemed to anger some in 2007 when as PM he mentioned only one person died that time.

Agreed including the deplorable late Samak though he was on the sidelines,albeit egging on the murderers in 1976.But the main culprits.....silence from the usual suspects.