P A D -bkk Protesters Aim To ‘re-educate’ Rural Thais

[Samuian]

my impression is that some posters here take the issue with the PAD and the "re-education" story way too far and interpret much too much into it, some express sheer political paranoia and get the khmer rouge and BS into their equation, don't know where they take this from. luckily some DO agree that education, still today is pretty poor, the further away it is from any metropolis, the poorer it get's, so to lift the standards of education, would be a good step forward, wouldn't it?

[animatic]

Nothing is very pretty,

but the alternative is not even up to nasty,

it slides quickly down to abysmal.

Animatic, you wrote in another post (which I can't locate right now) something to the effect that you feel it right to go in the same direction as PAD while not sharing all their goals - do correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said in any material way.

That being the case (and because you appear to be the thinker/philosopher among the pro-PAD zealots here), I would remind you that history is littered with examples of those moderates who hitched a ride with those "going in the same direction" - and then couldn't get off.

Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party. As educated people like I hope you all are you know the difference between an political movement and a political party. So please I urge you to stop to pretend that the PAD is an political party. You can disagree with them, but this is no reason to spread disinformation.

The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already.

Actually the original line starts the premise off wrong.

And "going in the same direction" has connotations of the 50's 'Fellow Traveler" slur.

There are some of the concepts from PAD, that i can agree with, but far from all.

PAD didn't necessarily create these concepts either. I certainly can't agree with all their methods.

Never did back in 2006, why should I have suddenly grabbed them whole hog in 2008?

Not all their goals either, but there were enough of their goals, well suited to improving life here,

which may or not have been wedge issues used to build a following, Most over shadowed by other things.

Solid workable ideas hidden or ignored by the brouhaha over discussing non-workable ideas.

The harder core PAD haters seem to feel it is OK to blanket demonize all of PAD's ideas

because they don't like one or two or the leaders ideas, personalities, or histories.

They feel that it's ok to blanket demonize all who can agree with ANY of PAD's ideas

because they dislike some of PAD's methods. Implying that the core ideas must be wrong,

because some fringe ideas are off the wall. Tarred with a globally indiscriminate brush.

Example:

Harping on one sylable "re- " when added to education for instance and larding on

most of the worst historical aspects of one semantic juxtaposition, based on :

ONE unknown translators transliteration.

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so. From vegans vs animal abuse,

to supporters of Rwandan genocide, "cutting the tall trees."

'information retrieval' at it's finest or lowest denominators...

The point being this is NOT disccusion it is railing at your boggie men

and calling it considered thought. Extremes are just that.

And the middle ground is not exclusively on a knife edge of even-handedness.

History is also filled with instances where the moderates were the ONLY

reference point to sanity, as the extremes diverged even more.

You can not be moderate without some diametrically opposed leanings toward

SOME extremes one and/or the other even slightly. Even in both directions for different issues.

And that end leaves the moderate demonized by BOTH sides for the slightest deviation from

some arbitrary perceived fence sitting middle ground between polar opposites.

Oh, and the middle point is SEEN differently by BOTH extremes.

Social Demi-liberal + Fiscal Conservative. Libertarian + Absolutist. States Rights + National abortion ban.

Again raging dichotomies all. And yet allowing valid center ground positions for some.

For the moderate being whacked by BOTH extremes, is validation for a reasonable position.

Edited December 4, 2008 by animatic

[younghusband]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

[Plus]

YH, that quardian article was quoted elsewhere here, and this is the guy who wrote it:

http://www.biotec.or.th/biotechnology-en/CV-Mithran.asp

[animatic]

YH, that quardian article was quoted elsewhere here, and this is the guy who wrote it:

http://www.biotec.or.th/biotechnology-en/CV-Mithran.asp

YH shoots his own foot.

What else is new. Have bias will scrawl.

This is one sharp gentlemen we see writing here, Mr Mithran.

Even if not having a Masters in Literature to add to his credits.

[younghusband]

YH, that quardian article was quoted elsewhere here, and this is the guy who wrote it:

http://www.biotec.or.th/biotechnology-en/CV-Mithran.asp

YH shoots his own foot.

What else is new. Have bias will scrawl.

This is one sharp gentlemen we see writing here, Mr Mithran.

Even if not having a Masters in Literature to add to his credits.

How do I "shoot my foot"? I was having a crack at your crass comment at the Guardian's "class bias".All those Guardian reading civil servants who are just Marxists ready to run riot! What's the word in your language for "tosser"?

Plus

Well tracked down.Doesn't seem from his CV someone one would be keen to have a few drinks with!

[permanent_disorder]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

another form of "educate the public" and the one that need "a guide to do the right and good things" are the campaings or bans on alkohol or restricition of the access to alkohol on certain days like buddhist holidays. that is teaching of morals and ethics. a case of moralists do-betters aim to teach the imperfect, the ones who still needs lessons. everybody knows that the concept behind, is the Chamlong concept of good leadership. yes the PAD Chamlong, the teacher, mentor and long time advisor of ex-PM Thaksin.

for the fun, i recommend to use the forum search engine. look for the threads talking about the ban on alcohol or the ban crackdown on alcohol. guess who gives the rebellious school boys that don't want an "education". that are the advocates of the poor coconut farmer from a certain southern island. coconut farmers repressed and forgoten by the thaksin regime, seeking now a revenge.

if someone needs further education than that are the ones that have only a degree from 'coconut monkey school of samui'. only able to rattle with plastic clappers.

[sriracha john]

But your continuing claims that "vote buying" invalidated the outcome of the election is not supported by the facts[/b]. If you care to check the results of the by-elections held under strict EC supervision in all areas where candidates were "carded" by the EC for such practices---you will find that (most/all --?) the "carded" candidates were confirmed and reelected---- In every case the "vote buying" had not "perverted" the outcome as is continually claimed by yourself and your friends. Why do this without any factual back up !!!

Even in red-carded and yellow-carded by-elections, violations such as vote-buying still occur. Any number of by-elections have been followed by....... by-elections ..... as the rule-breaking continued in the first by-election. I recall a by-election that was repeated 5 times before the EC was finally satisfied that the infractions were down to a tolerable level.

Hi SJ. I'm pretty certain there is a point in here somewhere .... I guess it revolves around the fact that seldom are things perfect--- you are right. But as these discussions relate to the recent Thai elections ---- and nothing along the lines you describe occurred--- I am at a bit of a loss as where you are going with this..........

I was simply disagreeing with your point that simply because a by-election is called for that somehow vote-buying and other election law infractions stop. It doesn't. If you didn't mean that from the portion of your post I quoted, please clarify.

The point I attempt to make --- & I target those who have no knowledge of Isaan but choose to "parrot" the inaccurate party line. . I don't want this to turn into a book --- so I shall hit but a few points ....... Starting with : Where is Isaan??

< unnecessary geography and demographics lesson snipped >

Universities ----well... yeah--we have many thanks!! I have visited six in the last 2 months ( daughter seeking one ) Many applicants from Bangkok ------ Gee..... wont they be contaminated by the "stupid"- "ignorant"- "low IQ -- Isaaneese"??-- ( To the brain-dead racists --- if I have missed any of your adjectives/adverbs-- I apologize -- I am from Isaan.) Just in case my poor attempt at ironic sarcasm has not worked --- Your < uncalled for flaming snipped >

Those who think the intelligent and hard working people of Isaan are so stupid

I've never thought or said that.

Edited December 4, 2008 by sriracha john

[Plus]

This Mithran fellow is a puzzle.

How could he NOT know that Skytrain was build and opened before Thaksin?

Not to mention that he grew up in the UK, hasn't stepped a foot in a Thai school himself, yet preaches how Thai middle classes live here like colonists out of touch with reality. He couldn't be THAT hypocritical, could he?

[henryalleman]

Nothing is very pretty,

but the alternative is not even up to nasty,

it slides quickly down to abysmal.

Animatic, you wrote in another post (which I can't locate right now) something to the effect that you feel it right to go in the same direction as PAD while not sharing all their goals - do correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said in any material way.

That being the case (and because you appear to be the thinker/philosopher among the pro-PAD zealots here), I would remind you that history is littered with examples of those moderates who hitched a ride with those "going in the same direction" - and then couldn't get off.

For myself, I don't need to check out the track-record of General Pallop Pinmanee or summon up images of other "re-educations" (Khmer Rouge, Red Guards etc) to be more than a little perturbed by what I read in the PAD leader's paper that Plus recommended as the "horse's mouth".

I've mentioned before that I find the notion that a weakened/discredited Thaksin could now come back and re-assume power really difficult to credit. Assume, just for argument's sake, that he can and does; just how long do you think the military would leave him there? Yet this is the "boogey man" argument that you reach for every time to justify most (all?) the agenda of PAD and their not-so-hidden-hand feudal backers.

On the positive side, I can maybe see one good thing coming from this mess. Corruption (in many of its forms, anyway) is now way up there in the consciousness of many more Thai people than before. Maybe, just maybe, because of this catharsis the next election will be that significant bit cleaner and more Thai people will take seriously the "say no to vote-buying" TV and print campaign that runs before elections here - and realise that the 100/200 baht they can get from candidates works out to be a high price to pay for the new road to their village getting only half-built or the new school costing twice what it should.............. and all the myriad examples of higher-level corruption you can cite.

If that proved to be the case, even I might think the current mess and turmoil could turn out to have been worthwhile - just. But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda - to me that looks more and more like tipping out the baby with the bath water.

As educated people like I hope you all are you know the difference between an political movement and a political party. So please I urge you to stop to pretend that the PAD is an political party. You can disagree with them, but this is no reason to spread disinformation.

The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already.

To state the blindingly obvious (well - IMO obvious to any objective thinker), to question or disagree with PAD policies/proposals is not to "hate" them. I may be in a minority, but I still hold the belief that disagreeing with an idea does not automatically lead to hating the the person/people who have the idea.

Please point out where in the above post or in any of my other posts I am "suggesting that the PAD is a political party" - let alone constantly.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda

If this is not suggesting that the PAD is an political party, can you explain me than what you mean by this statement.

Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by/who constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party.

By this sentence I DID NOT accuse you to be an PAD hatred, I only say that you show the same ill will as the PAD haters. I will change by to who. maybe this is more appropriate.

But I think you can't deny that their are many PAD haters on TV forum. Otherwise why they use words like scum, and suggest that they should be killed or wiped out.

I'm glad that you distancing yourself from those people.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

I'm sure I read it some topic. But I will ask my general to look it up in some website of PAD.

But to avoid further misunderstandings, I also am firmly against an eventual 70/30 proposal because it is undemocratic, and a violation of human rights.

[henryalleman]

I read all the books of Ian Kershaw but hes wrong.

For those members who may not have heard of Sir Ian Kershaw I add a short piece feom the Washington Post.I leave it to your judgement whether more faith should be put in the pre-eminent Third Reich historian of our times or the poster above.Best of all is to read his books, a one volume abridged -though still hefty- version of Hitler being available in Bangkok bookstores.

"As Italy fell to the Allies, and Hitler moved to crush the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, Ian Kershaw was born in Oldham, a mill town not far from the "cottonopolis" of Manchester, England. His father was a mechanic; his mother a worker in the cotton mills. But the Depression had taken a toll, and his father was unemployed, playing saxophone in a dance band as the war raged, trying to maintain what Kershaw remembers as "an extremely happy" if bookless house. By the '50s, his father had opened a small grocery shop, which he ran until his death in 1969.

The Writing Life: Ian Kershaw

Ian Kershaw: Casting Light on the Shadows

Kershaw never imagined he would be a writer. In his early teens he flirted with the notion of sports journalism but decided impulsively on academics and began to develop, "rather late in my school years," a strong and abiding interest in history.

Schooled at St. Bede's, Liverpool University and, later, Oxford, he thought he'd be a medievalist, but by his 20s he had changed course. Working closely with West German historian Martin Broszat on his "Bavaria Project," Kershaw began studying the cult of Hitler. The result was a seminal work, The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich.

Kershaw, now 65 and retired from the department of modern history at Sheffield University, is widely regarded as the world's leading expert on Adolf Hitler. His books include: Hitler: A Profile in Power; Fateful Choices; and his most recent, just out this summer, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution. Six years ago, the Queen awarded him a knighthood for his steady and numerous "services to history."

"I have never thought of myself as having a 'writing career,' " he says. He considers himself first and foremost a university professor. But insofar as writing has become the focus of his work, his big break was unquestionably the appearance of his two-volume biography: Hitler: Hubris and Hitler: Nemesis.

When asked what he has learned from his immersion in Nazism, he replies that "the Third Reich shows in vivid form our terrible capacity for evil. But it is important to temper this pessimistic view of human nature with our immense capacity for good. Humanity has -- and has had throughout history -- a Janus face"

I only oppose his statement that Germany had a democracy during the interbellum.

Ian Kershaw also wrote a double biography Hitler/Stalin where he pointed out the similarities between them.

[jdinasia]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

[thaiwanderer]

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

Announcement Number 20/2008

People's Alliance for Democracy

On "New Politics"

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has been gathering continuously to protect the Constitution to prevent it from being used as a tool in laundering the wrongdoings of Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates, to eradicate the Thaksin regime, to chase out the proxy government, and to pave the way for new politics in the Kingdom of Thailand.

For unity and clarity of the rally, the PAD wants to announce the direction of new politics for the Kingdom of Thailand as follows:

1. The current political system should be condemned as electioneers monopolize electoral constituencies and businesspeople. Vote-buying and electoral fraud exist through using local influence to threaten the public. State authority is abused and money is used to win elections at all costs on the weakness and corrupt activities of some Election Commission officials, who cannot ensure a fair and just election.

With elections riddled with fraud and vote-buying, Thai politics has turned into "money politics." Politicians have to pay back to their sponsors through corruption, violation of the law, and violation of the oath they gave to His Majesty the King when they took office. They sell their country as was seen from how this administration violated the Constitution, as ruled by the Constitution Court, in signing the joint communiqué which allowed Cambodia to register Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site by itself. They seek benefits for themselves and their cronies and abuse the Parliamentary system by utilizing their majority vote to support the ruling coalition in unethical endeavors, turning Parliament into a dictatorship of capitalism.

As most politicians in the system strive to seek benefits for themselves and their cronies, the checks and balance system from the judiciary, the media, and the public are damaged, destroyed, and threatened.

The judiciary system has been damaged and destroyed through the transfer of state officials to put politicians' associates into power. The Administrative and Legislative branches have jointly tried to amend the Constitution to lower the authority of the judiciary and the checks and balance system. Corrupt politicians try to bribe the judiciary system. The media sees interference. People who are exercising their rights to gather against the government have been injured by the police and thugs backed by the government. All of this contribute to the efforts to destroy the country's checks and balance system to cover up the evil of politicians. Attempts also exist to lessen the power of the monarchy for absolute control by politicians.

Even if politicians resign or a House dissolution occurs, Thai politics will continue in this vicious cycle if no efforts are made to reform it.

For a sustainable future of the country, the PAD sees that it is necessary for new politics in the Kingdom of Thailand.

2. New politics for the Kingdom of Thailand is true democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy with the following goals:

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

2.2 The public must be allowed participation in politics. New politics will not only see politicians elected from constituencies but will see representation from all sectors, such as representatives from different vocations and groups. This will be designed by a Constitution that sees public participation to ensure a true democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy.

3. To ensure that new politics is introduced in the Kingdom of Thailand, the PAD announces the following stance:

3.1 The PAD sees its first goal as chasing out this proxy government that has sold the country. It is not necessary for negotiations with any group that sees otherwise.

We support changes to the current political situation on the condition that political reform must happen and the public must be allowed participation in politics. There must also be sincere efforts to solve the evil in the Thaksin regime through the judiciary system.

The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions. It is not a fixed formula advocated by the PAD. We are ready for a discussion from all sides on designing new politics and will respect the majority decision for new politics that is ethical, moral, and more representative of the varied social sectors to go in line with the lifestyles and culture of Thailand but still upholding democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy.

With deep respect,

People's Alliance for Democracy

Monday, September 08, 2008

Government House

[henryalleman]

I read all the books of Ian Kershaw but hes wrong.

For those members who may not have heard of Sir Ian Kershaw I add a short piece feom the Washington Post.I leave it to your judgement whether more faith should be put in the pre-eminent Third Reich historian of our times or the poster above.Best of all is to read his books, a one volume abridged -though still hefty- version of Hitler being available in Bangkok bookstores.

"As Italy fell to the Allies, and Hitler moved to crush the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, Ian Kershaw was born in Oldham, a mill town not far from the "cottonopolis" of Manchester, England. His father was a mechanic; his mother a worker in the cotton mills. But the Depression had taken a toll, and his father was unemployed, playing saxophone in a dance band as the war raged, trying to maintain what Kershaw remembers as "an extremely happy" if bookless house. By the '50s, his father had opened a small grocery shop, which he ran until his death in 1969.

The Writing Life: Ian Kershaw

Ian Kershaw: Casting Light on the Shadows

Kershaw never imagined he would be a writer. In his early teens he flirted with the notion of sports journalism but decided impulsively on academics and began to develop, "rather late in my school years," a strong and abiding interest in history.

Schooled at St. Bede's, Liverpool University and, later, Oxford, he thought he'd be a medievalist, but by his 20s he had changed course. Working closely with West German historian Martin Broszat on his "Bavaria Project," Kershaw began studying the cult of Hitler. The result was a seminal work, The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich.

Kershaw, now 65 and retired from the department of modern history at Sheffield University, is widely regarded as the world's leading expert on Adolf Hitler. His books include: Hitler: A Profile in Power; Fateful Choices; and his most recent, just out this summer, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution. Six years ago, the Queen awarded him a knighthood for his steady and numerous "services to history."

"I have never thought of myself as having a 'writing career,' " he says. He considers himself first and foremost a university professor. But insofar as writing has become the focus of his work, his big break was unquestionably the appearance of his two-volume biography: Hitler: Hubris and Hitler: Nemesis.

When asked what he has learned from his immersion in Nazism, he replies that "the Third Reich shows in vivid form our terrible capacity for evil. But it is important to temper this pessimistic view of human nature with our immense capacity for good. Humanity has -- and has had throughout history -- a Janus face"

Yes, we are in danger of lurching off-topic - but it's useful to be reminded of a nicely balanced view as expressed by Kershaw in the last paragraph of the quote above. 100% agree with it. Having studied the period for some years, I'll also endorse Kershaw as one of the better-researched and more objective writers about it.

As to "Germany never had an democracy till 1946"................ So, it seems the Weimar Republic never happened?

Weimar Republic

Following World War I, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919 a national assembly convened in the city of Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, to be adopted on 11 August. This attempt to re-establish Germany as a liberal democracy failed with the ascent of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933. Although technically the 1919 Weimar constitution was not invalidated until after World War II, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in February and March 1933, commonly known as Gleichschaltung, destroyed the mechanisms of a true democracy. Therefore 1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic and as the beginning of Hitler's "Third Reich".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

Yes, I know it's only Wikipaedia - but is henryalleman seriously denying it happened?

And the same member accuses me of spreading disinformation...............

i don't deny the Weimar republic at all. But the so called Weimar republic was chaos all over, where people payed 10 milion reichsmark for a bread in the morning and in the aftrernoon 30 million reichsmark. Its was a democratic failure. I'm willing to discus this extensivly, but this topic is about Thai politics. But if the webmasters open an specialised forum about it I will participate with great enthousiasme But till than because

[tig28]

I've never thought or said that.

Hi SJ

I just reread my rather disjointed post. Only the first para ---my observations of money matters in the NE and the last line was intended to be addressed to you.

All betwixt was MOST CERTAINLY not intended as any kind of "shot" at you. I do not even dream that you need this info from me.

The Geo lesson -- my anti bigot tirade was never intended to be directed at you. It is obvious to me now that by the poor structuring of my post that any not familiar with your views and writing style --- could reasonably interpret that I was directing all my words at you.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I apologize for any unintended slur on my part.

Whilst I frequently disagree with SJ --- I respect his views which are always presented in an intelligent and reasonable manner. Sometimes he is even correct.

[Steve2UK]

Nothing is very pretty,

but the alternative is not even up to nasty,

it slides quickly down to abysmal.

Animatic, you wrote in another post (which I can't locate right now) something to the effect that you feel it right to go in the same direction as PAD while not sharing all their goals - do correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said in any material way.

That being the case (and because you appear to be the thinker/philosopher among the pro-PAD zealots here), I would remind you that history is littered with examples of those moderates who hitched a ride with those "going in the same direction" - and then couldn't get off.

For myself, I don't need to check out the track-record of General Pallop Pinmanee or summon up images of other "re-educations" (Khmer Rouge, Red Guards etc) to be more than a little perturbed by what I read in the PAD leader's paper that Plus recommended as the "horse's mouth".

I've mentioned before that I find the notion that a weakened/discredited Thaksin could now come back and re-assume power really difficult to credit. Assume, just for argument's sake, that he can and does; just how long do you think the military would leave him there? Yet this is the "boogey man" argument that you reach for every time to justify most (all?) the agenda of PAD and their not-so-hidden-hand feudal backers.

On the positive side, I can maybe see one good thing coming from this mess. Corruption (in many of its forms, anyway) is now way up there in the consciousness of many more Thai people than before. Maybe, just maybe, because of this catharsis the next election will be that significant bit cleaner and more Thai people will take seriously the "say no to vote-buying" TV and print campaign that runs before elections here - and realise that the 100/200 baht they can get from candidates works out to be a high price to pay for the new road to their village getting only half-built or the new school costing twice what it should.............. and all the myriad examples of higher-level corruption you can cite.

If that proved to be the case, even I might think the current mess and turmoil could turn out to have been worthwhile - just. But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda - to me that looks more and more like tipping out the baby with the bath water.

As educated people like I hope you all are you know the difference between an political movement and a political party. So please I urge you to stop to pretend that the PAD is an political party. You can disagree with them, but this is no reason to spread disinformation.

The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already.

To state the blindingly obvious (well - IMO obvious to any objective thinker), to question or disagree with PAD policies/proposals is not to "hate" them. I may be in a minority, but I still hold the belief that disagreeing with an idea does not automatically lead to hating the the person/people who have the idea.

Please point out where in the above post or in any of my other posts I am "suggesting that the PAD is a political party" - let alone constantly.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda

If this is not suggesting that the PAD is an political party, can you explain me than what you mean by this statement.

Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by/who constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party.

By this sentence I DID NOT accuse you to be an PAD hatred, I only say that you show the same ill will as the PAD haters. I will change by to who. maybe this is more appropriate.

But I think you can't deny that their are many PAD haters on TV forum. Otherwise why they use words like scum, and suggest that they should be killed or wiped out.

I'm glad that you distancing yourself from those people.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

I'm sure I read it some topic. But I will ask my general to look it up in some website of PAD.

But to avoid further misunderstandings, I also am firmly against an eventual 70/30 proposal because it is undemocratic, and a violation of human rights.

HA (short for henryalleman not laughing - before someone who types quicker than he/she thinks jumps in yet again), I said in another thread on the General sub-forum ("How Do You Think That Thai Visa Should Handle Political Threads About Thailand, Let us rip each other's throats out?" Post #27) that I have decided not to participate further in what's going on in these News Clippings threads and why. You have taken the time and trouble to respond properly to my previous post, so I will return the courtesy and respond properly to yours. I will do the same if I see a reply from h90 in response to my as yet unanswered previous question to him ("P A D: Entire Cabinet Must Leave Office" Post #103). Other than that, I have no further interest in being part of the knee-jerk semantic/fact-bending ping-pong that purports to be "debate" here - from whichever side it comes.

IMO, power comes in many forms - of which only one is a constituted political party. I'm thinking, for example, of pressure groups or of the "Establishment" (as we would call it in the UK) or "lobbies" - particularly in the US (as Jimmy Carter ruefully admits - no candidate stands a chance of getting elected president without positively taking the very powerful pro-Israel lobby into account). Similarly, Karl Rove is widely credited with getting Bush re-elected by harnessing the "power" of the US religious conservatives - but let me not stray further off-topic. Let's agree that PAD is a pressure group, OK? The point that I was trying to make is that a pressure group that gains the power ("ability" if you prefer that term) to get 2 PM's and a government out of office (PAD clearly claim that's what they wanted and celebrate their victory in achieving it) calls for examination as to what their whole agenda is. My study and view of history makes me think that such "non-party" forces are worrying. If anything, I would prefer that they are constituted as a political party - so that there can be at least some kind of valid test as to their legitimacy and popular support. But that's a whole other issue and also too complex to explore here.

I appreciate that English is your second language (maybe third after Flemish and French), so I also appreciate your clarification of what you intended to say ("Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by/who constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party.

By this sentence I DID NOT accuse you to be an PAD hatred, I only say that you show the same ill will as the PAD haters. I will change by to who. maybe this is more appropriate"). In return, I hope that you will also appreciate that when I queried what you said in its original form I could only take it at face-value and from the English as it was written. Being Anglo-German (bi-lingual) myself and reasonably proficient in some other languages, I have a sense of how things easily get confused in transfer from one language to another. That being the case, I never stoop to picking up others on what is almost certainly a result of them having less familiarity with my first language than I do - any more than I would for typographical errors. IMO, doing either is cheap, demeaning and intellectually bankrupt - and says more about the critic than the criticised. Others please note.

It would be foolish to deny that there are many "PAD-haters" on this forum. I think you won't be surprised when I say the same about there being many "PPP-haters" here. IMO, "hate" as such in any form is inherently irrational - and equally inherently tends to blind people from arriving at a comprehensive/balanced/objective view of causes, effects and possible practical solutions. I hope you will see from my post to Animatic (that you quote) and other posts that I try to find that view. Incidentally, I also disagree that I show "ill will" in my posts - it would be just a diluted form of "hate". If I have shown any, it's a regrettable lapse from the standard that I try to maintain in normal debate. You may be referring to comments I made directly to one member about his posts - but I think I don't need to expand here on what I already expressed and explained in that post.

Finally, regarding the "70:30" proposal and whether or not it has been dropped, I think you will agree that it's a major issue. You say that you're against it (as I am also) - but that's really not important compared to whether it really is now definitely dropped by PAD. By any standards, it has been a major and very significant plank in PAD's platform - and has IMO rightly triggered a huge amount of discussion here and elsewhere. On that basis, it would surely have to be major news that it was now no longer PAD policy and no longer part of their "New Politics" even as an option/example. Apart from ThaiVisa, I have also been following events and reports from many other sources (Nation, Bangkok Post, Bangkok Pundit, TOC and more) and have (so far) never seen any mention of it being dropped. With respect, you seeing it on someone else's post (maybe even from h90 - which prompted me to ask for confirmation the first time?) is really not justification for accusing me of "spreading disinformation". But, these things happen; if nothing else, it's a good example to explain further (if that's necessary) why I now have no interest in continuing to participate in what's going on here.

[animatic]

Discussion of MANY types of 'possible newly regenerated politics' was instigated by

The PAD's 70:30 idea. if you read the last paragraph they CLEARLY say it is a talking point

for discussion of what 'ONE idea might be' that solves some of the core issues at hand.

They NEVER say this is their 'platform for the next government'.

Just that it is only AN idea for discussion.

And it HAS cause volumes of discussion; job done.

Of course many are so polarized that recognition of anything positive from PAD is

reason to flame or denigrate a poster. Why is it so easy to believe that they have

never had any good ideas, because they have also had some very bad ones...?

TRT has had good and bad ideas, and same for PPP, but some people

INSIST that ALL their ideas are good and none are bad. Patently wrong.

How can both sides be so blinded by harsh feelings

TO NOT SEE EACH ENTITY FOR WHAT IT IS,

rather than our wishful, rose color, imaginings of what they should or might be?

Of course the general TENOR of discussion goes in the hopper, and up in decibel,

when this comcept is bandied about as the final PAD idea and the be all end all of their programs.

It amazes me the VITROL displayed here, and the on and off forum insults given out...

Oh, gee a moderate...!

QUICK, QUICK hammer it back down before anyone sees!

Edited December 4, 2008 by animatic

[LaoPo]

Discussion of MANY types of 'possible newly regenerated politics' was instigated by

The PAD's 70:30 idea. if you read the last paragraph they CLEARLY say it is a talking point

for discussion of what 'ONE idea might be' that solves some of the core issues at hand.

They NEVER say this is their 'platform for the next government'.

Just that it is only AN idea for discussion.!

Allow me to comment here Animatic.

You see, that's the problem...the proposed IDEA for a constitutional amendment was dead wrong in the first place.

It doesn't matter if some members are defending the PAD that they withdrew that proposal of 70:30 and changed it a bit into 50:50; it doesn't matter at all because the IDEA, again: IDEA is so dead wrong and a clear insult to the people of Thailand in general to begin with !

WHO was going to make the decision if one (poor farmer?) was educated, intelligent and 'fit' enough to vote or not ?

That alone, is so absolute disgusting and it reminds me of even worse episodes in the 20th century whereby people were also 'chosen'...for better or worse; chosen by some individuals who knew better than the ordinary.... The IDEA by the PAD makes me puke, literally !

Who on earth do the PAD think they are that they -as a NON political party (yet)- are even able to think that they could bring up the IDEA for a discussion about 70:30 or 50:50...?

It simply disgusts me and so it should for every single Farang here in Thailand who was born and raised in a real democracy...a real free country where people are PROUD to be able to vote:

1 man - 1 vote

And, I find it simply unbelievable that you support this, along with some other members, Animatic ! You, coming from the strongest nation on earth, are supporting this IDEA by the PAD and now telling us that it was just an idea....?; UNBELIEVABLE !

Complete nations fought for their voting rights; liberated themselves and are PROUD now to be able to vote and the PAD wants to change all that in Thailand because a certain Mr. Sondhi said that the uneducated rural poor in Thailand are not fit to vote.

What a sad day the moment he even said that...even thought of that

What a sick mind this man must have.

From Wikipedia WITH sources !***

"Representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand," noted Sondhi Limthongkul, claiming that electoral systems have repeatedly elected allegedly corrupt populist governments.[44] To correct this problem, the PAD has proposed what it called "New Politics." Although most of its leaders supported, and in some cases, helped draft the post-coup 2007 Constitution, the PAD has proposed constitutional amendments that would make 70% of Parliament would be selected, based on professional groups, with elections accounting for only 30%.[45][46] On 21 September, the PAD changed its formula to 100% elections, but with 50% of Parliament voted for by geographic area and another 50% voted for by occupational representatives.[47][48][49]

Note:

Please I ask everybody who reads this to read the last sentence -in blue- 2 or 3 times and than tell me whether this ''hidden'' agenda would be acceptable to any democracy or .......................Thailand...

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Al...e_for_Democracy

LaoPo

[sriracha john]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

[younghusband]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

So what.There are some very creepy posters on this forum, fortunately a small minority.They don't like being skewered.Moving on here's a piece from Farrelly/Walker on the longer term consequences of the fascists' airport outrage

Thai airport protesters' victory short-lived

Nicholas Farrelly and Andrew Walker December 04, 2008

After months of escalating protests in Bangkok, the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy has demonstrated an almost mythical capacity for extreme provocation.

Their impunity has been astounding. The courts have failed to stop their illegal actions. And now the Thai judiciary has taken a key step in the wider campaign against the elected government.

On Tuesday 2 December, the Constitutional Court dissolved the ruling People Power Party and banned the prime minister from politics for five years. The protesters, who have occupied Bangkok's airports for a week, are claiming a victory in their 'final battle'. Amidst their cheers they have agreed to end their airport occupations.

Taking over the Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang airports was the most recent act of brinksmanship in a series of audacious attacks on the government. In many other countries the continuation and escalation of such attacks would have been impossible. The police and army, at the first hint of an attempt to seize such crucial national infrastructure, would have quickly called for reinforcements.

Those reinforcements would likely have come with water cannons, tear gas and truncheons. In some countries tanks may have been mobilised. Riot police, bristling with firepower and government backing, would have moved, within hours, to re-take the physical, if not the moral, high ground.

Under such circumstances, there would have been little restraint. In fact, in some countries the invasion of airports by well-armed protestors would be considered an act of terrorism.

The Thai security forces have not seen it that way. In fact, with the latest court ruling, it is the government, and not the protesters, that attracted the most serious judicial ire.

But this is far from the end. The government is down, but not out. It has survived previous judicial, military and protest action against it. Even after the most recent setback in the Constitutional Court it will not shy away from a fight.

The prime minister and 12 cabinet members have been banned from politics for five years because they are on the executive of the dissolved ruling party. But most of the government MPs escaped the ban and they will now quickly move to join a new party that was specifically set up for this eventuality. All the signs are that the government will continue to hold a majority of the seats in the parliament.

So, the protesters celebrations may be short-lived. The prime minister is gone, but the government remains in place. After a respectful lull for the king's birthday, which falls tomorrow, they will probably resume their protest action to get rid of the government once and for all.

They will launch yet another phase in their 'final battle' to institute 'new politics' where elected politicians play a subordinate role to unelected statesmen, judges, civil servants and military commanders. This is the anti-democratic agenda of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

With that agenda on full public display, Thai politics has now entered a new and unpredictable phase. Analysts speculate that the courts may go beyond party dissolution and completely overturn the result of the December 2007 election.

If that happens, or if the military stage a coup to prevent further deterioration in civil order, the anti-government protesters would push hard for an appointed government. Thailand would be staring down the barrel of a future without scheduled elections.

This would almost inevitably bring pro-government forces onto the streets in massive numbers. So far their rallies have been largely peaceful but their restraint in the face of anti-democratic provocation and impunity surely has its limits. If the pent-up fury of the pro-government forces is let loose then things could get very ugly indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicholas Farrelly and Andrew Walker are Southeast Asia specialists at The Australian National University. Together they co-founded New Mandala, a website that provides ongoing commentary on developments in Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia.

[sriracha john]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

So what.

Indeed. So what. No need to adhere to forum rules, is there?

[younghusband]

Indeed. So what. No need to adhere to forum rules, is there?

I always try to abide by forum rules.

Don't be so sanctimonious - you have often had posts snipped or deleted by mods.

[permanent_disorder]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

So what.

Indeed. So what. No need to adhere to forum rules, is there?

There have been comparisons made in recent weeks between the rallies in Bangkok and the mobilizing of fascist, anti-democratic groups on the streets of Europe many decades ago. But it is in this targeting and redirecting of the work done by the courts that current events most closely resemble those of 1930s Germany.

In the Weimar period, the judiciary was increasingly manipulated and used to serve a particular set of interests, those of the emerging Nazis and their allies, against their political opponents. The courts throughout this time stuck to the letter of the law while defying its spirit, hollowing it out so that virtually anything could be made to fit inside but still be defended in legal terms.

Among the types of political cases brought to the courts, there was a category of artificially-created offenses, in which a crime may technically have been committed within the narrow terms of a statute but could only be made sensible if divorced from its historical and social setting, and reduced to minute details.

....

Awzar Thi

[sriracha john]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

So what.

Indeed. So what. No need to adhere to forum rules, is there?

I always try to abide by forum rules.

but continually fall short of the mark...

Don't be so sanctimonious - you have often had posts snipped or deleted by mods.

For flaming? Not in a year... whereas yours was just over 2 days ago. Coupled with your far greater number of infractions in less than half the time and less than 1/12th the number of posts... it's not really a valid comparison now, is it?

but nevermind... please proceed. I'm out for the day.

Edited December 5, 2008 by sriracha john

[younghusband]

The Guardian's class biases are well known. You can ALWAYS find commentators

to back up ANY premise if you are looking to do so.

Thanks.That's another comical excuse to add to the long collection of reasons why the foreign press cannot be trusted on Thai matters.Best rely on the creepy band of farang wannabe gauleiters permanantly hunched , it almost seems, over their laptops, save for the occasional waddle to the fridge.

Yet another attempted flame of your fellow posters?

even more of the same... but worse...

some of creepy fascist sympathisers

- that crawl over this forum like cockroaches.

So what.

Indeed. So what. No need to adhere to forum rules, is there?

I always try to abide by forum rules.

but continually fall short of the mark...

Don't be so sanctimonious - you have often had posts snipped or deleted by mods.

For flaming? Not in a year... whereas yours was just over 2 days ago. Coupled with your far greater number of infractions in less than half the time and less than 1/12th the number of posts... it's not really a valid comparison now, is it?

but nevermind... please proceed. I'm out for the day.

Valid enough to justify a charge of hypocrisy.

[LaoPo]

Can we -PLEASE- bring this topic back to the OP, which is called:

P A D -bkk Protesters Aim To ‘re-educate’ Rural Thais

Thanks.

LaoPo

[samgrowth]

Best way to esducate is to provide free ASTV to everyhome. And force people to watch it.

[permanent_disorder]

Best way to esducate is to provide free ASTV to everyhome. And force people to watch it.

is that a joke?

the best way to start with education is turn off the TV. next step is start to read.

[animatic]

Discussion of MANY types of 'possible newly regenerated politics' was instigated by

The PAD's 70:30 idea. if you read the last paragraph they CLEARLY say it is a talking point

for discussion of what 'ONE idea might be' that solves some of the core issues at hand.

They NEVER say this is their 'platform for the next government'.

Just that it is only AN idea for discussion.!

Allow me to comment here Animatic.

You see, that's the problem...the proposed IDEA for a constitutional amendment was dead wrong in the first place.

It simply disgusts me and so it should for every single Farang here in Thailand who was born and raised in a real democracy...a real free country where people are PROUD to be able to vote:

1 man - 1 vote

And, I find it simply unbelievable that you support this, along with some other members, Animatic ! You, coming from the strongest nation on earth, are supporting this IDEA by the PAD and now telling us that it was just an idea....?; UNBELIEVABLE !

LaoPo

Excuse me, but you make my point for the rest of my post quite well.

It is unbelievable that I support it. Why?

I never said I supported this proposal.

You keep implying that I do...

I don't believe you should do this, but you do.

Twist your opponents words to fit your argument.

That goes to the slap a moderate if he isn't on your side of the fence argument.

Anyone willing to listen to both extremes and subscribe to neither is arbitrarily lumped

with the worst cases of the opposing side. Problem is the fence moves left and right

depending, on from which extreme it is being viewed from....

As to the strongest nation on the earth,

I haven't believed American is properly functioning democracy for some time.

Not in the purist sense bandied about here so often.

Big money and corruption has co-opted the process and prevented 'One Man One Vote',

from taking on it's rightful place in society. It's better than several other places.

I was so disgusted with the politicized landscape last visit and the concurrent re-election of Bush,

I came to Thailand rather then move back after years in Europe.

When we get saddled with Bush for 4 more years, in spite of all glaring facts,

and I could go there and be disgusted with the stiffling of ALL speech counter to the

conservative program, no matter how light, and then came here and eventually saw

glaring similarities between administrations and their tactics, then I can say it's not

working right here also, and likely even worse. It took a decent into hel_l for enough

Americans to wake up, and also enough business interests to back away from Bush.

It took a re-education of Middle ground American's to elect an Obama.

It took an over reaching rapacious government to finally disgust enough of the populace.

That re-education didn't build a land of neo-communists, thought some arch conservatives

think that's the end direction. People had to learn what was wrong to fix it.

People have to learn the extremes to find the middle ground.

Social Science courses teach Stalin/Lenin style Communism, as well as Shakerism,

and Fascisim and Neo-CONservatism and old style conservatisim, and Liberetarianism,

and A BUNCH of things most people don't want to EVER use, because it gives PERSEPECTIVE

on what we CAN use. Unless the general discussion is shouted down by anti-free-idea idolters..

So the point being it is not, and never has been, as cut and dried here as many make it out to be.

But the tenor of the arguements are so bilious that it's difficult to even present ideas, wrong headed or not,

with out charactitured opposition voices attempting to shout it down, rather than present another solution,

that brings the argument back to center.

I never said I supported 70:30 I only said it was something to think about.

But some some people think that 'thinking is a bad thing if they don't like an idea'.

Edited December 5, 2008 by animatic

[henryalleman]

Nothing is very pretty,

but the alternative is not even up to nasty,

it slides quickly down to abysmal.

Animatic, you wrote in another post (which I can't locate right now) something to the effect that you feel it right to go in the same direction as PAD while not sharing all their goals - do correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you said in any material way.

That being the case (and because you appear to be the thinker/philosopher among the pro-PAD zealots here), I would remind you that history is littered with examples of those moderates who hitched a ride with those "going in the same direction" - and then couldn't get off.

For myself, I don't need to check out the track-record of General Pallop Pinmanee or summon up images of other "re-educations" (Khmer Rouge, Red Guards etc) to be more than a little perturbed by what I read in the PAD leader's paper that Plus recommended as the "horse's mouth".

I've mentioned before that I find the notion that a weakened/discredited Thaksin could now come back and re-assume power really difficult to credit. Assume, just for argument's sake, that he can and does; just how long do you think the military would leave him there? Yet this is the "boogey man" argument that you reach for every time to justify most (all?) the agenda of PAD and their not-so-hidden-hand feudal backers.

On the positive side, I can maybe see one good thing coming from this mess. Corruption (in many of its forms, anyway) is now way up there in the consciousness of many more Thai people than before. Maybe, just maybe, because of this catharsis the next election will be that significant bit cleaner and more Thai people will take seriously the "say no to vote-buying" TV and print campaign that runs before elections here - and realise that the 100/200 baht they can get from candidates works out to be a high price to pay for the new road to their village getting only half-built or the new school costing twice what it should.............. and all the myriad examples of higher-level corruption you can cite.

If that proved to be the case, even I might think the current mess and turmoil could turn out to have been worthwhile - just. But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda - to me that looks more and more like tipping out the baby with the bath water.

As educated people like I hope you all are you know the difference between an political movement and a political party. So please I urge you to stop to pretend that the PAD is an political party. You can disagree with them, but this is no reason to spread disinformation.

The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already.

To state the blindingly obvious (well - IMO obvious to any objective thinker), to question or disagree with PAD policies/proposals is not to "hate" them. I may be in a minority, but I still hold the belief that disagreeing with an idea does not automatically lead to hating the the person/people who have the idea.

Please point out where in the above post or in any of my other posts I am "suggesting that the PAD is a political party" - let alone constantly.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

But dropping power firmly into the hands of PAD & Co with their agenda

If this is not suggesting that the PAD is an political party, can you explain me than what you mean by this statement.

Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by/who constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party.

By this sentence I DID NOT accuse you to be an PAD hatred, I only say that you show the same ill will as the PAD haters. I will change by to who. maybe this is more appropriate.

But I think you can't deny that their are many PAD haters on TV forum. Otherwise why they use words like scum, and suggest that they should be killed or wiped out.

I'm glad that you distancing yourself from those people.

"The same go's for the 70/30 proposal the PAD rejected it already" - I already asked the same question yesterday in the "PPP dissolved" thread:

"First I've heard of this - anyone confirm? And when?". No answer yet; so, again - please direct me to where it can be confirmed.

I'm sure I read it some topic. But I will ask my general to look it up in some website of PAD.

But to avoid further misunderstandings, I also am firmly against an eventual 70/30 proposal because it is undemocratic, and a violation of human rights.

HA (short for henryalleman not laughing - before someone who types quicker than he/she thinks jumps in yet again), I said in another thread on the General sub-forum ("How Do You Think That Thai Visa Should Handle Political Threads About Thailand, Let us rip each other's throats out?" Post #27) that I have decided not to participate further in what's going on in these News Clippings threads and why. You have taken the time and trouble to respond properly to my previous post, so I will return the courtesy and respond properly to yours. I will do the same if I see a reply from h90 in response to my as yet unanswered previous question to him ("P A D: Entire Cabinet Must Leave Office" Post #103). Other than that, I have no further interest in being part of the knee-jerk semantic/fact-bending ping-pong that purports to be "debate" here - from whichever side it comes.

IMO, power comes in many forms - of which only one is a constituted political party. I'm thinking, for example, of pressure groups or of the "Establishment" (as we would call it in the UK) or "lobbies" - particularly in the US (as Jimmy Carter ruefully admits - no candidate stands a chance of getting elected president without positively taking the very powerful pro-Israel lobby into account). Similarly, Karl Rove is widely credited with getting Bush re-elected by harnessing the "power" of the US religious conservatives - but let me not stray further off-topic. Let's agree that PAD is a pressure group, OK? The point that I was trying to make is that a pressure group that gains the power ("ability" if you prefer that term) to get 2 PM's and a government out of office (PAD clearly claim that's what they wanted and celebrate their victory in achieving it) calls for examination as to what their whole agenda is. My study and view of history makes me think that such "non-party" forces are worrying. If anything, I would prefer that they are constituted as a political party - so that there can be at least some kind of valid test as to their legitimacy and popular support. But that's a whole other issue and also too complex to explore here.

I appreciate that English is your second language (maybe third after Flemish and French), so I also appreciate your clarification of what you intended to say ("Like many of the PAD haters you show clear ill will by/who constantly suggesting that the PAD is a political party.

By this sentence I DID NOT accuse you to be an PAD hatred, I only say that you show the same ill will as the PAD haters. I will change by to who. maybe this is more appropriate"). In return, I hope that you will also appreciate that when I queried what you said in its original form I could only take it at face-value and from the English as it was written. Being Anglo-German (bi-lingual) myself and reasonably proficient in some other languages, I have a sense of how things easily get confused in transfer from one language to another. That being the case, I never stoop to picking up others on what is almost certainly a result of them having less familiarity with my first language than I do - any more than I would for typographical errors. IMO, doing either is cheap, demeaning and intellectually bankrupt - and says more about the critic than the criticised. Others please note.

It would be foolish to deny that there are many "PAD-haters" on this forum. I think you won't be surprised when I say the same about there being many "PPP-haters" here. IMO, "hate" as such in any form is inherently irrational - and equally inherently tends to blind people from arriving at a comprehensive/balanced/objective view of causes, effects and possible practical solutions. I hope you will see from my post to Animatic (that you quote) and other posts that I try to find that view. Incidentally, I also disagree that I show "ill will" in my posts - it would be just a diluted form of "hate". If I have shown any, it's a regrettable lapse from the standard that I try to maintain in normal debate. You may be referring to comments I made directly to one member about his posts - but I think I don't need to expand here on what I already expressed and explained in that post.

Finally, regarding the "70:30" proposal and whether or not it has been dropped, I think you will agree that it's a major issue. You say that you're against it (as I am also) - but that's really not important compared to whether it really is now definitely dropped by PAD. By any standards, it has been a major and very significant plank in PAD's platform - and has IMO rightly triggered a huge amount of discussion here and elsewhere. On that basis, it would surely have to be major news that it was now no longer PAD policy and no longer part of their "New Politics" even as an option/example. Apart from ThaiVisa, I have also been following events and reports from many other sources (Nation, Bangkok Post, Bangkok Pundit, TOC and more) and have (so far) never seen any mention of it being dropped. With respect, you seeing it on someone else's post (maybe even from h90 - which prompted me to ask for confirmation the first time?) is really not justification for accusing me of "spreading disinformation". But, these things happen; if nothing else, it's a good example to explain further (if that's necessary) why I now have no interest in continuing to participate in what's going on here.

danke fur das antword, ich habe sie verstanden

Gruss Gott und auf widersehen