All-out Attempt By Red Shirts To Bring Down Government

[ballpoint]

I see no correlation between where members live and their views for/against/indifferent to any of the issues raised on TVF

I have. Especially among the members here living in Isaan. Definitely more of a pro red crowd there, not too hard to imagine why.

Guess I'm the exception that proves the rule. This small part of Isaan is defintely not pro Thaksin.

Edited January 21, 2010 by ballpoint

[Steve2UK]

A fanciful few on TVF lately seem intent on painting CM as some kind of red "fortress Chiang Mai" - an ongoing political maelstrom of a place overrun with red-clad goons......e.g. "who would want to visit RED Central HQ in the current political climate?", "Until 'great leader for life' Takki is taken care of, I will continue to warn people about venturing to that area", "Chiang Mai is now separated from Bangkok and Thailand, in the hands of goons, thugs and other assorted insurrectionists. Why are tourists now going to visit a city controlled by violent minded anti government factions?", "I would not feel safe there in the present climate. Not for any extended visit, pop in pop out maybe. And not if I had any schedule to keep" etc etc. It's a challenge for those actually living here to reconcile such stuff with the rather humdrum facts of our real rather than their imagined CM daily life - even for those in CM who are conspicuously anything but "pro red". Regardless of stance, I've seen CM-based members (in parallel with most others living elsewhere) roundly condemning intimidation of and actual violence towards visiting politicians, a gay parade etc - both in the CM sub-forum as well as in News Clippings etc. My conclusion overall - member location is not a factor; ignorance of the actual local situation combined with a fertile imagination and usually an agenda to drive probably is a factor.

The same could be said about BKK during the PAD Demonstrations, closure of the Swampy, and letter by the redshirt Songkhran riots. In most areas of the city life was like any other day. Only in certain areas would one have noticed something was amiss.

On the other hand Steve2UK, imagine that I, or just your average Thai person, chose to don a yellow t-shirt with pro PAD and harsh anti-Thaksin slogans on the front and back. We then proceeded to do a walking tour of CM for a few days. Then we went over to Udon Thani and did a walking tour there, sporting our hate Thaksin shirts. What are the chances we would encounter violence?

Good points. As I know from actually living here for 3+ years, there is just one fairly small "red base" hotel immediately behind one of the main walled temples (Wat Phra Singh) - and known to be the hang-out of CM51. That's it. Rather far from the lurid, hyperbolic city-wide descriptions I quoted. In my wardrobe, I actually have a yellow polo shirt (royal insignia and all) bought some while back for a ceremonial occasion at a school in Chiang Rai. On the odd occasion that I drive past that hotel, it always occurs to me that I would not choose to be walking around wearing even that in amongst the "red" claque hanging out there - and that's without any anti-Thaksin/pro-PAD slogans on it. From that you can conclude that I would certainly expect at least questioning looks and, potentially, hostility if not violence (given that I'm a farang). A Thai dressed as you describe it in that situation (I can't speak for Udon Thani)? Chances of violence would (IMO) be high. Deplorable, of course.

All that said, there appears to be no current equivalent available of a similarly provocatively-dressed redshirt doing that - unless we count parading up and down outside ASTV/PAD HQ in BKK with its attendant "guards". If you want, I'll find the relatively recent reference to when a "red" convoy was simply driving past there and the "guards" felt compelled to proactively "defend" their turf by hurling missiles at the passing vehicles. If it needs saying again, I see no difference between the thug elements on both sides - and roundly condemn both. As things stand, go looking for trouble (it takes some finding) and dress for the occasion - yes, you can find it from both camps.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Refreshing that someone read my posts so carefully and took the time to cut 'n' paste them again - nice to know that you care... *sigh* you are funny... and so simple minded - it's almost endearing - you must be an American Rebublican right? - I'm right aren't I? a George Bush supporter? go on admit it...

Yes, I do care. And once again you dodge the questions and resort to personal attacks. Why not try giving us some reasons for your views for once, rather than spewing out the same old stuff? Myself and a number of others have asked you to tell us how elections should be arranged and what you hope they'd ultimately achieve. We're still waiting your response. And, why not try and learn the difference between disagreeing with a post, and giving reasons for it, and attacking the poster? Try to be a little less thin skinned. You'll enjoy it here a whole lot more if you do.

Firstly... (and my comments were 'tongue in cheek' I can take banter and hope you can too) you selectively culled my posts when I have actually said two times that I like Abhsit. My point, made several times, is that it is not for you not I too ''decide' what is right or wrong but for the 'people' and sorry.... that means elections. You may not agree or disagree with the outcomes - but there you have it it's democracy - the problem with democracy is that sometimes the 'wrong' guys get in - a nuisance I know.

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected' - noe before you start to shout about 'legitimacý' it may be legal but it's not moral - and as for insults I have been called many things on this yellow thread just because I stand up for democracy and elections - I am not a Thaksin supporter (particularly) but I am probably more red than yellow and hate the concept of yellow fellows hijacking the 'high ground' in the debate by abusing all other views as 'Thaksin stooges'. You do not highlight all the canary posts on this thread who abuse some of us who may - Heaven Forbid! disagree... and, for the record, I do NOT support violence, by any colour Red, Yellow, Blue nor Purple...

Huh? I am confused! I thought we had elections and that the "red's" were pleased with the outcome. They got Samak .. and then Thaksin's bro-in-law and now they are upset because those same elections that made them happy have in turn placed a Democrat in power for however a brief time period that may be?

If you stand for elections like you say you do, and you understand parliamentary democracy then you just don't have a leg to stand on in this discusson. The legal AND the moral high ground rests with the current government.

We could go back and rehash how TRT etc have proven themselves not to be democratic in nature but why bother? Stick with the most recent elections and what we have is .... what we have

You see it's the ''and you understand parliamentary democracy'' that is so pathetic - the inference is that if we don not agree with YOU then we do not understand... it's really rude and immature gutter - ''we know what's better for you'' type of commentary - if you left out those 'flames' somemight listen to youmore - but you just can't resist the dig that you are intellectually superior (which I doubt) and that we don't understand Parlimentary Democracy -

it's like saying if you don't like Mugabe you don't understand Africans - let the people decide... not you nor I

[jdinasia]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

[brahmburgers]

I don't know if T's ex-wife hails from Chiang Mai, but she dropped him like a lead ballon. That doesn't quite fit with the assertion that C.mai folks stand shoulder to shoulder with T, and maintain undying faith that T is 'The Only Saviour for Thailand' (his message to his flock).

[ChiangMaiFun]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

Humbug and Balderdash! well... it is technically true - I was going along the 'but the people feel they have not elected them' road - you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal' - you see it's not just about the law it's about perception - all I am saying is let's have more transparency - I have said, consistently, (but noone conveniently remembers) that I am against violent protest whomsoever perpetuates it - I do not hear this from our canary friends - just

red = bad

red = immaturity

red = lack of Parliamentary understanding

and worst of all red = Thaksin stooges

and all yellow is mellow!!!

[monkfish]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

Humbug and Balderdash! well... it is technically true - I was going along the 'but the people feel they have not elected them' road - you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal' - you see it's not just about the law it's about perception - all I am saying is let's have more transparency - I have said, consistently, (but noone conveniently remembers) that I am against violent protest whomsoever perpetuates it - I do not hear this from our canary friends - just

red = bad

red = immaturity

red = lack of Parliamentary understanding

and worst of all red = Thaksin stooges

and all yellow is mellow!!!

Very well put and exactly my point of view.

But I doubt the Thaksin bashers will understand so I advise not waisting too much time here.

The party that won the election got kicked out for vote buying.

My wife was previously a member of the Demomcrat party and I can tell you

there was some very serious vote buying going on there too! and every Thai person knows it.

But why didn't they get the same treatment? Ask a Thai they know the reason.

[basjke]

there was some very serious vote buying going on there too! and every Thai person knows it.

But why didn't they get the same treatment? Ask a Thai they know the reason.

No they don't.Ask a thai some info about their own neighborhood and they will not be able to answer the question but for sure they can tell you everything what's going on in politics.

[ChiangMaiFun]

there was some very serious vote buying going on there too! and every Thai person knows it.

But why didn't they get the same treatment? Ask a Thai they know the reason.

No they don't.Ask a thai some info about their own neighborhood and they will not be able to answer the question but for sure they can tell you everything what's going on in politics.

Just like farangs on TV chaimai?

[ChiangMaiFun]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

Humbug and Balderdash! well... it is technically true - I was going along the 'but the people feel they have not elected them' road - you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal' - you see it's not just about the law it's about perception - all I am saying is let's have more transparency - I have said, consistently, (but noone conveniently remembers) that I am against violent protest whomsoever perpetuates it - I do not hear this from our canary friends - just

red = bad

red = immaturity

red = lack of Parliamentary understanding

and worst of all red = Thaksin stooges

and all yellow is mellow!!!

Very well put and exactly my point of view.

But I doubt the Thaksin bashers will understand so I advise not waisting too much time here.

The party that won the election got kicked out for vote buying.

My wife was previously a member of the Demomcrat party and I can tell you

there was some very serious vote buying going on there too! and every Thai person knows it.

But why didn't they get the same treatment? Ask a Thai they know the reason.

Thanks... and yes you are probably right... I do feel like King Canute on this particular topic!

[monkfish]

there was some very serious vote buying going on there too! and every Thai person knows it.

But why didn't they get the same treatment? Ask a Thai they know the reason.

No they don't.Ask a thai some info about their own neighborhood and they will not be able to answer the question but for sure they can tell you everything what's going on in politics.

Words of a true democrat, guess you want to rule them out of voting too?

[SpoliaOpima]

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected'

Those Thais would be misinformed, ignorant or just pretending to believe it, in that case.

[ChiangMaiFun]

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected'

Those Thais would be misinformed, ignorant or just pretending to believe it, in that case.

well that accounts for 90% of the democratic free-world - welcome to democracy folks! or, maybe... just maybe... we should only allow those who pass your intelligence test to vote? hmmm... methinks New World Order here... great idea... to hel_l with all those silly unintelligent folk... but what about the girls? should we include them? and the Africans? what about the Aboriginies? hel_l we know best right???

Here's to defferential Voting!

Well it get's my vote!!! but wait... am I intelligent? problem here... I'm probably barred from voting - still they know best right? JEEZE

[rixalex]

you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal'

There would be an outcry had the Labour party actually won the election i agree - had they actually garnered a majority of the population's support.

The PPP didn't. A minority of Thai citizens voted for them. You are aware of that right Mr Fun?

PPP were simply the ones able to offer the right sweeteners/rewards to the MPs of other parties to successfully form a coalition. Doesn't sound very democratic does it. Had you been a Thai and had you voted for the Dems how happy would you have been about that? Not very i guess. That is the system however.

Of course it works both ways. Had the Democrats been able to sway more MPs back then they would have formed the government. They couldn't... now they have. That's why right now the Democrats are the ones in power. Are you getting any of this?

If you don't like that system you should have been on here complaining when Samak came to power. He came to power through exactly the same means as Abhisit.

[jdinasia]

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected'

Those Thais would be misinformed, ignorant or just pretending to believe it, in that case.

well that accounts for 90% of the democratic free-world - welcome to democracy folks! or, maybe... just maybe... we should only allow those who pass your intelligence test to vote? hmmm... methinks New World Order here... great idea... to hel_l with all those silly unintelligent folk... but what about the girls? should we include them? and the Africans? what about the Aboriginies? hel_l we know best right???

Here's to defferential Voting!

Well it get's my vote!!! but wait... am I intelligent? problem here... I'm probably barred from voting - still they know best right? JEEZE

You don't get to have it both ways .... either the current government was elected legally in keeping with democratic values, in which case not only is there no need for elections but also to hold elections now would be UNdemocratic, or the election of the current government was not democratic.

Since you have admitted that the current government was elected properly then we can only assume that you really are not pro-democracy like you state you are.

(and yes minority parties CAN and do form governments all over the world in the parliamentary system)

Welcome to Democracy --- where the party that forms the government gets second guessed by people that have no idea what democracy means

[rixalex]

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected'

Those Thais would be misinformed, ignorant or just pretending to believe it, in that case.

well that accounts for 90% of the democratic free-world -

Nobody i'm aware of has said that certain groups of the population can't vote - just that they have to wait like all the rest if us until the government calls elections. Their "team" not being in power and them feeling like it should be, is not a reason to go to the nation.

[ChiangMaiFun]

The point is, I pointed out, that many Thai's believe that the government is not 'elected'

Those Thais would be misinformed, ignorant or just pretending to believe it, in that case.

well that accounts for 90% of the democratic free-world - welcome to democracy folks! or, maybe... just maybe... we should only allow those who pass your intelligence test to vote? hmmm... methinks New World Order here... great idea... to hel_l with all those silly unintelligent folk... but what about the girls? should we include them? and the Africans? what about the Aboriginies? hel_l we know best right???

Here's to defferential Voting!

Well it get's my vote!!! but wait... am I intelligent? problem here... I'm probably barred from voting - still they know best right? JEEZE

You don't get to have it both ways .... either the current government was elected legally in keeping with democratic values, in which case not only is there no need for elections but also to hold elections now would be UNdemocratic, or the election of the current government was not democratic.

Since you have admitted that the current government was elected properly then we can only assume that you really are not pro-democracy like you state you are.

(and yes minority parties CAN and do form governments all over the world in the parliamentary system)

Welcome to Democracy --- where the party that forms the government gets second guessed by people that have no idea what democracy means

Not in England they don't... maybe I'm spoilt in the cradle of the Mother of Parliaments - we don't base it on the popular vote but the elections of MP's from constituencies... if Labour came to power with less MP's and colluded to form a government there would be outcry - the cry? call another election! (it has never happened apart from war time). Before someone says Lib/Lab pact it was not a coalition. Anyway... we will never agree -

and some yellow mellows have suggested not giving the vote to the uneducated farmers and they only got to power through the action at the airport - that cannot be denied - and this is the point you refuse to recognise.

[animatic]

you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal'

There would be an outcry had the Labour party actually won the election i agree - had they actually garnered a majority of the population's support.

The PPP didn't. A minority of Thai citizens voted for them. You are aware of that right Mr Fun?

PPP were simply the ones able to offer the right sweeteners/rewards to the MPs of other parties to successfully form a coalition. Doesn't sound very democratic does it. Had you been a Thai and had you voted for the Dems how happy would you have been about that? Not very i guess. That is the system however.

Of course it works both ways. Had the Democrats been able to sway more MPs back then they would have formed the government. They couldn't... now they have. That's why right now the Democrats are the ones in power. Are you getting any of this?

If you don't like that system you should have been on here complaining when Samak came to power. He came to power through exactly the same means as Abhisit.

Exactly.

Samak was voted in by MP's, Somachai was voted in by MPs. and Abhisit was voted in by MPs.

Samak was removed by the courts and then could LEGALLY have become PM within the week...

but his own party ie Thaksin didn't want him back. Sochai was choosen, and Samak was not by PPP.

When the courts dissolved PPP for voting fraud, as expected, in the election they lead,

but didn't win an majority in, then the remaining parties MPs elected Abhisit.

Even Chaingmai fun admits, finally, " well... it is technically true...."

Which means he can argue the PTP line; 'we want another election and a new mandate',

but he can't argue that the MPs don't have an 'existing mandate to run the country

and as MPs exercised that right by electing 3 different PMs in that term of office.'

Legally Abhisit is the PM and most all nations of the world and ASEAN recognize this as fact.

Most of those countries ALSO won't let Thaksin into their countries....

A very telling combination of points.

[ChiangMaiFun]

you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal'

There would be an outcry had the Labour party actually won the election i agree - had they actually garnered a majority of the population's support.

The PPP didn't. A minority of Thai citizens voted for them. You are aware of that right Mr Fun?

PPP were simply the ones able to offer the right sweeteners/rewards to the MPs of other parties to successfully form a coalition. Doesn't sound very democratic does it. Had you been a Thai and had you voted for the Dems how happy would you have been about that? Not very i guess. That is the system however.

Of course it works both ways. Had the Democrats been able to sway more MPs back then they would have formed the government. They couldn't... now they have. That's why right now the Democrats are the ones in power. Are you getting any of this?

If you don't like that system you should have been on here complaining when Samak came to power. He came to power through exactly the same means as Abhisit.

Exactly.

Samak was voted in by MP's, Somachai was voted in by MPs. and Abhisit was voted in by MPs.

Samak was removed by the courts and then could LEGALLY have become PM within the week...

but his own party ie Thaksin didn't want him back. Sochai was choosen, and Samak was not by PPP.

When the courts dissolved PPP for voting fraud, as expected, in the election they lead,

but didn't win an majority in, then the remaining parties MPs elected Abhisit.

Even Chaingmai fun admits, finally, " well... it is technically true...."

Which means he can argue the PTP line; 'we want another election and a new mandate',

but he can't argue that the MPs don't have an 'existing mandate to run the country

and as MPs exercised that right by electing 3 different PMs in that term of office.'

Legally Abhisit is the PM and most all nations of the world and ASEAN recognize this as fact.

Most of those countries ALSO won't let Thaksin into their countries....

A very telling combination of points.

Hmmm I do not deny the legality - I believe (still believe) that there will not be Peace in the Valley until the nation 'feels' it has had it's say - and that any government (whatever hue) was put there by them

[jdinasia]

CMF ---

You are comparing apples to oranges and you know it. You admitted that the current government was elected democratically and you fall back on the ignorance of the population as an argument.

"They think it" ... so it must be true. I have yet to ascertain why you are bringing africans or voting rights into it though ... perhaps it makes you feel better to make it about discrimination instead of being about democracy?

Again, you don't get to have it both ways. The current government was duly elected so they get to do their jobs until such a time as the coalition unravels or they choose to call for new elections or their term of office ends.

In the parliamentary system as you know, when no party gains enough seats to form a single party government then ANY party may put together a coalition government. That has happened here, It is not only LEGAL but also it is MORAL and in keeping with democratic tradition. The PM could even be from the smallest coalition party and it would be in keeping with democratic tradition. You calim to be pro-democracy and admit that things as they are fit the model but still maintain a call for new elections solely based upon the fact that some people are unhappy with the outcome and think it should be some other way.

Perhaps, if as you believe, the people around you do not understand democracy well enough to understand these basics; you should spend your time educating them instead of railing about it?

[yoshiwara]

Hmmm I do not deny the legality - I believe (still believe) that there will not be Peace in the Valley until the nation 'feels' it has had it's say - and that any government (whatever hue) was put there by them

....or not to put it in a meally-mouthed way, 'let's have Thaksin back'.

[scorecard]

ChaingMaiFun wrote:

" ....and some yellow mellows have suggested not giving the vote to the uneducated farmers and they only got to power through the action at the airport - that cannot be denied - and this is the point you refuse to recognise. "

Can you please give some examples of this, specific examples, from anybody, saying that 'uneducated farmers should not be given the vote'.

Many have made comment to the effect that many uneducated farmers probably don't understand the concept of democracy of the processes of democracy etc. But I can't recall posters actually saying that uneducated farmers should not be given the vote. I certainly hope not.

Would you like to share some evidence please.

[rixalex]

Hmmm I do not deny the legality - I believe (still believe) that there will not be Peace in the Valley until the nation 'feels' it has had it's say

You are confusing the word "nation" for "supporters of Thaksin's red movement".

[ChiangMaiFun]

Hmmm I do not deny the legality - I believe (still believe) that there will not be Peace in the Valley until the nation 'feels' it has had it's say - and that any government (whatever hue) was put there by them

....or not to put it in a meally-mouthed way, 'let's have Thaksin back'.

Nonsense...

[ChiangMaiFun]

ChaingMaiFun wrote:

" ....and some yellow mellows have suggested not giving the vote to the uneducated farmers and they only got to power through the action at the airport - that cannot be denied - and this is the point you refuse to recognise. "

Can you please give some examples of this, specific examples, from anybody, saying that 'uneducated farmers should not be given the vote'.

Many have made comment to the effect that many uneducated farmers probably don't understand the concept of democracy of the processes of democracy etc. But I can't recall posters actually saying that uneducated farmers should not be given the vote. I certainly hope not.

Would you like to share some evidence please.

I didn't say 'posters' did I? but some posters have said in-breds and such insults about the Thai people which I think is outrageous!

[Samuian]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

Humbug and Balderdash! well... it is technically true - I was going along the 'but the people feel they have not elected them' road - you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal' - you see it's not just about the law it's about perception - all I am saying is let's have more transparency - I have said, consistently, (but noone conveniently remembers) that I am against violent protest whomsoever perpetuates it - I do not hear this from our canary friends - just

red = bad

red = immaturity

red = lack of Parliamentary understanding

and worst of all red = Thaksin stooges

and all yellow is mellow!!!

Alright then, "technically true"- how you argue then that it is untrue, unright, illegal if you admit that it is "technically true"?

And you avoid to answer who are those people exactly you mention: 'but the people feel they have not elected them'

the UDD, the red shirts, the "we love Thaksin" bunch or the "King Thaksins warriors" or all of them?

Who are trying to deny this government the same rights, they sat still on, while the 2 previous "governments" have been at the helm?

Why haven't they come up and supported the yelow shirts, at least they've been out for a rather similiar crusade.... to oust an unjust government.... why are the followers so much opposed to the agenda of the PAD in it's core it must be the same orare there several rights and wrongs, several grades of corrupt politicians?

maybe you can enlighten the audience here - today a bit...!?

Is it because they, the red shirts and supporters, are the "right team" like your favorite football/soccer/rugby team?

Is it all about whom YOU favor or about what and who is better for this country and it's people?

As the coup was widely supported it seems that it was widely accepted - except from someone who is going to lose a lot....any further questions?

Ask!

[ChiangMaiFun]

and none of you canaries comment on the take over of the airport and the chaos that led to ordinary Thais? I mention it and... wait for it... nothing! not very democratic what, what? I know, I know - if you're not yellow you're not mellow - and better red and dead right? and you all ignore that I mentioned that I actually like Abhsit - and I and others are not lobbying for anything to do with Khun T - so please could everyone stop linking comments on wanting an election with a possible return of Khun T? it really does the debate no justice - because we want an election does not mean we are stooges and the like and it debases the whole canary position IMHO.

[ChiangMaiFun]

CMF -- the current government is the elected government (elected by the people that elected Samak). The people have decided and you know it: You don't answer the point made .. you avoid it

If the previous 2 governments were duely elected then this one is too. There was nothing untoward in how the Democrats were elected (the process). It is standard in parliamentary democracy

Humbug and Balderdash! well... it is technically true - I was going along the 'but the people feel they have not elected them' road - you see if in England we had elected a Labour government (for instance) and the Tories and Libs had got together and colluded to form a government there would be outcry even if the Courts would say 'it is legal' - you see it's not just about the law it's about perception - all I am saying is let's have more transparency - I have said, consistently, (but noone conveniently remembers) that I am against violent protest whomsoever perpetuates it - I do not hear this from our canary friends - just

red = bad

red = immaturity

red = lack of Parliamentary understanding

and worst of all red = Thaksin stooges

and all yellow is mellow!!!

Alright then, "technically true"- how you argue then that it is untrue, unright, illegal if you admit that it is "technically true"?

And you avoid to answer who are those people exactly you mention: 'but the people feel they have not elected them'

the UDD, the red shirts, the "we love Thaksin" bunch or the "King Thaksins warriors" or all of them?

Who are trying to deny this government the same rights, they sat still on, while the 2 previous "governments" have been at the helm?

Why haven't they come up and supported the yelow shirts, at least they've been out for a rather similiar crusade.... to oust an unjust government.... why are the followers so much opposed to the agenda of the PAD in it's core it must be the same orare there several rights and wrongs, several grades of corrupt politicians?

maybe you can enlighten the audience here - today a bit...!?

Is it because they, the red shirts and supporters, are the "right team" like your favorite football/soccer/rugby team?

Is it all about whom YOU favor or about what and who is better for this country and it's people?

As the coup was widely supported it seems that it was widely accepted - except from someone who is going to lose a lot....any further questions?

Ask!

Rubbish... all the Thai's I spoke to hated the yellows for taking the airport - you are living in dreamland - they desimated the tourist trade and it hasn't recovered yet - and humiliated the Thai people in the eyes of the world... you mean you agree with illegal action such as this? unbelievableeeee...

[TAWP]

well that accounts for 90% of the democratic free-world - welcome to democracy folks!

You seem to have a fetish in bashing coalitions. Not sure why, both PPP and the current government (and the first TRT back in 2001) was coalition governments...

And your lines about Britain being a cradle of the parliament and that their failure to have coalitions the last 100 years (outside war time) would be a measure-stock of anything is laughable and so home-blind it is just sad.

But please, go on, tell us why a coalition is good (TRT+others) or bad (current) or bad (PPP+others)...

[jdinasia]

and none of you canaries comment on the take over of the airport and the chaos that led to ordinary Thais? I mention it and... wait for it... nothing! not very democratic what, what? I know, I know - if you're not yellow you're not mellow - and better red and dead right? and you all ignore that I mentioned that I actually like Abhsit - and I and others are not lobbying for anything to do with Khun T - so please could everyone stop linking comments on wanting an election with a possible return of Khun T? it really does the debate no justice - because we want an election does not mean we are stooges and the like and it debases the whole canary position IMHO.

You have admitted that the current government is in place legally. The "Red Agenda" is strictly a pro Thaksin agenda. So to promote the Red Agenda to get a new election because the last one does not meet their desires yet is 100% in keeping with democratic tradition seems only to be supporting a pro-Thaksin agenda.

Again, you don't get to have it both ways. You are either pro-democracy or you aren't. This has naught to do with "the airport take over" but I can see why you would want to obfuscate the discussion about elections that you have already admitted were legal