How To Stop The Million Man March Legitimately

[ballpoint]

Err..... Seem to recall that the wolves were out for the Reds on the Aphisit shit throwing thread as people jostled with each other to be the first put their foot in their mouths.

To be frank (and not aimed at you but in general) the attitude that " The people who agree with my stance on things wouldn't possibly do that but it's par for the course that the people who disagree with me would " seems stunningly immature.

The shit throwing thread was typical of threads of its type in that it attracted many different speculations, and more than a few joke posts. Given who the target was, and the current circumstances, it was hardly unlikely not to attract posters claiming that the reds did it, just as the severed head on the bridge post last year attracted posters claiming the mafia/BIB/aliens/you name it. In my opinion, it's a little different from someone posting some inane or false comment, having someone else post a list of reasons why that comment was inane or false, only to have the OP post exactly the same comment again. As far as I can remember, pretty much most of what is posted by the red supporters is answered by the opposing side, whereas a number of anti Thaksin posters, myself included, have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in pro red posts, and asked a number of questions in order to get a better understanding of what they are saying, only to be ignored totally, or be personally abused, and have the same things spouted again and again on many different threads. Maybe, as you say, both sides are guilty, I try not to be, and, as I say, it does seem far more prevalent from the red side.

Edited to add: The other difference is that speculation over the "shit throwing" thread stopped when the alleged offender was caught. I can't help thinking that if it had have been the opposite situation, we would still be getting pro red posts lambasting the yellows for throwing shit at Thaksin. After all, we are still flooded with posts claiming he is innocent/unfairly convicted, despite the court ruling otherwise and the evidence being readily accessible to the public.

Edited March 5, 2010 by ballpoint

[Thanh-BKK]

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

Using this silly comparison pretty much negates the whole post. Hitler murdered millions of people for their religion, ethnic background and sexual orientation. Thaksin is a knight on a white horse in comparison.

Hi.

Yeah but Hitler did that after he became dictator. Thaksin wasn't quite there yet. And who knows what Thaksin would have done after he'd secured his position as the "President of Thailand", with family members and class mates in key position and democracy truly removed.... after all, the UN was not his father and democracy wasn't his goal either as per his very own words. He could well have caused a war later on..... in the beginning nobody imagined that Hitler would ever do it, but he did as we all know.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[Ulysses G.]

The problem is that you are pretty much saying that Thaksin will turn out like Hitler with little evidence that he will. There are much better comparisons that are not so outrageous - if you that is what you are looking for.

[Jingthing]

The problem is that you are pretty much saying that Thaksin will turn out like Hitler with little evidence that he will. There are much better comparisons that are not so outrageous - if you that is what you are looking for.

Agreed. We don't need Adolph in this discussion. There are plenty of great reasons to oppose Thaksin's desire to return to power without invoking Hitler. The more apt comparisons -- Peron/Chavez/Marcos ...

[anotherpeter]

As far as I can remember, pretty much most of what is posted by the red supporters is answered by the opposing side, whereas a number of anti Thaksin posters, myself included, have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in pro red posts, and asked a number of questions in order to get a better understanding of what they are saying, only to be ignored totally, or be personally abused, and have the same things spouted again and again on many different threads. Maybe, as you say, both sides are guilty, I try not to be, and, as I say, it does seem far more prevalent from the red side.

Correct ... I am yet to see any posts by Thaksin supporters that explain how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption. No one has even plainly stated that "it wasn't corruption".

His supporters just go back to the tired, and basically incorrect, statements about coup issued laws and unelected government.

[plachon]

As far as I can remember, pretty much most of what is posted by the red supporters is answered by the opposing side, whereas a number of anti Thaksin posters, myself included, have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in pro red posts, and asked a number of questions in order to get a better understanding of what they are saying, only to be ignored totally, or be personally abused, and have the same things spouted again and again on many different threads. Maybe, as you say, both sides are guilty, I try not to be, and, as I say, it does seem far more prevalent from the red side.

Correct ... I am yet to see any posts by Thaksin supporters that explain how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption. No one has even plainly stated that "it wasn't corruption".

His supporters just go back to the tired, and basically incorrect, statements about coup issued laws and unelected government.

Trouble is they pretty much boxed themselves into a corner by refusing to decouple some of the more reasonable and legitimate demands of a minority of the Redskirt movement from the rescue Thaksin cause. Bad move on their part in retrospect and am sure they'll live to rue it. They could have had so much more moral persuasion to their argument if they'd clearly disowned Thaksin and the violent Red factions, of which there are apparently many. Even Ji blew it big time by getting snuggled up to the Reds.

[Ulysses G.]

As far as I can remember, pretty much most of what is posted by the red supporters is answered by the opposing side, whereas a number of anti Thaksin posters, myself included, have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in pro red posts, and asked a number of questions in order to get a better understanding of what they are saying, only to be ignored totally, or be personally abused, and have the same things spouted again and again on many different threads. Maybe, as you say, both sides are guilty, I try not to be, and, as I say, it does seem far more prevalent from the red side.

Correct ... I am yet to see any posts by Thaksin supporters that explain how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption. No one has even plainly stated that "it wasn't corruption".

His supporters just go back to the tired, and basically incorrect, statements about coup issued laws and unelected government.

Actually, they usually point out that Thaksin was corrupt, but so was every other Prime Minister before him from the beginning of time. Why is only Thaksin supposed to be the bogeyman?

[rixalex]

Actually, they usually point out that Thaksin was corrupt, but so was every other Prime Minister before him from the beginning of time.

That may or may not be true, but either way, what it doesn't do is in any way excuse or make more acceptable the crimes Thaksin commited. The reds seem to think it does. The reds seem to think that because others have been corrupt in the past and got away with it, so too should Thaksin. It's a complete nonsense.

Why is only Thaksin supposed to be the bogeyman?

Plenty of other bogeymen out there but only Thaksin is the one being defended by the likes of yourself. If he weren't being defended all the time he wouldn't be attacked or talked about so much on places like ThaiVisa.

[Ulysses G.]

Now that is a load of crap. A few obsessive Thaksin haters - who don't seem to think about much else - bring him up over and over again on the forum, and lie, justify and twist the truth to attempt to convince other's that their opinions are the only ones that are right.

Most of the foreigners who are not convinced by the arguments of the Grand Inquisitors do not support Thaksin. They just want to provide a little balance to the argument.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

Now that is a load of crap. A few obsessive Thaksin haters - who don't seem to think about much else - bring him up over and over again on the forum, and lie, justify and twist the truth to attempt to convince other's that their opinions are the only ones that are right.

Most of the foreigners who are not convinced by the arguments of the Grand Inquisitors, just want to provide a little balance

to the argument.

That begs the question .... what lies are being told about Thaksin, UG?

That he is a convict on the lam from serving his time in Thailand? That he with his own mouth directly linked himself to the deaths in the "war on drugs"?

UG -- you have to admit that your one-liners certainly don't ADD any balance to the discussion. You provide no information or discuss any issues. You just make a quick snide remark about posters and then retreat (as a general rule.)

[Ulysses G.]

I just posted four lines that contain more truth than some of the obsessive Thaksin-hater's longest posts.

Why go on and and on and on and on when you are pretty much just saying the same thing over and over?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

I just posted four lines that contain more truth than some of the obsessive Thaksin-hater's longest posts.

Why go on and and on and on and on when you are pretty much just saying the same thing over and over?

Did you notice that you skipped over the question asked directly? What lies are being told about Thaksin?

What do you ADD in the way of balance? You post about the posters and not about the topic.

[jdinasia]

UG ---

BTW I do agree that people (myself being amongst the biggest offenders) make many repetitive posts, but they tend to be made in response to the frequently 'returned' new members that ARE actually telling lies and twisting the truth.

[anotherpeter]

Now that is a load of crap. A few obsessive Thaksin haters - who don't seem to think about much else - bring him up over and over again on the forum, and lie, justify and twist the truth to attempt to convince other's that their opinions are the only ones that are right.

OK ... Please explain to me how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption.

I have seen detailed responses explaining why most of us think that he is corrupt and that he should be in jail. It is one of the main reasons why most of us don't like the reds. Along with the usual reds arguments of "give the poor a voice" is usually "bring back Thaksin and make him PM". We are all for giving the poor a voice, educating them and helping them. Please don't respond to me with comments about the elites (yellows?) not wanting to give the poor a voice ... that is not what we are discussing. I want to know WHY YOU THINK THAKSIN IS NOT CORRUPT and why you think a corrupt business man should still be PM.

Edited March 6, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Ulysses G.]

I just posted four lines that contain more truth than some of the obsessive Thaksin-hater's longest posts.

Why go on and and on and on and on when you are pretty much just saying the same thing over and over?

Did you notice that you skipped over the question asked directly? What lies are being told about Thaksin?

It is an absurd question - there are pages of them - but here is an excellent example that none of the Grand Inquisitors refuted until I pointed it out:

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

By the way, pointing out that someone is an obsessive Thaksin-hater is a lot easier and telling than than refuting a million twisted, distorted posts.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Now that is a load of crap. A few obsessive Thaksin haters - who don't seem to think about much else - bring him up over and over again on the forum, and lie, justify and twist the truth to attempt to convince other's that their opinions are the only ones that are right.

OK ... Please explain to me how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption.

How many times do I need to answer this?

Actually, they usually point out that Thaksin was corrupt, but so was every other Prime Minister before him from the beginning of time. Why is only Thaksin supposed to be the bogeyman?

[rixalex]

Most of the foreigners who are not convinced by the arguments of the Grand Inquisitors do not support Thaksin.

How do you know that? Do you have get-togethers?

I'd like to know the difference between someone who supports Thaksin / the reds, and someone who is a Thaksin / reds supporter?

You certainly support, but apparently you are not a supporter.

They just want to provide a little balance to the argument.

If they wanted to provide balance they could go after all those other politicians they frequently tell us are as bad / worse than Thaksin. They rarely do. They spend much more time defending Thaksin.

[jdinasia]

You saw that some of the "Thaksin Haters" refuted the Hitler position .... and that appears to be a statement of opinion (and ill considered opinion at that!)

But when post after post obfuscates and attempts to hide the real history, someone should step in and call them on it. Frequently the pro-Thaksin poster just fades away when called out on obvious lies (like Thaksin never returned to Thailand after he was removed as caretaker PM in 2006 etc.) Yet there are the folks that just continue to post absurd lies about him.

We have posters that deny being (to put it nicely) "Red leaning" yet post the same tripe over and over. People like me step in and point out the lies and obfuscations.

[anotherpeter]

Now that is a load of crap. A few obsessive Thaksin haters - who don't seem to think about much else - bring him up over and over again on the forum, and lie, justify and twist the truth to attempt to convince other's that their opinions are the only ones that are right.

OK ... Please explain to me how the laws and contracts that he changed while PM that benefitted Shin Corp was not corruption.

How many times do I need to answer this?

Actually, they usually point out that Thaksin was corrupt, but so was every other Prime Minister before him from the beginning of time. Why is only Thaksin supposed to be the bogeyman?

Thaksin was the bogeyman because he took the corruption too far.

How about fighting to get rid of corruption, rather than fighting to bring back Thaksin.

[Ulysses G.]

People like me step in...

[anotherpeter]

I just posted four lines that contain more truth than some of the obsessive Thaksin-hater's longest posts.

Why go on and and on and on and on when you are pretty much just saying the same thing over and over?

Did you notice that you skipped over the question asked directly? What lies are being told about Thaksin?

It is an absurd question - there are pages of them ....

Please point me too them, as I have yet to see any.

Your later post of "They are all corrupt" is not a very good reason to bring him back.

[jdinasia]

Yet again a one-liner that fails to address any issue.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, at least according to one VERY biased poster.

[rixalex]

It is an absurd question - there are pages of them - but here is an excellent example that none of the Grand Inquisitors refuted until I pointed it out:

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

You seem to struggle with what constitutes a lie. Let me give you some examples. Thaksin is a woman. Thaksin has blue eyes. Thaksin lives in a house shaped like a shoe. These are lies - as far as i'm aware.

Comparing Thaksin with Madonna, Pavaroti or Hitler is not lying, it's making a camparison based on someones opinion. It might not be a fair or a kind comparison and you might not agree with it (as i don't), but it's not a fact being stated so it's not a lie being told. Simple enough for you?

[Ulysses G.]

I just posted four lines that contain more truth than some of the obsessive Thaksin-hater's longest posts.

Why go on and and on and on and on when you are pretty much just saying the same thing over and over?

Did you notice that you skipped over the question asked directly? What lies are being told about Thaksin?

It is an absurd question - there are pages of them ....

Please point me too them, as I have yet to see any.

You need to go back and read the thread. I just gave an excellent example about HITLER (hint hint).

[Ricardo]

What lies are being told about Thaksin?

That he is a good businessman, when his actual record is patchy at best, perhaps ?

Or that he is a fighter for justice, when he's also a convicted criminal, and on-the-run to avoid jail & many other cases ?

That he is perhaps a fighter for democracy, one need only look at his record, and pronouncements when in-power ?

That the courts had stolen all his life-savings, when he himself admits, he has hundreds of millions of dollars off-shore ?

That Thailand needs his economic advice to survive ?

That he believes in non-violent protest ?

That he can take sole-credit for the 30Baht hospital-care scheme, which has now been continued, by 4 governments since his ?

Take your pick, from these, and many others !

[Ulysses G.]

It is an absurd question - there are pages of them - but here is an excellent example that none of the Grand Inquisitors refuted until I pointed it out:

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

You seem to struggle with what constitutes a lie. Let me give you some examples. Thaksin is a woman. Thaksin has blue eyes. Thaksin lives in a house shaped like a shoe. These are lies - as far as i'm aware.

Comparing Thaksin with Madonna, Pavaroti or Hitler is not lying, it's making a camparison based on someones opinion. It might not be a fair or a kind comparison and you might not agree with it (as i don't), but it's not a fact being stated so it's not a lie being told. Simple enough for you?

SPIN!

[Ulysses G.]

They just want to provide a little balance to the argument.

If they wanted to provide balance they could go after all those other politicians they frequently tell us are as bad / worse than Thaksin. They rarely do. They spend much more time defending Thaksin.

Because YOU keep bringing him up. I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I certainly know which posters have nothing to do but spread hatred against a man who is a pretty typical politician in this part of the world.

[anotherpeter]

Please point me too them, as I have yet to see any.

You need to go back and read the thread. I just gave an excellent example about HITLER (hint hint).

Refuting that Thaksin is not like Hitler is not giving explanations of why you think he is not corrupt.

[anotherpeter]

They just want to provide a little balance to the argument.

If they wanted to provide balance they could go after all those other politicians they frequently tell us are as bad / worse than Thaksin. They rarely do. They spend much more time defending Thaksin.

Because YOU keep bringing him up. I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I certainly know which posters have nothing to do but spread hatred against a man who is a pretty typical politician in this part of the world.

So your basic argument is "Bring Thaksin back because all politicians are corrupt"?

Excuse my ignorance, but I haven't seen any specific instances where Abhisit has changed laws to suit his own business interests. In no way am I suggesting that there isn't corruption there, but that doesn't mean Thailand should bring back a man that personally made billions of dollars by changing laws while being PM.