jayboy

I've already pointed it out. Who is being 'thick' now?

If you can't or won't explain what I am being accused of lying about, nothing more to discuss.But for the record:

This was your accusation -

"You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when

deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you

said 'deliberate'."

I explained carefully in response I did not accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists.The construct of "deliberate targetting" (I made it clear from whatever side) was in distinction to deaths incurred in the general fog of war.We don't know for sure under what set of circumstances the journalist died, nor which group was responsible.

The truth has yet to be resolved.I have no idea why you and other usual suspects reacted so childishly and aggressively to what was actually a non controversial proposition.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

See comment on usual suspects above.By definition journalism in a conflict situation is dangerous.Who are you to judge whether common sense in that specific situation was applied or not?

Entering into a live fire zone by one's on volition knowing there is a chance one will get shot is in my opinion not applying common sense.

Then with that ludicrous statement you insult the memory of thousands of brave journalists who have lost their lives over the years.Shame on you.

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

What does this say?: There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side

Yes, the objective is to find the truth but denying that you said the above is not truthful.

But I did say it so why on earth should I deny it? It's no more than the truth which no sane person would question.I did say " from whatever side"

Why are the usual suspects so very thick?

Despite your slur, this 'thick' one can spot a lie from a mile away. Your arrogance is never far below the surface, is it? If you think you can squirm out of this by semantics, you are mistaken.

Any chance of you clearly stating what the "lie" is?

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I don't believe so and if that is your impression it was not my intention to imply it.In any case I thought most reasonable people accepted there were guns used on both sides.

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him.

If you do your post is a very good and valid one.

If you don't (as usual) it is a worthless post no substance pure conjecture.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

The fact remains your initial comment about the death of this journalist was morally repulsive.

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

It's significant that you regard any view that you disagree with as "flaming".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of

democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote"

simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated

and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to

make decisions in the best interest of the country."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

What bloody deceit? The post was quite plain and the intent clear - acknowledging a flaw in democracy and that it is both controversial and difficult to overcome. And yes, I do believe that "IDEALLY democracy will have an educated and informed populace........" If you prefer a voting population that is a majority of the uneducated and ill-informed, electing criminals who will cheat and steal because the voters imagine some personal gain, please put forward a valid reason.

i didn't respond to your bombastic propositions because they were of no interest to me, and had nothing to do with my post.

Oh so now you are speaking for yourself.I see the mask has also slipped to show some rather primitive views.I didn't expect a rational or considered response from you.I merely pointed out that the fear of one man one vote based democracy has many historical antecedents.

So does the recognition that the universal right to vote is a weakness. What you describe as primitive is instead a critical look at what is acknowledged as the best system so far devised, but which is far from perfect.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". Winston Churchill

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy

Should I take heed of these men or an over-educated idiot (or 2) with an axe to grind?

None of these leaders would argue against democracy itself, simply that it is a complex imperfect thing.I would also agree with that.

You (like the PAD fascists) appear to be arguing against democracy itself, a principle that FDR,WSC,and JFK were committed to with passion - in knowledge of its imperfections.

And as to whether you should take heed of people better educated and more knowledgeable than yourself? Yes you should.I certainly do.

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

It's significant that you regard any view that you disagree with as "flaming".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of

democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote"

simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated

and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to

make decisions in the best interest of the country."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

What bloody deceit? The post was quite plain and the intent clear - acknowledging a flaw in democracy and that it is both controversial and difficult to overcome. And yes, I do believe that "IDEALLY democracy will have an educated and informed populace........" If you prefer a voting population that is a majority of the uneducated and ill-informed, electing criminals who will cheat and steal because the voters imagine some personal gain, please put forward a valid reason.

i didn't respond to your bombastic propositions because they were of no interest to me, and had nothing to do with my post.

Oh so now you are speaking for yourself.I see the mask has also slipped to show some rather primitive views.I didn't expect a rational or considered response from you.I merely pointed out that the fear of one man one vote based democracy has many historical antecedents.

It might be a drastic measure but these days we need drastic measures. To stop populism which is basically 100 Baht to all illiterates to place their X in the preferred box the votes should be given to people who at least have a basic understanding of what they are voting for and why they are voting.

OK, voting is already too complicated for some people and it ponders the question if these people should be voting in the first place.

Why not use a simple form with 10 basic but poignant multichoice questions with a pass rate of 7 out of 10. If the people cannot even read or tick the correct boxes, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The same questionnaire should be tried on all politicians who must score 10 out of 10.

This can also be tried in other countries e.g. in the US the first question could be "Can you name a country beginning with U". This would stop many people voting who only vote for the prettiest face or "Prolife".

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.

Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

It's significant that you regard any view that you disagree with as "flaming".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of

democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote"

simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated

and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to

make decisions in the best interest of the country."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write..I think most people will have grasped the pointI think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.As if just to start bickering is your primary point..You simply confirm my pointAnd you mine.Perhaps best if you just avoided quoting my posts for the time being. If you can't confine your remarks to what I actually post and instead, continually misrepresent them, for which you justifiably get called up on for, and voila' you've initiated another bickering session.All started from your quoting my post and twisting what I post..

Please try and focus on the topic and avoid personalising the discussion.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point about obsessive posting.I don't even know what you are arguing about frankly.And please stay on topic without descending into personal attacks.Thanks.

If Abhisit's key goal was the wellbeing of the nation rather than some personal vendetta, then perhaps the electorate might vote him into office.

.

1. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

2. The electorate did vote Abhisit into office.

.

Here we go again - but just spare us the lecture on parliamentary democracy

Nice warbling, but that's not what the post I replied to said and it's not what I said.

Abhisit was voted into office by the electorate....

As a Party-list MP, that's precisely what happened.

Perhaps you do need some lecturing on parliamentary democracy, after all.

.

Duh, even you should have grasped that the reference was to receiving a mandate from the people of Thailand, not securing his own seat.

Abhisit has never offered successfully offered himself as a prospective or incumbent Prime Minister to the Thai people at a general election.

If Abhisit's key goal was the wellbeing of the nation rather than some personal vendetta, then perhaps the electorate might vote him into office.

.

1. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

2. The electorate did vote Abhisit into office.

.

Here we go again - but just spare us the lecture on parliamentary democracy please.We know the military helped him bribe Newin's faction to allow him to form a government.Abhisit has however never won an election and the Democrats are unlikely to without heaving him overboard or marginalising him gracefully.

As to the thread's topic I suspect for Abhisit the matter is primarily personal.He is an intelligent man and knows better than most that if Thaksin disappeared prmanently, the toothpaste can't be squeezed back into the tube.The Thai political class can't take the majority of the people for granted any more.That's permanent.Deference is dead.

I reside in n.Thailand next door to a Thai cop. We all have multi-rai properties. He's taking 5 to 6 years to build an ostentatious mansion as big as a 20 room hotel. .....on a cop's salary?

I can well believe it.But this mysterious ability of Thai officials to live the high life on a tiny salary is not limited to policemen.

What all these 'keen observers of Thai politics' need to do is to spend a few seasons up in Isaan with their faces to the mud and their backs to the sky.

I have no idea what this means.Care to elaborate?

If you mean that it's necessary to weigh the theoretical speculation of academics with the harsher reality of what happens on the ground, I would have some observations to make.

A former British PM spoke of the " winds of change blowing through the corridors of power " but to change Thailand it will take a couple of super typhoons.

No.Harold Macmilan spoke of a wind of change blowing through a continent (Africa): there was no reference to "corridors of power".

Was wondering how this got from the reds actions against a rally and crossed over to the credit ratings, another thread.

Oh yes, the reds trying to divert from something undefendable.

Well said. Been there, done that. Nice to see nothing changes. Why defend the indefensible when you can distract the discussion.

Is there any Red contribution to the thread, or perhaps the mods can stop the posts here and ask the guilty people to repost

Yes, it's been pointed out before in this thread. The usual red brigade supporters (or is that participants) tactic is the 'but, but.....' syndrome with Abhisit, Suthep, PAD, Isan, Cambodia, the army & the Dems being some of the usual suffixes to the 'but'.

It doesn't always work however as they sometimes shoot themselves in the foot or, as Yoshiwara says, fall on their swords, whereupon the guessing game starts about who a new poster was previously.

I think you have a point.By this I mean it should be possible on many occasions to justify or explain Government/PTP/redshirt action on its own terms without reference to perceived crimes/mistakes/weaknesses of those who oppose them (essentially the parties mentioned in your post).Obviously there will be occasions when a comparison will be very relevant but the constant kindergarden approach of "your lot are just as bad if not worse " makes discussion sterile and uninteresting.It works the other way as well of course.It should be possible to criticise the Government/PTP/redshirts without boringly harping on about the many abuses by Thaksin.Equally there should be recognition that one can be a general supporter of this government without being a "Thaksin lickspittle" as one member recently charmingly referred to me.

But how to be constructive? My modest and I trust helpful contribution is to have instituted the Sriracha Memorial Prize for the most boneheaded and fatuous introduction of Thaksin into a thread where he is not relevant.

Why don't you defend the quote from Fitch concerning Yingluck stability which you regard as the gospel ?

Come show us you can answer questions rather than play with smoke and mirrors .

Four words come to mind regarding Thailand, Puppet Master, Yingluck, Stability

The markets are for the moment happier with Yingluck representing stability for the Thai economy. While the red dogs are kept on a reasonably short leash and Thaksin stays out of the country the Thai establishment will settle for this deal, but uncertainty remains on two counts: first the possibility of a VIP event and second Thaksin's tendency to shoot himself in the foot in an effort to regain his return. Also it is nice to know that our friendly fake left red apologists are so excited at the rating agencies' assessment of Thailand.

As earlier mentioned, I'm not sure there is as much connection as often claimed in Thailand between the performance of the government of the day and rating agencies findings.Apart from the debacle in the late 1990's (from which the right lessons were learnt) I believe all who have Thailand's interests at heart should be grateful to the senior bureaucrats responsible for economic management.

Turning to your post I don't disagree with your basic analysis.My question is however if the uneasy accomodation breaks down whether for the reasons you mention or another cause, what exactly is the Thai establishment going to do to sort the matter out given that past "solutions" didn't work out, and are even less likely to work out in the future.

Abhisit, the military, the entrenched elite, PAD, political opportunists, speculators and some others.

No Gerry your defense of the reds and PT has led you to get it all wrong again.

It was caused in the main by the red shirt riots which made it necessary for Abhisit to call out the military to clear them out before they did any more damage.

I do however agree about Thaksin and his entrenched elite having to take most of the blame.

Hay and consider;

Given that the red shirt riots instigated by Thaksin were the prime reason for a downgrade and that there has been no violent disruption caused by an opposition party in the term of the present Govt.

It could well be said that the reason for the stability and therefore the upgrade is that the present opposition parties have chosen to do things in a responsible and lawful manner rather than anything Yingluck and her Govt have done.

Your post doesn't make much sense, not even an intelligent effort to disagree.Still I am aware of the poor quality of your posting record, so will just move along....

Though I don't normally respond to this kind of substance free post, nevertheless one point is worth mentioning for the benefit of those who have a genuine interest in understanding the dynamics.Thailand's strong ratings are remarkably resistant to political instability.This reflects the strength of the private sector, robust banking system and the generally excellent economic management of the country.These positive aspects transcend political divisions.Overall Thailand seems more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of world and regional economic dislocation than the country's internal divisions.Quite why this should be so is interesting to speculate and I doubt whether it would be the case if political divisions deteriorated to the level of 2010 again or (even worse) if military criminals again overthrew the elected government.Having said that the legitimacy of the current government is a definite plus.Looking forward what I would like to see is a genuinely strong opposition, perhaps led by Korn which would allow the Democrats to regroup,discard its corrupt element,loosen their ties with the corrupt unelected elites and win power fairly at a general election.It is not healthy in a democracy for one party to hold power consistently - even if won legitimately.

Nicely worded try to diminish scorecards well stated points,

but no sale, and no successful obsfucation of the points made.

But I have not even begun dismantling his extremely misleading summary point by point.I simply made a general statement.By all means start another thread because this is now off topic.But your record of bluster and extreme right wing views does not suggest you will have much of value to contribute.