Red Shirts Plan Intensified Protest In Bangkok : Saturday

[tonywebster]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

Not to mention that the PAD have not been ruled to have been illegally occupying Government house. In fact, they had a court injunction preventing their forced removal from Government House. The reds Tony is defending are part of the group that has sworn to use violence aren't they? Whether the reds are legally protesting will be determined in court eventually, but if they try and damage BKK more I am sure that they will be ruled against. They seem to have gotten that point and have called off the roaming parade scheduled for tmw. (The fact that many BKK ommunities have spoken out against it may be part of the reason)

I must have missed all this violence that they are allegedly sworn to have threatened, We can't move for the rioting on the streets

The trespass at Government House was criminal or does the law change depending on the colour shirt you are wearing.

More hyperbole by the forum hyperbole king.

[tonywebster]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

NOBODY was given the mandate to govern in the last election. All three governments that have ruled since the last elections have been coalition governments and Tony knows this... simple obfuscation on his part.

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

[thaihome]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

I assume by "mandate" you mean a majority of the votes. Please show me who won a "majority" of the votes in the 2007 election.

The PPP did not win a mandate. It won the most seats, less then a majority.

I strongly suggest you learn what "'elected government" means in the Thai system. If the current coalition is not the 'elected government' then how could the Samak and Somchai governments be?

TH

[anotherpeter]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

If you are looking at it that way, then no one was the elected government. They were all coalitions of elected MPs.

[NCFC]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

Not to mention that the PAD have not been ruled to have been illegally occupying Government house. In fact, they had a court injunction preventing their forced removal from Government House. The reds Tony is defending are part of the group that has sworn to use violence aren't they? Whether the reds are legally protesting will be determined in court eventually, but if they try and damage BKK more I am sure that they will be ruled against. They seem to have gotten that point and have called off the roaming parade scheduled for tmw. (The fact that many BKK ommunities have spoken out against it may be part of the reason)

Of course PAD haven't been ruled to have been illegally occupying Government house. That's part of the double standards the reds are protesting about.

And the taxpayers were left with a huge bill to restore the buildings after they had been wrecked by this non-illegal occupation. Not to mention all the property that was stolen when the yellow mob ransacked the place.

Or have you forgotten about that?

[TAWP]

tony>> Give us a call when they present any plan on how to improve the country.

I would imagine they will continue to do what they were elected to do. While we are on the subject, nudge me when the dems actually do anything good for the country, I might miss it.

I doubt you are able to read any passage that declares they do anything for the people. Selective blindness I presume.

30baht healthcare -> free healthcare, free school, continuation of free buses and water etc, is some of the populist (you seem to like those) things they have done, and probably some more I couldn't be bothered to remember. Which is besides their point, I am not here to promote their politics. I am here to point out the lies and deception in the red camp and their non-existent politic platform on how to reform the country and improve it for all.

I somehow doubt they have the singlest clue what micro or macro economics mean and how to lift up the poor to the middle class by enabling companies to succeed, without monopolies etc.

[Wolfie]

Ok guys - just a quick heads up to all.

Please don't edit peoples posts - quote their post in full. Please keep it civil and don't resort to name calling or flaming, even if it is just mild. We can still have an interesting (and fun) debate and keep things civil.

Next person to violate this warning owes me a pint, got it?

[anotherpeter]

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

Are we going to keep having elections until one party gets a majority of the seats?

That's not likely to happen. It will continue to be coalition governments. That's the way the system works.

[TAWP]

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

Re: "All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government,"

Please advice us how they are not the elected government and point out what breaches in protocol that occurred to make this happen. I also hope you sent your findings to the election commission.

Edited: Included full quote.

Edited March 26, 2010 by TAWP

[jdinasia]

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

NOBODY was given the mandate to govern in the last election. All three governments that have ruled since the last elections have been coalition governments and Tony knows this... simple obfuscation on his part.

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

Wrong again but thanks for resorting to "cherry-picking" to try and win an argument. No there shouldn't be a new election until the current government loses the coalition OR the next elections are scheduled. Which is the same response you would have gotten from me with Samak or Somchai in office. To cry for new elections just because "your side" lost is stupid AND counter-productive. You know how government works here and you appear to be saying that the only valid government would be when a single party won over 50% and that is a rare thing in parliamentary democracies.

[way2muchcoffee]

Judging by what the reds did this time last year to his car and driver when they thought he was in the car - i cant say i blame him for staying out of harms way... Lets face it, Abhisit getting killed by a red mob isnt going to help the country at all.. is it?

Hiding in military barracks sends a message to the world that he really isn't in control of his own country. Not a statesman-like stance at all. It also sends a message about who really is pulling the strings.

It's the double-standards that the red-shirts protest about. The army seeks to protect Mark, but where was the protection to the other side during the yellow violence.

The reds already tried to assassinate Abhisit twice. They threw biological waste into the courtyard, drive, deck, and onto the roof of his private residence, while making public statements wishing it were his blood. They attacked visiting dignitaries. Personal protection is necessary.

Regarding double standards. Perhaps if the PPP had spent less time buying votes, committing electoral fraud, and attempting to change the constitution to exonerate Thaksin and the banned TRT politicians, the military might have decided that that PPP government was worth defending.

Edited March 26, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[tonywebster]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

If you are looking at it that way, then no one was the elected government. They were all coalitions of elected MPs.

So the dems are not elected, thanks for clearing that up. teh fact is in the past three elections they have not had the ability to even form a coalition. this should tell you that they were not wanted to govern, if they were wanted the people had the chance to elect them. Now lets put it to a vote and see who wins.

All this talk about million man is pure nonsense and has no relation to the actual events. the only numbers that matter will be on election day.

[tonywebster]

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

NOBODY was given the mandate to govern in the last election. All three governments that have ruled since the last elections have been coalition governments and Tony knows this... simple obfuscation on his part.

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

Wrong again but thanks for resorting to "cherry-picking" to try and win an argument. No there shouldn't be a new election until the current government loses the coalition OR the next elections are scheduled. Which is the same response you would have gotten from me with Samak or Somchai in office. To cry for new elections just because "your side" lost is stupid AND counter-productive. You know how government works here and you appear to be saying that the only valid government would be when a single party won over 50% and that is a rare thing in parliamentary democracies.

It truly is an honour for my cherry picking to be picked up by the master of cherry picking, I feel honoured. it is like getting mentioned in dispatches.

[TAWP]

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

So TRT did not have mandate in 2001, PPP did not have mandate in 2007, correct? That is what you are proposing?

[Insight]

Next person to violate this warning owes me a pint, got it?

The perks

[tonywebster]

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

So TRT did not have mandate in 2001, PPP did not have mandate in 2007, correct? That is what you are proposing?

TRT formed a coalition on the back of an election, not on the back of a court order

[jdinasia]

Next person to violate this warning owes me a pint, got it?

The perks

One of the wolves (I think this one) still owes me a pint from the Phuket Piss-up a couple of years ago ....

Tony, you really need to face the facts as they apply to Thailand and other Parliamentary Democracies and quit crying because PTP can't get enough friends to join with them to form a coalition.

Regarding me and cherry-picking ... I tend to address posts point by point and do not have to rely on obfuscation and cherry-picking. You should try it! Sadly, if you did then you would have to drop your pro-red stance on TV.

[TAWP]

So the dems do not have the mandate to govern, thanks for finally clearing that up. now shouldn't there be an election to get an elected government?

So TRT did not have mandate in 2001, PPP did not have mandate in 2007, correct? That is what you are proposing?

TRT formed a coalition on the back of an election, not on the back of a court order

There was by-elections after the court decision. If PPP had the peoples mandate they would not have LOST their MP seats in SEVERAL of the by-elections. PPP COULD have still had the EQUAL number of MPs or MORE if they indeed had such a huge support from the people.

Why did that not happen?

[anotherpeter]

Now you're just showing your stupidity.

How many politicians did they threaten? Did politicians need to flee to safety like the international politicians at the ASEAN summit in Pattaya.

How many foreign tourists were held? There were no tourists in danger! They were very inconvenienced, but not in danger.

I'm not saying the yellows shirts did no wrong. But they weren't threatening civil war like the read shirts.

Not threatening civil war? Get real, they were forcing a situation where the military could step in with yet another coup.

The yellow shirts succeeded in their aims and destroyed democracy in the process.

Thank God that their are many who are prepared to fight back for democratic principles, even when the puppet prime minster is hiding.

The yellows didn't threaten to burn down Bangkok. The yellows didn't threaten to blow up a gas tanker in a residential area. The yellows didn't threaten civil war.

They took over a government building. They took over the airports. That isn't civil war. Even forcing a situation where there might be coup isn't civil war. That's just showing that the government can't handle the situation.

The courts disbanded the PPP party for systematic vote buying. That wasn't the yellows doing. That was the PPP efforts to destroy democracy.

You're suggesting the reds do all of the things that you are complaining about yellows. That's double standards, isn't it?

[Wolfie]

One of the wolves (I think this one) still owes me a pint from the Phuket Piss-up a couple of years ago ....

Tony, you really need to face the facts as they apply to Thailand and other Parliamentary Democracies and quit crying because PTP can't get enough friends to join with them to form a coalition.

Regarding me and cherry-picking ... I tend to address posts point by point and do not have to rely on obfuscation and cherry-picking. You should try it! Sadly, if you did then you would have to drop your pro-red stance on TV.

I still have the ban button... lets not drag up the past - hehe

[Nuchanart]

Judging by what the reds did this time last year to his car and driver when they thought he was in the car - i cant say i blame him for staying out of harms way... Lets face it, Abhisit getting killed by a red mob isnt going to help the country at all.. is it?

Hiding in military barracks sends a message to the world that he really isn't in control of his own country. Not a statesman-like stance at all. It also sends a message about who really is pulling the strings.

It's the double-standards that the red-shirts protest about. The army seeks to protect Mark, but where was the protection to the other side during the yellow violence.

Hiding in military barracks sends a message to the world that some of the red protestors (and some of their leaders) are violent thugs.

During the yellow protests, did they threaten civil war? Did the yellows ever threaten the politicians with violence? Did the yellows attack any politicians cars thinking the politician was inside?

The PAD are a peaceful gang. I can assure you.

[Ricardo]

So the dems are not elected, thanks for clearing that up. teh fact is in the past three elections they have not had the ability to even form a coalition. this should tell you that they were not wanted to govern, if they were wanted the people had the chance to elect them. Now lets put it to a vote and see who wins.

All this talk about million man is pure nonsense and has no relation to the actual events. the only numbers that matter will be on election day.

"All this talk about million man is pure nonsense".

I can only agree, the Million Man FlopMarch was indeed nonsense, and the Red-Shirt leaders who promised it have been shown to be unable to deliver, hope that the paymaster isn't too disappointed.

[anotherpeter]

So the dems are not elected, thanks for clearing that up. teh fact is in the past three elections they have not had the ability to even form a coalition. this should tell you that they were not wanted to govern, if they were wanted the people had the chance to elect them. Now lets put it to a vote and see who wins.

<snip million man march irrelevance>

So it's OK for the TRT/PPP/PTP to form governments with coalitions, but not OK for the Democrats? Double Standards!

[Insight]

I still have the ban button... lets not drag up the past - hehe

I'd prefer a pint...

[Nuchanart]

Is Mark still hiding behind the military skirts? When will this coward leave the barracks and face the people?

Or perhaps his controllers won't let him?

The army is having fun. Why waste a baby face. It is hard to come by.

[Wolfie]

I still have the ban button... lets not drag up the past - hehe

I'd prefer a pint...

You in bkk these days? I'm always up for a pint

[anotherpeter]

The PAD are a peaceful gang. I can assure you.

Do you know who they were shooting at and why? Were they provoked?

But I don't think I said they were peaceful or excusing what they did. (Although their take over of the airport was peaceful.) I was just pointing out that they weren't threatening civil war, or threatening to blow up a gas tanker in a residential area, or threatening to burn down Bangkok.

The yellows were protesting against the government, not threatening war against the people of Bangkok.

EDIT: And going back to the very original discussion, pointing out why Abhisit needs protection from the threats of the red protestors.

Edited March 26, 2010 by anotherpeter

[jdinasia]

One of the wolves (I think this one) still owes me a pint from the Phuket Piss-up a couple of years ago ....

Tony, you really need to face the facts as they apply to Thailand and other Parliamentary Democracies and quit crying because PTP can't get enough friends to join with them to form a coalition.

Regarding me and cherry-picking ... I tend to address posts point by point and do not have to rely on obfuscation and cherry-picking. You should try it! Sadly, if you did then you would have to drop your pro-red stance on TV.

I still have the ban button... lets not drag up the past - hehe

Chiang Mai is where I hang my hat these days! Probably will be here for the next few years, depending on the needs of the business.

[thaihome]

Ok guys - just a quick heads up to all.

Please don't edit peoples posts - quote their post in full. Please keep it civil and don't resort to name calling or flaming, even if it is just mild. We can still have an interesting (and fun) debate and keep things civil.

Next person to violate this warning owes me a pint, got it?

So the use of ellipses are now illegal, even if the full context of the persons post is kept intact? (as it was in mine) I looked in the rules, I see nothing that requires full posting of other peoples post, and personally find it very annoying when someone quotes a 500 word post and follows it with 5 word response (or insult as is often the case).

TH

[Nuchanart]

The PAD are a peaceful gang. I can assure you.

Do you know who they were shooting at and why? Were they provoked?

But I don't think I said they were peaceful or excusing what they did. (Although their take over of the airport was peaceful.) I was just pointing out that they weren't threatening civil war, or threatening to blow up a gas tanker in a residential area, or threatening to burn down Bangkok.

The yellows were protesting against the government, not threatening war against the people of Bangkok.

EDIT: And going back to the very original discussion, pointing out why Abhisit needs protection from the threats of the red protestors.

You are saying that the RED can also take the airport, as long as they take it peacefully, just like the YELLOW. Please confirm my understanding.