jayboy

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

< Off topic comments edited out >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

When jayboy speaks about 'undemocratic mob' in the context of the OP I assume he refers to the red-shirts who gave a boisterous reception to attacked a small group of protesters of a different mindset.

< Deleted post edited out >

Overthrow an elected government ? ..... Not sure if the Dems have ever said that. I certainly do not advocate 'overthrow' as it suggests something which any Thai I know wants to avoid at all costs. Where do you stand on this point Jayboy?

Now if we are talking about change, well quite simply the electorate of Dom Muang have spoken.

Even paying the slightest amount of attention would have informed you nobody was talking about the Democrat Party.

I don't understand your comment about "overthrow" or your waffling about what it might "suggest",

Thank you for accusing me of wearing red glasses but I am definitely not a red shirt supporter nor am I a yellow shirt supporter. Personally I think they are as bad as each other. I sit on the fence and watch and haven't taken sides. It appears that you have chosen you side. Maybe it is easier to make an observation if you do not have bias opinion.

If you have noticed some of my other posts I condemn both sides on certain issues.

Some people seem to think that by taking the stance that both sides are as bad as each other, that must automatically make their position neutral. It does not. In terms of violence, intimidation and destruction, the red shirt movement has been responsible for a lot more than any other group (this incident being a prime example of how they operate).

Failing to acknowledge the differences that separate the red shirt movement from others, and attempting as you are, to label them all as bad as each other, is just a backhanded attempt at playing down what the red shirts are guilty of. It is the sort of approach i have observed in quite a number of people who were once vocal in their support of the reds, and who still deep down have their sympathies in that direction, but who have realized that actually defending the red shirts has become too difficult a task with all that they have done in the last few years, and so instead they take a different approach, that of attempting to distribute the blame out equally on all sides.

Both sides are not as "bad as each other" to use your rather unsophisticated expression.It's actually quite important to look at the names and the backing for this anti democratic mob, a point which is entirely missing from this thread which unfotunately makes it rather brainless.The redshirts certainly gave a boisterous reception to a small bunch of proto fascists.Good for them.Very much the same as when the people of East London booted out Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts - though in Thailand without the violence that characterised the fight against fascism then.

The only people who I have ever heard of being hit up for money through this process are the ones who use lawyers. They are pocketing it 100%. Believe what you want.

There is no connection (with the caveat set out in my penultimate sentence).I have several friends who used lawyers in the PR process: none were tapped.

As previously noted it's vital to do proper research if selecting a lawyer. (Clue:if they need to advertise, probably not suitable)

I have to say that in over twenty years of monitoring the PR process quite closely I have never heard of anyone being tapped whether a lawyer was used or not.

I remain highly sceptical even now, retaining my view that the staff at Immigration are doing a first class job, a bit stodgy sometimes but not corrupt.

Whether some naive people are being ripped off by bottom feeding scumbag lawyers is another issue.Quite possible in my opinion.

So there is no misunderstanding I quite agree it's possible to process PR oneself.I know several who have done it.

I didn't mean to imply that using a lawyer would always result in demands for pay-offs.

What I meant was that every time I have heard if someone being solicited like this, it is always by a lawyer supposedly on behalf of some corrupt immigration official.

They're pocketing it themselves, as confirmed by a number of lawyer acquaintances.

Do it yourself if you're at all able to. That would be my advice. Or, at the minimum, go with a lawyer whose clients tell you they weren't hit up.

On the subject of lawyers I seem to be at cross purposes even with people like you and Samran who obviously know what they are talking about.

I am talking about a relatively small number of firms with an established reputation.In my case the firm had handled all my company's immigration affairs for over 30 years.

In this kind of case the question of sharp practice is inconceivable.

I did have an EA who did all the document collecting and liasion with the legal firm concerned.

I spent virtually no time at all on the process.For me and other friends in a similar position it made sense to hire a lawyer.

Obviously it's not for everybody but it worked for me.

Probably said too much on this topic but the post suggesting Immigration officials involved in PR were on the take irritated me.

The only people who I have ever heard of being hit up for money through this process are the ones who use lawyers. They are pocketing it 100%. Believe what you want.

There is no connection (with the caveat set out in my penultimate sentence).I have several friends who used lawyers in the PR process: none were tapped.

As previously noted it's vital to do proper research if selecting a lawyer. (Clue:if they need to advertise, probably not suitable)

I have to say that in over twenty years of monitoring the PR process quite closely I have never heard of anyone being tapped whether a lawyer was used or not.

I remain highly sceptical even now, retaining my view that the staff at Immigration are doing a first class job, a bit stodgy sometimes but not corrupt.

Whether some naive people are being ripped off by bottom feeding scumbag lawyers is another issue.Quite possible in my opinion.

So there is no misunderstanding I quite agree it's possible to process PR oneself.I know several who have done it.

Rather good opinion column in the other paper this morning from Voranai ( his sympathies very much with old order but too intelligent and self aware not to grasp that all evil/virtue does not repose with any one side) which touched on this case among other things.Wouldn't resonate with some of the fine participants on this thread - too sane !

I used a lawyer and never on any occasion was asked for a payment.It saved me a considerable amount of time,a commodity it's clear from this thread ( eg the discussion about a pointless id card) others have in abundance.PR can be processed without the aid of a lawyer but some who are busy and can afford it will find it useful to have one - but make sure you have a decent one.

As to the hiring of a lawyer it is vital that one knows the track record and calibre of the firm concerned.I agree a poor hire is worse than useless.I was fortunate since I understood exactly what kind of lawyer was needed.If you are sure you have the right lawyer then it can make sense if you don't have a lot of time on your hands and can afford the fee.

It must also be said that the distribution of lk in a hierarchical society like Thailand is also matter of social class.Thus the children of foreigners and lower class Thais tend not to prosper in the way children of middle and upper class relationships often do.However nothing is fixed and lk children of whatever background can succeed these days.As always good education,good looks and charm can generally transcend an unpromising social background.

I love the irony of the Dems complaining about MP's jumping ship - no Army General and no Cabinet Posts involved in this arrangement.

No army general involved? I believe the actual instigator of the last coup is now within the PTP fold, is he not?

No cabinet posts involved? The article says that the move may not be in time for cabinet berths. May not, doesn't mean won't, and if they missed their chance this time, who is to say they haven't been promised something for the next reshuffle?

The irony here is to do with all those who didn't accept Abhisit's government because of the way certain MPs jumped ship, but will happily defend what is happening now, as if what is happening now is free from interference from any unelected persons, as if what is happening now is done without inducements and shady back room deals.

A bit different isn't it? Firstly we don't know yet if this deal will proceed or if it does how it will be managed/incentivised.

We do know howevber that the deal propelling Abhisit to power was a shady back room deal brokered by the army and involved some very scummy elements.

More important than the sleaze involved it represented a slap in the face for the Thai people given the previous election result.

In this instance PTP already commands a healthy majority so any realignment doesn't undermine the Thai peoples verdict at the last general election

P.S For any of the usual dimbulbs out there poised to sound off about the rules of parliamentary democracy, hold your fire.Firstly I am aware of them to an extent you probably don't grasp and secondly I'm not suggesting Abhisit's government was illegal.

Unfortunately many Red Shirt supporters seems to fall into the uneducated, poor category. This promotes apathy and allows their leaders to do their thinking for them.

I imagine they do want a better life, but do not have the desire to think how to achieve it.

Good point, especially as the rest of the population are so famously independent minded and unaffected by personal considerations.Ideally there should be some way of disenfranchising or at least minimising the influence of Thailand's rural majority.The appointed senators under the military sponsored constitution was a good start, but ideally the system should give more priority to the well educated, well off and urban middle class and less to those tiresome peasants.Otherwise it just becomes a dictatorship of the majority - effectively the problem now

I wonder who did the 'explaining' that these groups are just more of the PAD etc. If it was one of the red shirt supporters then that so called explanation is not worth two turds.

It is really amazing that so called democracy (a rather twisted version) supporters have to belittle any opposition to the present government..

Er, since many of the same names are involved in PAD, Pitak Siam, Multicoloureds and this latest group you don't need to be a red supporter to join up the dots.

There's plenty to oppose in the current government.The Democrats should be doing better at this stage of the government's term.The objection is not to opposition but to the constant invocations for the army and/or courts to step in.

Good turnout. Less than 100!

Retards!

Two very pertinent things can be taken from your 'sarcastic' 6 words - RT

1) you clearly don't support freedom of speech or the right to demonstrate

2) you seem to believe that might = right

It appears the 'mask' of red democracy has slipped a wee bit there and the real face has been exposed - Nice one RT

.

I don't think he was suggesting demonstrators shouldn't turn out: he was simply mocking the small numbers.

It is certainly a novel explanation in my experience that a miniscule demonstration implies that those who hold different views believe that "might is right".

The soubriquet "retards" is certainly rather rude, but I think fairly used in this instance given the historical context of Guy Fawkes (which the Nation extract explains) is directly opposite the protestors professed aims.

The financial services sector in Thailand is essentially unregulated, the protections you would have moving pensions or buying investments back home don't exist here.

Regardless of what kind of outfit Devere's is the lack of the legal protections you would enjoy back home should be enough to tell you not to do any business with them or any other such outfit in Thailand.

A good rule of thumb is never to use financial advisors based in Thailand.

I hear that more and more posters now become start to believe that it is actually possible and that there is nothing dodgy about it. Very interesting. It was the same with ED visas, first it was scam and I was the biggest scammer and now tens of thousands of foreigners are in Thailand using the visa category that Walen School discovered and that prior to us promoting it was very rarely used.

It's not a scam (by which I mean ED visas) and as far as I know you are not a scammer (though you need to work on your snake oil sales patter)

However the system is quite clearly a breach of the spirit if not letter of the regulations.Not illegal therefore but trouble stored up for the future.

There are of course genuine language students but they are a small minority.Most are abusing Thailand's liberal visa regime.

A parallel abuse took place in evasion of foreign ownership laws.Many investors regret taking their lawyers advice now.

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

Putting oneself in the crossfire of violent citizens being suppressed is mindless; along with those who want to blame soldiers for trying to prevent further terrorism on the city, when the police failed to do anything.

I assume your comments arise from ignorance and lack of imagination rather than malice.So I will move on, but the last comment from me on this topic will be to pay tribute to Fabio Polenghi with the words of a wonderful journalist Marie Colvin who was herself recently killed in Syria.

“Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos,

destruction and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to

find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or

terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself

but often for the people who work closely with you.” Marie Colvin in a speech made at St Bride’s Church, London, 10 November 2010, in honour of war wounded.

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

He's baaaaack! Arisman again.

Arisman's name must be mentioned often, together with his infamous "burn list" because so many posters dishonestly try to either deny the existance of his incitement to terrorism, or flat out claim not to have heard/seen his incitement. Ironically, I remember you being one of them.

Whether posters have heard of him or not (and actually I hadn't until he was brought to my attention) there is a ludicrous aspect to his constant invocation by those who wish to justify repression.There will always be rabble rousers around.

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

.

No. I'm not trying to justify it.

I am just questioning their statements that there was no one around, when so many reports say there was.

If you have genuine information that contradicts all reliable evidence you should probably bring it to the attention of the authorities.

The court, on the best information available at the time, concluded that the shot was fired from an area occupied by the Thai army.Furthermore it was possible to identify the army unit concerned but not the individual shooter.

Frankly if you are going to dispute the clear evidence that the Italian journalist was murdered by the army, you will presumably also dispute that other unarmed civilians were similarly murdered - where the evidence is not so clear.

It's not that distant from your position from that of the usual nutjobs who come out with lines like:

1.The reds smuggled in assasins to the army positions.

2.Journalists had it coming to them - shouldn't have been there

3.What about Arisman? (my favourite)

4.The reds murdered themselves (and a few journalists to boot)

5.I was there and I saw it all (probably the silliest)

That's the strange part. There was evidence, videos and news reports, of red shirts shooting at the army as the army moved up Ratchadamri. The didn't only shoot guns, but grenades as well, as evidenced by the reporter and soldiers being injured / killed.

True but from all the statements there were no armed Red shirts around where this happened, only civilians.

This happens when the army is used to do what is in fact a policing matter, the army are not trained for this.

Unfortunately the police are not either.

There may not have been red shirts immediately around these guys, but there was plenty of evidence that there were red shirts shooting at the army as they were moving up Ratchadamri.

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html