Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[justanothercybertosser]

I insist that Democrat platform perfectly reflects modern social democracy

Insist as much as you want, you are still distorting reality.

Human, social, civil rights?

Ehh, yes, what about the Rohingya case, the internationally condemned setting up of the new Human Rights commissioners, the attacks against the NGO down South, etc? What about the increased and internationally condemned infractions against freedom of the media?

Socially progressive policies, no flag waving?

Tax laws may be in the making, but i do not see any form of progressive taxing, only taxing that the poor are mostly burdened with, such as land holding tax, fuel, alcohol and tobacco taxes raised.

Social security? The so far only universal health sceme has been intrduced by TRT, and the Democrats have not managed to come up with any substantial improvements.

Protection of the poor? Like handing out 2000 baht checks, of which the poorest cannot take advantage of as they are not part of the pagan sangkrom, while at the same time avoiding to subsidize the prices for key agricultural products such as tapioca.

Yes, of course, plus...

[tig28]

"I am have some suspicions he was being made partly a patsy for what went on that day,

He was in a position of authority, but that DOES NOT mean he was in control at the time.

Again not saying his potential culpability should be white washed at all."

Hi animatic

Sorry to just pick out just one reasonable statement --- with which I happen to agree ---- but this responce from you speaks directly to my primary disquiet about many of the posts here ---- they seem to me to be extremely one-sided and devoid of any balance whatsoever!! In my view they lean so far to "one-side" as to often constitute deliberate deception.

Your comment in itself is so obviously correct is should stand uncontested.

But at the time of the event hundreds of posts were made condemning the then serving "lame-duck" PM for murder --- he was proven by events shortly later to have to have no control over the police whatsoever...........

Despite this the "mob" was screaming for his head!! Absolutely ridiculous ---- for the self-same reason you so eloquently set out above ---- but in the case of the PM your point is perhaps even more applicable.

I would have a lot more acceptance of some of your other views --- if at the time of the denunciation of that PM you had sought to post the same obvious defence ---- it was obvious then --- just as it is now.

[Journalist]

Democrat coalition = UK Independence Party

TRT/PPP/XYZ = British National Party

Edited May 21, 2009 by Journalist

[Koo82]

I like to congratulate Koo82 for once again having posted a message that far goes above her normal level of English.

TAWP, you made me laugh so hard.

Koo is actually Thaksin himself.

No Wonder!

I saw his photo with make up in one of the thread. And Koo (ala Thaksin?) was commenting on too much thick make up or some colour that he is not satisfied with!

If I were Khun Thaksin, I would not post in such a naive manner. Khun Thaksin will have many solid facts to add.

[HagenvonTronje]

I insist that Democrat platform perfectly reflects modern social democracy

From Wikpedia

uncheck a couple of points. what a silly game anyway.

okay, look at wikipedia: Social democracy is a political ideology of the left or centre-left that emerged in the late 19th century from the socialist movement and continues to exert influence worldwide

read The Nation: Authorities on alert for red-shirted underground movement. Authorities have been keeping close tap on a possible linkage between the leftists and the red shirts to form the underground movement, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban said Tuesday. click

[TAWP]

If I were Khun Thaksin, I would not post in such a naive manner. Khun Thaksin will have many solid facts to add.

Atleast you are correct in that many others would add solid facts before they try to post so much as you do about this topic, but you are still mistaken that Thaksin would be able to do it...

[TAWP]

And I hope the democrats aren't social democrats, as that is the kind of crap I moved away from...

[Plus]

Thats how I see the thai democrat party. The "right" career move for your above average gentlemen with ambition for power.

What are talking about? What career move?

Democrats bled those type of characters left and right during Thaksin's years. They were slated to be in eternal opposition, locked out of govt contracts. What kind of career prospect is that?

So much for your "analysis".

And then it goes off into "elite" conspiracy and Democrats being puppets of invisible hands.

Ehh, yes, what about the Rohingya case, the internationally condemned setting up of the new Human Rights commissioners, the attacks against the NGO down South, etc? What about the increased and internationally condemned infractions against freedom of the media?

Dems are not responsible for Rohingya, it was your "social democratic" PPP that signed off a policy of towing people out to sea. Abhisit put an end to this practice, see relevant thread.

Democrats had nothing to do with selection fo HR commissioners, either it was Senate's job, not governement's.

Now I understand why you call them center-right conservatives - you hold them responsible for all kind of "crimes" they didn't commit.

Tax laws may be in the making, but i do not see any form of progressive taxing, only taxing that the poor are mostly burdened with, such as land holding tax, fuel, alcohol and tobacco taxes raised.

Land holding tax is burdening the poor? <deleted>? The purpose of the tax is to force the rich landholders to lease or sell their otherwise idle land.

And how's increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes a sign of economic liberalism that goes against any social democratic platform?

It's just bizarre.

Democrat coalition = UK Independence Party

Actually it was Journalist's question that sparked the debate, and now he comes up with this. I don't know what these two parties have in common. There's no question of Thailand's independence of Asean, is there? In fact one of the top Democrats, Surin Pitsuwan, is the current Asean sec-general and his main job is making common Asean charter a reality.

Another top Democrat was the head of WTO, selected to represent developing countries, he had to share his term with New Zealander who was representing interests of developed world. That's another example how Democrats value "fair trade" over "free trade", in line with general social democratic agenda.

[justanothercybertosser]

Dems are not responsible for Rohingya, it was your "social democratic" PPP that signed off a policy of towing people out to sea. Abhisit put an end to this practice, see relevant thread.

Democrats had nothing to do with selection fo HR commissioners, either it was Senate's job, not governement's.

Now I understand why you call them center-right conservatives - you hold them responsible for all kind of "crimes" they didn't commit.

Tax laws may be in the making, but i do not see any form of progressive taxing, only taxing that the poor are mostly burdened with, such as land holding tax, fuel, alcohol and tobacco taxes raised.

Land holding tax is burdening the poor? <deleted>? The purpose of the tax is to force the rich landholders to lease or sell their otherwise idle land.

And how's increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes a sign of economic liberalism that goes against any social democratic platform?

It's just bizarre.

And many small scale land holders have to pay higher tax as well.

Small scale market vendors have to pay taxes now as well. This is not exactly pro poor.

The Democrat government is about as responsible for the Rohingya mess as the Samak and the Somchai government.

And no, the PPP is not "my social democrat party". Please read my posts.

HagenvonTronje pointed it out rather well, social democracy is a political ideology from the left. The Democrats hardly suit that label, and your insistence of the contrary is plain silly, it does not even fulfill the definition of sophism. Just because coservative parties have taken up some of the values of Social Democracy, does not make them Social Democratic. The Democrats and Social democracy are worlds apart, for many of the reasons i pointed out several posts back - mostly pro-status quo, elitist, and a very strong royalist position.

I guess you just continue for the sake of arguing, and that i am getting rather bored with.

[tig28]

Just remember the case of the "Aussie lady" who was thrown into jail

fined 1000 Baht, and got a 6 month suspended jail sentence for

"stealing" a rubber bar mat (145x45 cm)!

How many Centuries would she have to go to jail if she stole 770 mill.?

What is wrong with some peoples understanding of wrong and right?

Well she is one lucky lady that her fate was not decided by some of the posters here ----- assuming (of course) that they did not like her. Would probably have advocated transportation for life to England. Now.... on the other hand if they actually liked her she would have been able to abscond with the bar"s entire nights takings and all the stock.... with the sage observation that the b*******d bar owner deserved it!!!

I certainly seem to be missing some facts here ---- Samuian ---- someone has been charged (or convicted ) over stealing 770 mil???

You mean of course apart from the inconvenient bit about being found guilty before.... etc ...... Don't you just hate that part? Why should we wait for a trial .... Hang'em high !!!!

"What is wrong with some peoples understanding of wrong and right?" ---- indeed --- a very good question --- and an excellent forum to post it !!!

[h90]

If I were Khun Thaksin, I would not post in such a naive manner. Khun Thaksin will have many solid facts to add.

And your english is much better than Thaksins english

[Plus]

And many small scale land holders have to pay higher tax as well.

The increase is from 0.5% to 1.5%, I believe. For those using a small plot of land it's nothing, it would matter only for those holding vast tracks of land who will hopefully be forced to lease, and, of course, for landless farmers who will get some land to work on.

social democracy is a political ideology from the left

I said earlier, it doesn't matter where it comes from, it matters what it IS, now.

So, Dems increase taxes, increase goverment budget, want to lift a ceiling on how much debt the government can take, and all that makes them liberal conservatives???

Yeah, I know you can't admit their social democratic agenda as a matter of principle, not reality, so we can just live it at that.

Incidentally, Ministry of Commerce that is responsible for price interventions in agricultural products, is not controlled by Democrats. Just last week Democrats wrestled control of sale of corn stock due to irregularities. Maybe one day they'll get to tapioca as well. Overall just another false accusation against Dems. Got any more?

Also what makes Chaturon a social democrat darling? His years with communist party? Nothing good ever came out of Asian communism - they gave us Laos, Vietnam, Khmer Rouge, and, of course China, not exactly social democratic countries, are they? All his political career consisted of prostituting himself for Chavalit and then Thaksin, then his party was handed over to Samak. Some leftist history there, huh? In 2007 elections he sent his siblings as his proxies, just like any typical Thai politician.

There's no more social democracy in him than in Chinese politburo pamphlet.

[HagenvonTronje]

A couple of points.

Only ONE point of that conviction of Thaksin was 5-4 most were 9-0 or 8-1

BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged.

His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?

When someone is indicetd for a crime and brought to court,

...

Just remember the case of the "Aussie lady" who was thrown into jail

fined 1000 Baht, and got a 6 month suspended jail sentence for

"stealing" a rubber bar mat (145x45 cm)!

How many Centuries would she have to go to jail if she stole 770 mill.?

What is wrong with some peoples understanding of wrong and right?

false!

and you got it wrong.

Thaksin was cleared of charges of abuse of power. but was charged with 'conflict of interests.'

he offended the Article 100 and Article 122 of the National Counter Corruption Act.

that prohibits for a State official do conduct anykind of business with a Government agency he is involved because of his position/job. iimportent in the thaksin case is the following: "The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

as PM you are somehow responsible and in charge for everything, but can actually not conrol everything. and not where your wife goes shopping.

so now his wife went shopping, and that brought her husband is in 'conflict of interests'. and he got two years for it. that his uberevil crime.

(how much money it actually was, NNN millions or only 2000 baht, what his wife had spend but not stolen, does play only a minor role.).

the aussie woman got charged for theft and spend somewhat 36 hours in an arrest cell because she got in bad words with a police officer and tried in a drunken state of mind to run away and got not released because she couldn't pay the bail, or something like that, right?

that is an total other issue anyway.

[justanothercybertosser]

I said earlier, it doesn't matter where it comes from, it matters what it IS, now.

Plus decides that a basically conservative party which is organized in the International Liberal is now suddenly Social Democrat, because he has searched in an outdated Wikipedia entry, yet ignores almost all political studies which do put the Democrats into the conservative camp.

Can you please, for the sake of keeping up appearances, cite any study by a relevant academic that calls the Democrats "Social Democratic". No newspaper articles, no wikipedia.

If you can't do that, then i will leave this silly debate with you.

[dbrenn]

So you accept that the coup wasn't democratic, and you justify this with a belief that Thaksin wasn't democratic either. You still haven't explained why you believe that replacing one system that you see as undemocratic, with another system that you also see as undemocratic, is worth bringing Thailand to the brink of civil war for.

Does anyone claim the coup was democratic? I don't think so, just as few would deny that Thaksin had corrupted democracy. Yet you say it's my "belief". You believe differently? You already yourself stated that Thaksin did engage in vote-buying (although of course you always rush to point out that "all politicians do" - so that's alright then).

The coup didn't bring the country to the brink of civil war - quite the opposite - it prevented a clash on the streets that was being instigated by Thaksin so he could justify a heavy-handed clamp down.

Since that crisis was narrowly avoided, Thaksin has tried again to take the country to the brink of civil war but he failed - in no small part thanks to the military.

Not as venal as Thaksin's bunch. Hmmm. Try General Saprang K.,

If Saprang is guilty of corruption, i absolutely agree that he should have his day in court. Do i think that Saprang's case compares with Thaksin's backlog of cases? Probably not, but let's allow the courts to decide that one - they are the ones privy to all the evidence.

There are probably a lot less Thaksin supporters here than you would like to believe. All you can do when your argument fails is keep tryng to convince yourself that everyone who dosn't share your viewpoint must be a rabid Thaksn supporter, and is therefore worthy of censure for having 'criminal' associations.

I don't support censure of people's views no matter what they might be or whoever they may support, i just think it's dishonest to argue from a supposed point of neutrality. Yourself and your like-minded friends on this forum go to considerable lengths to distance yourselves from Thaksin, but then go to great lengths to defend him.

It's not of course impossible to defend someone you don't support, but is slightly strange devoting so much time to a cause you have no belief in. If someone claimed that Mugabe was a pick-pocket and you suspected it to be untrue, would you spend a minute of your life defending his name against the charge?

What?

There you go again banging on about Thaksin as the root of all evil, the Beast, the Antichrist or whatever. You seem to have an obsession with the man. He may mean everything to you, but your constant references to the man are just plain boring.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Don't you have anything else to talk about, just for a change?

Edited May 21, 2009 by dbrenn

[Plus]

Somehow that wikipedia hack couldn't find any academic studies to support his edit to "center-right" either and resorted to posting a fraudulent source instead.

Given conspiracy crap that now passes as academic studies in certain circles I wouldn't put much trust in it anyway.

[dbrenn]

I said earlier, it doesn't matter where it comes from, it matters what it IS, now.

Plus decides that a basically conservative party which is organized in the International Liberal is now suddenly Social Democrat, because he has searched in an outdated Wikipedia entry, yet ignores almost all political studies which do put the Democrats into the conservative camp.

Can you please, for the sake of keeping up appearances, cite any study by a relevant academic that calls the Democrats "Social Democratic". No newspaper articles, no wikipedia.

If you can't do that, then i will leave this silly debate with you.

Plus just says anything to make a point. It doesn't matter what it is.

[Plus]

There you go again banging on about Thaksin. You seem to have an obsession with the man

Simple count of occurences of "Thaksin" in that post, including all the quotes, gives dbrenn - 4, rixalex replies - 5.

[dbrenn]

There you go again banging on about Thaksin. You seem to have an obsession with the man

Simple count of occurences of "Thaksin" in that post, including all the quotes, gives dbrenn - 4, rixalex replies - 5.

I can't be bothered checking Plus, and it doesn't matter anyway - you make things up as you go along as has been observed by other posters here. You don't have a point of view that is consistent with facts that are reported from yellow and red alike. The last sensible conversation that I had with you ended up with you denying that the CDR had any agenda against foreign rights, in spite of evidence to the contrary that was all too obvious at the time to the expat and business community living in Thailand, in the months following the coup. There is no point talking to you if you keep inventing things to make whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

Do you work for the Democrat party, or are you just a troll having a laugh?

[justanothercybertosser]

Somehow that wikipedia hack couldn't find any academic studies to support his edit to "center-right" either and resorted to posting a fraudulent source instead.

Given conspiracy crap that now passes as academic studies in certain circles I wouldn't put much trust in it anyway.

Good.

You have nothing to support your view other than your opinion, and no study.

That concludes the discussion.

[rixalex]

There you go again banging on about Thaksin as the root of all evil, the Beast, the Antichrist or whatever. You seem to have an obsession with the man. He may mean everything to you, but your constant references to the man are just plain boring.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Don't you have anything else to talk about, just for a change?

Right back at you dbrenn. If it wasn't for the likes of you and your friends, who tirelessly defend his actions (usually merely on the basis that others are corrupt so why shouldn't he be), Thaksin would have long ceased been a discussion point on this forum. I sincerely don't want to discuss him and would very happily forget he ever existed, but for his hero-worshipers who fight to keep his pathetic flame alive on this forum and in this country. As long as there are people coming on here defending him or taking to the streets in his name, i'm afraid you'll continue to find yourself bored.

Only yourself and your friends to blame.

Edited May 21, 2009 by rixalex

[justanothercybertosser]

Right back at you dbrenn. If it wasn't for the likes of you and your friends, who tirelessly defend his actions (usually merely on the basis that others are corrupt so why shouldn't he be), Thaksin would have long ceased been a discussion point on this forum.

Only yourself and and your friends to blame.

Bravo.

You managed to create now two straw men - Thaksin and his evil defenders.

Very good.

[Scott]

Yes, those who say his name without putting the words Convicted Criminal in front of it are condemed to eternal damnation.

[rixalex]

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person.

And if i may be permitted to return that back-handed compliment, i feel that despite the lengths you go to on this forum, defending Thaksin is a job your heart's not really in. You do it well but lack the devotion of a Koo82. My guess is it's a war you wage on behalf of others - could be your wife, or perhaps your in-laws, or maybe even your neighbours. They support him and although you are not blind to his many short-comings, you feel they have every right to their beliefs and no bar-fly foreigner who doesn't even have the right to vote, nor the ability to speak the language - and who has lived in the country for barely five minutes, has any right to try to tell them how to think or who to vote for.

It's a noble fight you are engaged in but one that is misplaced as many of us don't fit your profile. I know I don't.

[rixalex]

Yes, those who say his name without putting the words Convicted Criminal in front of it are condemed to eternal damnation.

Eternal damnation?

Nope, more like "eternally deluded".

[Journalist]

, defending Thaksin

95% of detractors to your case are not intrinsically defending the oleaginous Thaksin, they are merely questioning the binary zeal with which his detractors have become emotionally infatuated. Folk who have spent years on Thaivisa repeating themselves (why? what a waste of effort, as if it matters? None of you have a vote).

And your manic response is

"You love Thaksin, you just love the CONVICT don't you. Take off the blinkers. This is not not not not a matter of opinion, because I am right."

Rixalex, up your game please, the 'oooh, you're defending him", trite responses were done ages ago, even Plus now bases his responses on research and a knowledge of background, not just automatically and rhetorically gainsaying everything with one liners, as you are now doing .

Those that loathe Thaksin conveniently prop themselves behind a motherlode of TV Rules that deflect contradiction and they scurry behind them when the going gets tough. Well, so much for transparency, but so be it. Taking refuge behind rule 15 illustrates the elasticity of the debate at hand

Congratulations on your rectitude though. Perhaps someone will inscribe your holiness on your tombstone. A treasury of wasted time.

The detractors aren't defending him, they're attacking the messianic ' Mummy knows best' stance.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Journalist

[Plus]

I can't be bothered checking Plus, and it doesn't matter anyway - you make things up as you go along as has been observed by other posters here. You don't have a point of view that is consistent with facts that are reported from yellow and red alike. The last sensible conversation that I had with you ended up with you denying that the CDR had any agenda against foreign rights, in spite of evidence to the contrary that was all too obvious at the time to the expat and business community living in Thailand, in the months following the coup. There is no point talking to you if you keep inventing things to make whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

Do you work for the Democrat party, or are you just a troll having a laugh?

I don't know, it's either trolling or deja-vu. Take you pick.

I think I need to bookmark some posts here, there's no point in typing them up again, it has been addressed TWICE already.

'dbrenn' date='2009-05-19 20:20:20' post='2746500'

"You gotta love Plus and his dogma. A while back, he was swearing blind that the CDR did not have a nationalistic agenda, and that they were not speaking out against foreign ownership and other foreign expat and business rights at the time of the coup."

'Plus' date='2009-05-19 21:50:33' post='2746693'

"Why don't you address the issue in the original thread instead of dragging it here.

You didn't supply any evidence there, you are not supplying any evidence here either.

Foregn Business Act was drafted by Commerce Ministry and Thai Chambers of Commerce. National Assembly wanted a stricter version and junta appointed government withdrew it altogether rather than risk NLA pushing its own amendments through.

Generals had nothing to do with it.

Are you going to back up your allegations or jump off to another thread?"

That was just a three days ago, could be deja-vu, or is it too early.

Can it happen twice? This the original occurence:

'dbrenn' post='2737816' date='2009-05-16 07:55:14'

"I haven't had this kind of 'yes they were, no they weren't, so there' argument since I was a child. The CDR were quite public about their views on how foreigners rights should be curtailed, to the utmost alarm of the expat and business community at the time.

For you to deny that ever happened is just plain silly."

And that's the original reply:

'Plus' date='2009-05-18 14:25:43' post='2743172'

"Draft of the Foregin Business Act was the work of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and Commerce Ministry and it went to the National Legislative Assemby which reopened the debate, eventually the govt withdrew the bill after NLA insisted on a stricter version.

It had nothing to do with the junta/CNS whatsoever.

If you insist that it was Sonthi Boonyarataglin and his fellow generals proposal it's your job to provide proof, not mine."

[Plus]

You have nothing to support your view other than your opinion, and no study.

I don't need a study to show that a government that wants to borrow more than legally allowed is not liberal conservative. Now they want to spend 200 bil baht, three times Thaksin's village fund, on "fighting unemployment". I don't need a study to say that this is going into socialist direction.

And since when Thai politics has become a hard science? Since when do we have iron cast academic answers to political questions anywhere, let alone Thailand?

The gist of Chang Noi's article (in 2002) was that Democrats have undergone through numerous ideological changes in their history. Three time in the previous five years alone.

I don't know if their most recent trend is sustainable and if they genuinenly want a welfare state for the poor in the long run, but it IS there now.

I guess they haven't reached a point where they have to give a definite answer to "who is going to pay for all this" yet.

[dbrenn]

defending Thaksin is a job your heart's not really in. You do it well but lack the devotion of a Koo82. My guess is it's a war you wage on behalf of others ....

Eh? You are at it again! When are you going to stop relating everything people say here back to Thaksin? I think Journalist was spot on when he said that you do it to try to hide behind TV rules that forbid criticism of court judgement.

And if you think that my heart is not in this, because I don't have hours on end to spend all day constructing elaborate responses on an anonymous internet forum, then that's up to you. The fact is, there isn't much to say to people like you who dodge the various issues I and others have put forward regards democratic values, alignment of the yellows with ccorrupt handlers, hypocritical viewpoints, and so on. All you do is accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of having criminal associations and leading the discussion towards ctiticism of a court judgement. That is such a cowardly way to behave. You hide behind Thaksin because your weak arguments don't stand any scrutiny.

For us or against us. You are like George Bush.

[dbrenn]

My guess is it's a war you wage on behalf of others - could be your wife, or perhaps your in-laws, or maybe even your neighbours.

And there you go second guessing again! Just like you second guess anyone who doesn't agree with you and assume that they must be a Thaksin supporter. You are totally obsessed with the man.