ramsesxix

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

That's right mate and for all that "free government" your going to pay for it. Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America. Sweden is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. I don't know what fantasy land others live in but the cost of things in Sweden are 20, 30, 40, 50% higher at least, Taxes both sales and personal are outrageous (all to pay for the social welfare system, which has it's major problems depite the propaganda) Swedish people in general are actually quite cold and rude (push past you, knock you down walking down the street) some people mistake being able to speak fluent english for helpfulness. The Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch (especially) are far more friendly. Things are fairly efficent but then it's also not a big country and has been industrialised for centuries so it's hardly surprising but the country does live on it's faded glory. Also don't be taken in by the great myth of a land of beautiful people or blond viking gods and godesses that's just plain wrong. Finland is actually the most expensive with Norway close on its heels. Reykjavik is one of the most expensive cities in the world, with Oslo as a close second.

I hope you are referring to Don Regan, the USSoT, not R. Reagan, the president. Either way, Regan served for Reagan, and did indeed lower personal income tax. This did increase tax revenue as well, not because of increased economic activity, but increased participation in the taxing system. Depending on too many factors to get into detail here, lowering the tax may increase or decrease tax revenue. You can take a look here if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why. It is myopic at best, and pandering at worst to proclaim that a tax reduction will increase tax revenue. Is it possible? Absolutely, especially in a society that is taxed to the hilt, as the US was when Jimmy Carter left office. And I am not saying that in theory, the 'lowering taxes' idea is not valid. Simply the degree to which I am familiar with tax scheme here (and who does and does not pay- and so on), its not a cut and dry matter- not to the overwhelming majority of the Thai population, and even less to us who pay taxes here, yet have no voice.

My - somewhat skeptical - concern is that with the number of hands in the Thai cookie jar, a reduction of tax could be devastating to the economy. I doubt any politician, or government employee who takes a cut of the tax revenue (I know such corrupt things do not happen here) is willing to take a pay cut. So if you lower the tax rate, then on a percentage basis a larger amount goes into the coffers of those 'corrupt' Thai officials we love to bash on the TV boards. As I pay less tax here than I did when I worked in the states at a comparable salary, it is hard for me to imagine cutting taxes would be a boon to this economy, especially given my tendency to think that a,) not all revenue is reported b.) lower taxes won't make any report previously unreported income and c) not all the revenue collected arrives at its intended destination.

Thanks for pointing out my misspelling of President Reagan's name. I've done that many times. I seem to have a preprogrammed tendency to do that. And yes, one could, I suppose, get confused and assume I was talking about Donald Regan. Anything's possible with Thai Visa members. However, your statement that the increase in revenue to the US Treasury was not due to increased economic activity but rather was attributable, in large part, to an increased in the number of people paying taxes is disingenuous and simply not true. Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. You might want to check here for more information. http://www.mackinac....cle.aspx?ID=676 These same policies could easily apply to Thailand as Thaksin has proposed.

As for Regan vs Reagan, it is easy to mix them up, and they will be forever linked. If memory serves correct, Regan and James Baker swapped roles in the white house in 85 (part of Reagan's 2 term administration shake-up). Regan then took the fall for the Iran-Contra arms deals, and resigned before Reagan's 2nd term was up.

I'll try to keep my reply short, and still convey the appropriate response to your post. When tax cuts produce gains to tax revenue, it is due to a larger tax base. Whether the tax base grows because more people start businesses, or because more people file their personal income taxes or both (for sake of argument, I will say the tax base grows - meaning those participating by paying taxes grows at a somewhat congruent pace - as a result an increase in business activities). The benefit is 2-fold, new companies start paying tax, and the labor required to drive the new companies are compelled to file taxes as well, thus significantly increasing the tax base. It should be noted that in the US a very high percent of companies fail within the first few years. So, some of the economic gains are shed within a couple years of a tax-cut. If the tax cut was was not ill-conceived, then the continued overall economic growth 'absorbs' the excess work force. I am pretty sure, you get the drift (I hope), Incidentally, I had hoped Martin Feldstein would replace Greenspan, but alas the FRB answers to Bernanke. Feldstein is a dynamic lecturer, and far and away (light years) a brighter guy than myself, but I can't help but think that his statements regarding the Clinton tax hikes were anything but partisan comments. To my (limited) knowledge most economists agreed (including A. Greenspan) that the taxes were to the left of the apex on the Laffer curve when the Clinton tax hike took effect.

The policies could apply to Thailand, sure, but as I mentioned before, I am somewhat doubtful that a tax cut would encourage participation. I understand why on the supply-side this works, I'm just skeptical that it would work here - then again I'm not a Thai economist. If the current PM suggested it, I would be the first to say he is playing politics, but that this is a card played by Thaksin, it makes the idea at the very least interesting.

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America.

Hmmm, maybe we don't remember the same Reagan.

Under Carter the the USA had a positive balance and Reagan presided over the largest budget deficit build up in American history. It would be more accurate to say that Reagan's Trickle-down economics has been proved to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Governments need revenues to meet their responsibilities. For that the best solution is a fair tax code. That means one that is not regressive (as is the current tax code in the USA). Then the government does need to meet its responsibilities to invest in the country and the people : education, health & infrastructure. Thaskin did invest in health care for Thais. As for infrastructure, today there is no reason for any government not to invest heavily in renewable energies and focus on good environmental policies in infrastructure. This has been already proved to make good economic sense as well as being good for the planet, and it will be the wave of the future.

Thaskins' idea of building a city in the gulf of Thailand is a horrible idea for the environment, and (IMO) Thailand should not take its cue from Middle East countries who don't give a hoot about protecting the environment.

Regards,

Tom

I am sure he was correct with what he said, referencing Don Regan, the Sec. of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. He is also correct in saying the tax-cut in question resulted in a windfall of tax revenue. Beyond that he did not mention Reaganomics. The largest deficit you refer to (which is now dwarfed by the deficit on Obama's watch) was a result of spending. The deficit under Reagan was gone by the time Bill Clinton ran for for re-election in 1996 (8ish years). Any further discussion of US tax codes gets a bit too involved to delve into on TV boards... that coupled with my having better things to do

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

That's right mate and for all that "free government" your going to pay for it. Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America. Sweden is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. I don't know what fantasy land others live in but the cost of things in Sweden are 20, 30, 40, 50% higher at least, Taxes both sales and personal are outrageous (all to pay for the social welfare system, which has it's major problems depite the propaganda) Swedish people in general are actually quite cold and rude (push past you, knock you down walking down the street) some people mistake being able to speak fluent english for helpfulness. The Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch (especially) are far more friendly. Things are fairly efficent but then it's also not a big country and has been industrialised for centuries so it's hardly surprising but the country does live on it's faded glory. Also don't be taken in by the great myth of a land of beautiful people or blond viking gods and godesses that's just plain wrong. Finland is actually the most expensive with Norway close on its heels. Reykjavik is one of the most expensive cities in the world, with Oslo as a close second.

I hope you are referring to Don Regan, the USSoT, not R. Reagan, the president. Either way, Regan served for Reagan, and did indeed lower personal income tax. This did increase tax revenue as well, not because of increased economic activity, but increased participation in the taxing system. Depending on too many factors to get into detail here, lowering the tax may increase or decrease tax revenue. You can take a look here if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why. It is myopic at best, and pandering at worst to proclaim that a tax reduction will increase tax revenue. Is it possible? Absolutely, especially in a society that is taxed to the hilt, as the US was when Jimmy Carter left office. And I am not saying that in theory, the 'lowering taxes' idea is not valid. Simply the degree to which I am familiar with tax scheme here (and who does and does not pay- and so on), its not a cut and dry matter- not to the overwhelming majority of the Thai population, and even less to us who pay taxes here, yet have no voice.

My - somewhat skeptical - concern is that with the number of hands in the Thai cookie jar, a reduction of tax could be devastating to the economy. I doubt any politician, or government employee who takes a cut of the tax revenue (I know such corrupt things do not happen here) is willing to take a pay cut. So if you lower the tax rate, then on a percentage basis a larger amount goes into the coffers of those 'corrupt' Thai officials we love to bash on the TV boards. As I pay less tax here than I did when I worked in the states at a comparable salary, it is hard for me to imagine cutting taxes would be a boon to this economy, especially given my tendency to think that a,) not all revenue is reported b.) lower taxes won't make any report previously unreported income and c) not all the revenue collected arrives at its intended destination.

"Julain Assange completely screwed his fellow founders of Wikileaks, the dude is all about power.

Just find out who posted his bail, who his lawyer works for or what magazine voted him "man of the year" in 2008 and who is on their board. They are controlling the "wake up"."

Why do you think I left his name out of it???

The point was not so much about Assange as it is about this not being something that a Kenyan born Harvard flunkie could have easily cooked up without getting caught. If it was concocted, it will be found out. If it turns out this is all a ruse, feel free to say "I told you so".

For the naysayers, and there will always be naysayers, stay tuned, wikileaks will be releasing the 'super secret' documents shortly. Unless, of course, what we are being told (OBL killed today) is true... Then there would be no need...

Speaking of which, isn't it just more than a bit disheartening when an organization like wikileaks unloads hoards (or is it troves) of documents and nothing in there is consistent with a government conspiracy/ cover-up regarding WTC.

@jingthing re: Americans respecting all beliefs except those of non-believers, tis very true, and very unfortunate.

since when has/had the US Embassies in it's own country? - maybe they should, now ...

BTW, the leaks were leaking to over 3 million people who had access to it. All of them tight and secretive, sure.

Wow, to think all this time that wikileaks has only been handling wires to and from the DoS that originated from or sent to embassies in foreign countries. They really really missed a trick as memos that circulated within Washington would have been 'high value' to the folks @ wikileaks... oh wait, they had some, and some of those were embarrassing to the former administration.

Eventually, everything conceived in darkness comes to light.

So, no thanks to the conspiracy silliness trumped up by those of questionable mental capacity, and the naive who regurgitate it.

For the naysayers, and there will always be naysayers, stay tuned, wikileaks will be releasing the 'super secret' documents shortly. Unless, of course, what we are being told (OBL killed today) is true... Then there would be no need...

Speaking of which, isn't it just more than a bit disheartening when an organization like wikileaks unloads hoards (or is it troves) of documents and nothing in there is consistent with a government conspiracy/ cover-up regarding WTC.

@jingthing re: Americans respecting all beliefs except those of non-believers, tis very true, and very unfortunate.

at least the Pakistani govt should be so kind and invite neutral observers to take samples for DNA testing. He alledgly lived there for years. There must be plenty around to confirm that he really was there.

Honestly I don't take the respecting of Islamic burial rules and dropping a body in the ocean. This is a bit of cheap procedure and a destroying of evidence. Why?

Fundamental Muslims went on murderous rampages because a cartoonist lampooned the prophet and the 'God' of their religion. Imagine what they would do if they believed the US was holding (and possibly desecrating) the corpse of someone they call the 'The Sheikh of Islam'. For all we know, he is on a slab, so he can be autopsied, fingerprinted, photoed, ... whatever. The important thing appears to be - Don't piss off the international Islamic community. Burial within 24 hours, or so they believe, and problem solved.

Whether you agree with it or not, I am pretty sure the US is not the least bit interested in your perspective.

No matter what the US does, there will be those who deride the government, no matter what Obama does, there will be those who deride him. It comes with the territory. I quite often find myself saying <deleted> when I read the news out of the US, but I am pretty certain that most Americans, and most US Gov't and policy types don't answer to me, making my opinions on the matter of little to no consequence.

Yes, the Towers come down and immediately, within days, the debris, including any possible evidence, is removed off shore and disposed of.

No forensics necessary, folks. We knew who did it as before the day was over (we just couldn't stop 'em ahead of time).

Now, ten years later, the "perpetrator" is found and killed and-- wait a minute, hold on there!-- his body is buried at sea in accordance with Islamic practices -- within 24 hours.

Believing the 'official' version does require some minor filling in the blanks, but believing the conspiracies requires a special kind of gullibility or paranoia, take your pick.

However despised Bin Laden might be, he is still Muslim, and handling his corpse in a manner not consistent with Islamic beliefs would incur the wrath of most Muslims the world over - something the US does not need to deal with as it prepares for possible fallout from sending OBL into the great unknown.

Burial at sea- the US has long known that no Middle Eastern country would receive OBL's remains, and his corpse was disposed of at sea. While a good number of Muslims turned a blind-eye to or supported the endeavors of OBL, no legitimate government could support him, without facing dire consequences... so the US Military did what they had to.

I am willing to bet there will be photos released, and it is very difficult to imagine that there will not be DNA evidence as well - evidence that is being tested (or soon will be).

"Thai police investigators told RIA Novosti that charges against Pletnev were based on accounts provided by the boy's relatives. During a search at Pletnev's residence in Pattaya they had found no evidence of Pletnev's involvement in child pornography."

Though they did not say that there was no evidence of a crime, this appears to be the Russian's word against the family's.  Who knows the real/full story? I don't.  However, unless the family's claim is a blatant attempt to extort money, it would be hard to imagine the guy getting a fair trial.

The flip side is, he might be well connected, and no matter what he may have done to the child he will walk.  Whatever the case, I do hope justice is served.  And, this being Thailand, a justly rendered verdict would be nice for a change.

10k baht penalty for the tourist? Are elephants banned from the city? I can already hear the upcoming howls of protest from tourists getting clipped.

TheWalkingMan

I wonder if this 10,000 baht fine is only for tourist? What about Thais feeding the

elephants? Probably another way the Thai government has of saying "we do not like tourist"

kk-mike

ummm... the article says that messages will be broadcast on local Thai tv, and unless there is a large number of Thai speaking foreign tourists, then I would well imagine that the messages are aimed at Thais who feed the elephants.

Only for the tourist? NO ... for the Mahout and anyone (Thai, farang, or otherwise) feeding the animal. Granted the story was very poorly written, but it is obvious that all parties involved are culpable - and this is true with all crimes, not just feeding elephants.

People...and tourists...luv elephants. Now we can get a 10000baht fine for helping keep them alive. That sucks!

if you really love elephants u should do your part to protect them and ensure that they can live where they belong to.

There are parks in Thailand where they can live in a naturally perfect environment and not on streets where they suffer from many diseases, often treated badly.

Information is all: elephants back to nature

I 100% agree with you, the elephants belong in their natural habitat. Keeping them in the city is helping to kill them, not helping to keep them alive.

Unless there is a plan to immediately expropriate the elephant there and then, put it on a truck and move it to one of these parks, how does fining a tourist 10k solve anything?

The offence is from the mahout, not the tourist, and I can't wait for someone to challenge this stupid law on the basis of entrapment.

The mahouts are being fined as well, so that would be 20,000 baht per offense(10,000 from the 'tourist' and 10,000 from the mahout), which I think would be enough to offset the transport fees involved in getting an elephant to a park or reserve where they can be treated humanely.

I doubt the BiB will be pocketing much money. This is an offense that you should get a citation for, and settle at a later date. Do you actually think a tourist would just fork over 10,000 baht???? Of course there is likely to be cases of tourists talking their way out of citations by bribing officers with a few hundred baht. If that is the case, then so be it. TIT, as not much has been done to stop corruption at any level of the police farce.

As for entrapment, lest a copper dress up as a mahout, and entices a tourist to feed an elephant and the does the 'gotcha' and demands 10,000, there is no case to be made for entrapment.

At the end of the day, there will be few citations handed out, and probably even fewer mahouts that get nicked, however, there will also be fewer elephants on the streets of Bangkok - and that is a step in the right direction.

For what it is worth, I've lived in Thailand for the past 5 years, and the overwhelming majority of elephants that I have seen being fed are being fed by Thais. The Thai will 'pity' the elephant, and shell out the 40 baht for the sugar cane and go away feeling as if they have done good by feeding the elephant. My overriding concern here is that laws like this will simply cause a shift in where the mahouts and elephants are - as they will go to less densely populated areas (upcountry) where police are even less likely to give a rip.

... They don't stay in the field because of the great pay. ...

As far as I can tell, pay has A LOT to do with it. In Thailand, teachers are government employees (government grammar and secondary schools). If a teacher has gone through the process correctly, he/she becomes a government officer. They get annual pay raises, and by the time they are retirement age, they are quite well off. Teachers not only get paid their salary but can earn additional sums of money for 'extra duties' they perform. You factor in that many make extra money 'tutoring' on the side, it is not bad.

Certainly, the starting salary is paltry, but the longer you stick with it, the better it gets. Factor in that it is nearly impossible for Thai teachers to get fired once they are government employees, they really have no incentive, do they?

This report is frankly misleading.

The test that the teachers took (OBEC) was not the same kind of test that is taken by the students (O-NET).  It's perfectly possible that the test was particularly difficult, even for experienced teachers.  The results are meaningless and the journalism shoddy.

Let's say that you are correct, and OBEC tests are inherently different than the standardized tests administered to the students... As an educator I fail to see how that excuses them from knowing the subject matter they teach.  A teacher's ability to teach students how to take and pass a standardized test is not a measuring stick for success.  Or to look at it another way, teachers should have knowledge of the subjects they teach that goes well beyond what in on the curriculum for a given class.

And as for the remark about the quality of workmanship involved in this article, if journalists go to the same universities as the teachers do, then shoddy journalism should be expected, should it not?  

This is Thailand everyone including government always claim to do something or threaten about something, but is all hot air. People have short memory and trying to continue to scare people is like crying wolf

I suppose all of the videos of Arisman, and other redshirt leaders predicting that Thailand would burn if the red shirts were moved against were all hot air.  Perhaps the video of Jeff Savage was hot air as well.

Do I think anything will come of it? Nope.  I have seen the reports, and the only thing that makes me not dismiss it out of hand is the person who made the claims, also made claims that government building and retail malls would burn if the government moved against the red shirt protesters.

While I do not think anything will come of it, nothing surprises me.  

My wife, who thought highly of Thaksin while he was in office, has made it abundantly clear to me since some time after Song Kran that she in no way shape or form identifies with the 'red shirts' who were involved in the protests.  She hasn't abandoned the ideology, but she has abandoned the leadership- to the point of showing great displeasure with the current PTP MPs for not distancing themselves from what has gone on.

Whoever posted about Thais would never intentionally kill another Thai, or something along those lines... Are you suggesting that Seh Daeng was gunned down by a farang?  Or that the M79 that killed a commuter at a BTS station was intended to harm foreigners?  Or that the guys dressed up in army gear that took the lives of 80 or more Thais weren't actually Thai?  The current civil unrest is strictly Thai-on-Thai (save for the odd crack pot).

To the poster who said that the majority of Thai muslims are not ethnic Thai... First, I think you were only referring to the southern Thai muslims - as muslims in other parts of the country are by and large converts (as are Christians, and so on).  Even then, if your argument is that the southern muslims are descendants of people who have had their country annexed by Thailand, you are still making a false argument. 

I wonder how many of the red-shirts said exactly the same sort of thing... my guess is thousands.

This guy is obviously a total moron, but to pick him out because he is white is just plain racist.

No he is being picked out because he walked up to a stranger with a camara

and said things totally beyond reason. He did this, never considering

it would be on Youtube in days. And then suddenly Central world is burning

and Gold shops looted and he is pictured in the red guards company smiling like a total pratt.

Nothing racist in this, he hung himself up to dry.

I agree 100%.

He was a white guy, in an Asian country, breaking the laws of that country. Therefore, he should be punished in accordance with the laws of that country.

Shameful behaviour from uneducated, manipulated Thais - even less excusable from a Westerner.

The uneducated, manipulated Westerners do tend to stick out in a BKK riot....

Just nominate him for this years Darwin Award and be done with it.

don't you have to be dead to be nominated for a darwin award?

What is it that Thais like to say? coming soon?

I don't think there is any way to look at it other than this guy is a nut-job.  To say what he said to someone on camera and not think it would be on you-tube is mind boggling.

He was where he ought not be, saying what he ought not say, and now he deals with the fallout.  I hope for his sake, he is simply deported back to the UK. Thailand can ill-afford negative publicity about scape-goating and xenophobia that would undoubtedly come out if he is sentenced to a prison term here.

That explains things then. Its all the Fault of that Idoit Brit. Surely there was Cambodians involved too. Everythings good.

Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own. - Proverbs 26:17

This guy has only himself to blame.  

Shortly after the red leaders surrendered or went on the run it went up in flames, they did say previously that Bangkok would burn and burn it is in parts, IMO this was preplanned..

Now the debate will rage on like the fires in Bangkok and some people will say it had nothing to do with the reds, whoever it was it's a sad time for Thailand at the moment.

considering the prevalence of petrol bombs... it would be hard for the Red Shirt leaders to abdicate responsibility for the fire bombs... 

still waiting for your definition, which, as per usual when red apologists get asked something directly, will never come. Just hard to believe that there is no action the reds can take which is not defended by some on the forum. "it's okay to (invade hospital / shoot rpg at hotel / bring children into hot fire zone / set city on fire) because (we're too lazy to work our way out of poverty / there was yellows in the airport / a coup in 2006"). pathetic.

Invade hospital yes and wrong

Shoot RPG at hotel . Any proof ? None

Bring children in hot fire zone . yes wrong

Set city on fire . A few tires yes , not city .

Shooting at civilians with live bullets : yes and wrong

Shooting 10 yo boy yes and wrong

Why dont you cut the BS and stick to facts

Then why omit the fact that the 10 year old boy was in a van carrying supplies to the red rally that failed to stop at a checkpoint... Oh, and the driver was intoxicated.

Would you call that boy looking over the tyres a human shield.I suggest you print something factual.My thioughts would have been,he is showing the boy to the soldiers to show that he is there.

NOW

If someone had said the boy should not be there i would have agreed but dont spout crap on here

Is there a NEED to say that the boy should not be there?? What responsible person would ever put a child in harm's way?! You have to be out of your mind.  He seems to be telling the boy to wave to the soldiers. He is showing the soldiers to the boy, not the other way around.  This is by far highly inappropriate behavior, regardless of whether or not you call the kid a human shield.

I'm not against foreigners being involved in this protest. What I do not like is IGNORANT people participating in events they are clueless about. It looks ridiculous. The picture of this foreigner and his "girlfriend" look like some vacation photo. He even admits he is is ill informed, yet he gets up on stage to speak in generalities about the importance of democracy without even knowing the context.

Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own

Thai Tv is saying Seh Daeng is dead

Bush never got Bin Laden in seven years, so you have to finally give Abhisit some credit.

I rarely post, but you cracked me up.  

I am not sure how this will play out, but I can only hope that this news will help to begin to bring an end to the situation.

I scored 16. But that's an improvement over the last red protest last year. things are looking up.

Scoring 16 out of a total possible ten points just emphasizes the level of exageration that yellow Shirt sympathizers are willing to go to. Also shows that they may not be the "intellectuals" they are praported to be. JMHO.

How ironic is it to question another's intellect if one can neither spell words such as 'exaggerate' and 'purport' nor follow simple rules of capitalization?

oh no, the grammar police are working over-time tonight! (here we go again)

not surprisingly... the point is completely missed. 'twas merely an observation which humored me. I leave the policing of grammar to drunks and derelicts the English teachers that reside here.

Oy vey! The absolute insanity. Every post is an affront to somebody. My sincerest apologies if, whilst pointing out the absurd, I have somehow managed to assume the appearance of someone overly concerned with the grammar of ex-pats, non-native speakers, and frequent visitors.

I scored 16. But that's an improvement over the last red protest last year. things are looking up.

Scoring 16 out of a total possible ten points just emphasizes the level of exageration that yellow Shirt sympathizers are willing to go to. Also shows that they may not be the "intellectuals" they are praported to be. JMHO.

How ironic is it to question another’s intellect if one can neither spell words such as ‘exaggerate’ and ‘purport’ nor follow simple rules of capitalization?

Tensions rise. I just hope when this is all over the Thai people get what they want.

Which is?

Helped spread the word on facebook, hope someone can help soon.

Am A- and in Samut Prakan. More than happy to give, but not yet sure if I can do so from here. Will be calling in the morning to find out.