daboyz1

Seems like the majority of voters have no problem with the country being run by a convicted criminal on the run. It sends the message that crime does in fact pay. Just look at the party list to confirm that. Packed with Thaksin family members. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the rice scam goes up in flames, which seems very likely.

Shouldn't Tarit be off printing passports for his boss in the middle of the night? Or is that another or Mr T's lackeys. It's hard to keep them straight. I love how they're in such a rush to administer "justice" when it's not related to Thaksin.

You got that right. There is no rule of law. Only in Thailand can a wanted fugitive on the run control the government through his sister and try to push through an amnesty bill to clear himself of all charges.

I think you should check things out before openning mouth. If the bill has passed it would have cleared Abisit and suthep of murder charges also.

Yet Abhisit and Suthep oppose the bill. That speaks volumes about what a sham it is. I'd argue that Abhisit and Suthep were charged with murder solely with the hope they would go along with the bill. Turns out they're not as self serving as Thaksin and didn't support a bill that would've cleared them of these obviously trumped up charges.

It´s funny how the Suthep-fanbois always defends their Dear Leader with something like:"But Thaksin did this and/or that". I actually don´t see much people, if anyone defending Thaksin, just people calling out Dear Leader Suthep for what he is, a true Looney...

I'm no fan of Suthep. I just find it shocking that he hasn't split to some foreign country like the man actually running Thailand has.

nice story

the truth was he should have just 'done it' (as Yingluck has) and of course he never won an election so had no mandate but besides that he used the Army to kill innocent people have not seen any evidence of that with Yingluck

after all this killing he LOST the election

Another one that doesn't understand how a parlaimentary system works. MPs elect the PM, not the electorate. The electorate votes for the MPs. In fact Abhisit has won a few elections in his constituency. Yingluck has never even ran in a constituency. Google is your friend. I suggest you use it. There's alot of information to be had on the internet free of charge.

Entry into politics

Abhisit began his political career in the 1992 general elections that followed the coup, becoming a Bangkok MP for the Democrat Party. He was re-elected to the same seat in the 1995 and 1996 general elections. In the elections of 2001 and 2005, he returned to parliament as a Party List MP for the Democrat Party. He has served as Democrat Party spokesman, Government spokesman, Deputy-Secretary to the Prime Minister for Political Affairs, Chairman of the House Education Affairs Committee, and Minister to the Prime Minister's Office.

democracy is letting the people decide not a 100,000 crazed mob and if this country had a truly independent Police and Army this would have been quelled days ago but the amart meddle and manipulate as usual

I wonder if you would have posted the same thing back in May of 2010 when Bangkok was on fire after being held hostage for 2 months?

he didn't call elections

he sent in the Army

quiet a different response don't you think?

He offered to call elections, which the reds accepted, but the man in Dubai pulled the rug out from under the deal. As far as I can tell these demonstraitions have been peaceful except for the red thugs shooting people near Ramkhamhaeng. Quite different from people openly calling for the burning of Bangkok from the red rally stage. If Abhisit should be faulted for anything concerning that mess, it should be for not sending in the army two months earlier.

Kind of ironic they chose February 2nd for the elections. Groundhog Day. This whole thing seems to repeat itself over an over just like the movie.

democracy is letting the people decide not a 100,000 crazed mob and if this country had a truly independent Police and Army this would have been quelled days ago but the amart meddle and manipulate as usual

I wonder if you would have posted the same thing back in May of 2010 when Bangkok was on fire after being held hostage for 2 months?

Would PTP win an election if Yingluck and Thaksin weren't involved?

That's an interesting question. I think PTP would cease to exist without Thaksin.

I assume the vast majority of posters here are from western style democracies. Yet I find it odd that some here have no problem with Thailand being run by a criminal fugitive. I wonder if they would be fine with this type of government in their home countries?

The other side is ran by a nutjob who is currently on trial for the murder of over 80 Thai civilians, for a 140+ Rai land corruption case where he transferred state land in Koh Samui to rich families and family members.

Oh, and he's also the biggest flip flop in world history.

- i will stop when the amnesty bill is dropped.

- i will stop when the government resigns.

- i will stop when new elections are held.

- oh wait I don't want new elections, want my people's council to rule Thailand

- i want to dissolve the Royal Thai Police and replace it with my own people's guard.

- i don't accept the new election date that was announced by Royal decree.

Can you guess his name?

Yingluck has kept all her promises. She has dissolved the house and called for new elections which is what normal countries do.

Everyone rooting for the nutjob is out of his mind.

Whe I read the first few words of your first sentence, I thought you were describing Thaksin's war on drugs and the sweet land deal he got for his wife in Ratchadapisek.

Ohh and I have some news for you. Yingluck isn't making or keeping any promises. She doesn't use the toilet with out big brother's permission.

I assume the vast majority of posters here are from western style democracies. Yet I find it odd that some here have no problem with Thailand being run by a criminal fugitive. I wonder if they would be fine with this type of government in their home countries?

Of course they wouldn't, but it would be no surprise that a lot of them live in Nakhon Nowhere and the 500 baht payment to their wife for the vote is a boost to their income., or they have some sick attraction to Thaksin in a dress.

I plan on moving up to Isaan in a few years. Maybe I'll end up running around wearing a red T shirt, Thaksin mask, waving a couple free plastic clappers wildly in the air while waiting for my wife to get her meager vote payoff from the man in Dubai, so I can buy some Lao Khao in a plastic bag with a straw.

Then PTP will run She Who Must Be Obeyed in the next " election".....

I was thinking the same thing. I doubt the man in Dubai will trust someone outside of the family. I don't see older sis breaking down in tears like Pu.

I'm not sure what type of visa you are applying for, but I'll assume it's CR-1 or IR-1 since you mentioned NVC. My wife didn't have a birth certificate at all when we went through the NVC process. She got a letter similar to yours for NVC from the Amphur and they accepted it. It MUST be an original from the Amphur with an English translation. NVC will not accept copies of the birth certificate or the police clearance. PM me if you like, an I'll send you what we used for NVC as proof of birth. See here for more guidance:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/fees/fees_5455.html?cid=9660

Birth Certificates

Available. The issuance of birth certificates in Thailand began in Bangkok in 1917. Records of birth are often lacking for people born in Bangkok before World War II and for those born in other areas of the country up until the 1970s. Birth Certificates are issued by "Amphur," (geographic subdivision roughly equivalent to a county in the U.S.) district authorities having jurisdiction over the place of birth. There may be a fee for this service.

A Thai citizen older than 15 and born in Thailand, whose birth was not registered, must present in its stead a household registration, together with a Thai national identity card ("bat prachachon"), and may also be required to submit additional proof of the claimed relationship.

Another American writer that doesn't have a clue how things work in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Many hoped Thailand’s color-coded conflict would end after the terrible low point of April and May 2010, when almost 100 people died and 2,000 were injured during a government crackdown on a Red Shirt demonstration in central Bangkok. (The Red Shirts were protesting the removal of a democratically elected government, just as Suthep is now demanding.)

He should stick to writing about the latest buffoonery of the Kardashian sisters.

Interesting article. It appears "recession" can mean many things depending who is defining it.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/11/23/what-is-the-difference-between-a-recession-and-a-depression/

In fact, there is no official or even widely-accepted criterion for distinguishing between a recession and a depression. In the United States, a recession is officially defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a committee comprised largely of academic economists) as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales . This definition does not require consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, despite the widespread use of this rule of thumb in the media . Notably, the most recent US recession in 2000-01 did not feature consecutive quarters of negative growth – there were three quarters of negative growth, but none of them consecutive

Other countries do not have a recognized recession-dating body equivalent to the US NBER , with the result that the consecutive quarters of negative growth rule of thumb is more commonly used outside the United States. Nevertheless, this rule is not infallible. In Australia, real GDP did not decline in consecutive quarters during the 1974 recession; and there have been periods of two or more quarters of negative real GDP growth which are not generally regarded as having been recessions (September quarter 1965 through March quarter 1966; December quarter 1971 through March quarter 1972; and the September and December quarters of 1977).

To most economists, a more meaningful definition of a recession is an extended period of below-trend or below potential growth. Trend or potential growth can be hard to measure, but this approach to identifying recession allows for the fact that in countries with high rates of population growth and/or high rates of productivity growth, real GDP does not need to be negative for conditions consistent with recession (such as rising unemployment) to develop.

Gross domestic product unexpectedly shrank 0.3 percent in the three months through June from the previous quarter, when it contracted a revised 1.7 percent, the National Economic and Social Development Board said in Bangkok today. Only one of 11 analysts surveyed had predicted a decline.

The economy rose a less-than-estimated 2.8 percent from a year earlier.

Those two statements from the Bloomberg link provided directly contradict each other. Either GDP grew, or it contracted.

Recession is when the GDP falls in two successive quarters.

Exactly - as is the current case.

Nope.

Well let's see - I can believe Bloomberg or I can go with your erudite "nope". Guess which has more credibility?

Please show me a link from Bloomberg where the economy grows at a slower rate than expected, but still grows, is considered a recession.

As you wish. From Bloomberg:

I

dentifying recessions can be difficult in Russia. The typical definition is two quarters of declining gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, but government statistics agency Rosstat provides only year-over-year data for international comparison.

With a bit of interpolation, economists are able to estimate the quarterly numbers. The picture isn’t pretty: Sergei Alexashenko, director of macroeconomic studies at Moscow's prestigious Higher School of Economics, wrote in the newspaper Vedomosti that the Russian economy contracted at an annualized rate of between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent in both the first and second quarters of 2013. A drop in the first three months of the year is traditional for Russia, but a decline in the second quarter would be out of the ordinary.

Source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/is-russia-already-in-recession-.html

That makes sense. I just thought outright blaming it on the protests was funny.

Recession is when the GDP falls in two successive quarters.

Exactly - as is the current case.

Nope.

I think they lowered them because the economy is in recession, the government - and especially Kittirat - are in denial, and it is both easy and politically advantageous to blame someone else.

If not (favourite choice) noxious foreign influences, then anti-government protesters.

They all do this, not just Peua Thai - I feel sure some of the forum's Red Shirt supporters would agree this is the case too.

That makes sense. I just thought outright blaming it on the protests was funny.

Recession is when the GDP falls in two successive quarters.

A recession is when there is negative GDP in two successive quarters. If GDP does not grow as expected, that is not a recession.

re·ces·sion

riˈseSHən/

noun

noun: recession; plural noun: recessions

1.

a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.

synonyms: economic decline, downturn, depression, slump, slowdown More

No idea. Generally central banks lower interest rates in the hopes that banks will offer cheap loans in order pump money into the system to stimulate the economy. That's why the U.S. does it anyway To blame it on some protestors is pretty hilarious.

I think they lowered them because the economy is in recession, the government - and especially Kittirat - are in denial, and it is both easy and politically advantageous to blame someone else.

If not (favourite choice) noxious foreign influences, then anti-government protesters.

They all do this, not just Peua Thai - I feel sure some of the forum's Red Shirt supporters would agree this is the case too.

That makes sense. I just thought outright blaming it on the protests was funny.

No idea. Generally central banks lower interest rates in the hopes that banks will offer cheap loans in order pump money into the system to stimulate the economy. That's why the U.S. does it anyway To blame it on some protestors is pretty hilarious.

What a bizarre comment. The Secretary General of the Monetary Policy Committee didn't 'blame it on some protestors'. He gave reasons why the economy needs stimulating, one of which is the negative economic impact of the protests. This is completely obvious and uncontroversial.

Did you miss the headline in big bold letters?

Protests Force Thailand To Lower Interest Rate