Thai Govt Coalition Partners, PAD React To Peace Talks

[MellowYellow]

Just so much distraction from the points made by opposing thoughts.

It's a tactic...

Even if he isn't doing this professionally, he is still being led by the nose, albiet unwittingly

by someone who is salting the waters with Thaksins version of truth.

A fairly simplistic view. Nicholas Creel would be proud.

Labelling, namecalling, personal abusing, inability to refute, inability to admit....

Coming from a one sided, intellectually dishonest spewer of the party line...your master's Sondhi and Abhisit would be proud. Oh yeah and probably also dbags like yoshiwara.

Edited March 31, 2010 by MellowYellow

[MellowYellow]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

Edited March 31, 2010 by MellowYellow

[TheOldWolf]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

1: Bu using mob methods?

2: I don´t here any read leaders advocte this

3: How many rural people on the PT voting lists?

4: There will be a chance for everyone to vote in the next election. Whats wrong with that?

The read leaders are talking about 2 things. Dissolve parlamenty and back to 1997 constituion and they dont want to discuss.

[animatic]

Distract and repeat the hoary mantras.

Not much more of a response needed.

The PR plan really has become much too obvious,

time for a rethink, if you get a lunch break.

Create a truth and hammer it home,

and bang down any nails that stick up too.

Edited March 31, 2010 by animatic

[MellowYellow]

Distract and repeat the hoary mantras.

No much more of a response needed.

It really has become much to obvious,

time for a rethink, if you get a lunch break.

Excellent description of yourself and your groupthink mates.

Wait, but you forgot to throw in another personal insult. Restudy your formula.

[Publicus]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

Holy jeeze, step back for the night man and get a grip on yourself, get a good night's sleep so you can wake tomorrow refreshed and realize what personal attacks are and how they're pouring forth here like Niagra Falls. Your posts are descending into an abyss. Your focus is on the forumists and the fact per se they're making posts, nevermind they're posts with which you vehemently disaagree.

Take a walk in the fresh air, run your bare feet over the fresh grass and get reconnected to the balance of nature. Consider some perspective and return with some sense of perspective in mind.

And as for you other guys, don't you know you're feeding the fire? I happen to agree with your posts and admire your body of work posting here, but kindly take care not to get so involved with irrationality itself. The guy's hauled in much more than enuff rope by now, so sit back and have a cold one till next time, ok?

[MellowYellow]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

Holy jeeze, step back for the night man and get a grip on yourself, get a good night's sleep so you can wake tomorrow refreshed and realize what personal attacks are and how they're pouring forth here like Niagra Falls. Your posts are descending into an abyss. Your focus is on the forumists and the fact per se they're making posts, nevermind they're posts with which you vehemently disaagree.

Take a walk in the fresh air, run your bare feet over the fresh grass and get reconnected to the balance of nature. Consider some perspective and return with some sense of perspective in mind.

And as for you other guys, don't you know you're feeding the fire? I happen to agree with your posts and admire your body of work posting here, but kindly take care not to get so involved with irrationality itself. The guy's hauled in much more than enuff rope by now, so sit back and have a cold one till next time, ok?

I have been accused of being a Thaksin apologist, a liar about where I live, led by the nose, a paid shill, and other things.

Am I acting irrationally by responding to and calling out said attacks?

Am I reacting irrationally by shining the light of day on the flawed, biased, double standard logic employed by one side in the argument?

I don't think so. You go ahead and let me know when it's ok to disagree with the forum groupthink tribe without being insulted, labeled and belittled.

I'm relaxed. I have barely responded in kind to jdinasia or animatic and have, for the most part, not wasted time on the tarded out troll, yokiswara.

I'm down for calm, reasoned debate. Are the others?

Can animatic, jdinasia honestly debate without the personal insults and labels? I haven't seen too much of it to know if it is possible.

[gymboy33]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

Holy jeeze, step back for the night man and get a grip on yourself, get a good night's sleep so you can wake tomorrow refreshed and realize what personal attacks are and how they're pouring forth here like Niagra Falls. Your posts are descending into an abyss. Your focus is on the forumists and the fact per se they're making posts, nevermind they're posts with which you vehemently disaagree.

Take a walk in the fresh air, run your bare feet over the fresh grass and get reconnected to the balance of nature. Consider some perspective and return with some sense of perspective in mind.

And as for you other guys, don't you know you're feeding the fire? I happen to agree with your posts and admire your body of work posting here, but kindly take care not to get so involved with irrationality itself. The guy's hauled in much more than enuff rope by now, so sit back and have a cold one till next time, ok?

I have been accused of being a Thaksin apologist, a liar about where I live, led by the nose, a paid shill, and other things.

Am I acting irrationally by responding to and calling out said attacks?

Am I reacting irrationally by shining the light of day on the flawed, biased, double standard logic employed by one side in the argument?

I don't think so. You go ahead and let me know when it's ok to disagree with the forum groupthink tribe without being insulted, labeled and belittled.

I'm relaxed. I have barely responded in kind to jdinasia or animatic and have, for the most part, not wasted time on the tarded out troll, yokiswara.

I'm down for calm, reasoned debate. Are the others?

Can animatic, jdinasia honestly debate without the personal insults and labels? I haven't seen too much of it to know if it is possible.

you've hit the nail on the head...

someone needed to put this group in their place...

[Publicus]

Mellowyellow:

"I have repeatedly stated Thaksin is no good for Thailand but support the red movement ideals".

Pelase tell me about the red movements ideals! I am very curios

You happen to have less posts than me. According to aniamatic you aren't worthy of respectful answers or any credibility.

Which propaganda machine pays for your posting?

[/aniamatic-jdinasia impersonation.]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

These are a few.

cue: jdinasia's ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZMG response that the current government is soooooooooooo legitimate because he says so.

cue:jdinasia and aniamatic responses dehumanizing the red protestors as brainless brainwashed animals unworthy of a voice.

cue: various flaming trolls "THAKSINK APOLOGIST! THAKSIN APOLOGIST! SQUAAAAAWWWWK! THAKSIN APOLOGIST"

Holy jeeze, step back for the night man and get a grip on yourself, get a good night's sleep so you can wake tomorrow refreshed and realize what personal attacks are and how they're pouring forth here like Niagra Falls. Your posts are descending into an abyss. Your focus is on the forumists and the fact per se they're making posts, nevermind they're posts with which you vehemently disaagree.

Take a walk in the fresh air, run your bare feet over the fresh grass and get reconnected to the balance of nature. Consider some perspective and return with some sense of perspective in mind.

And as for you other guys, don't you know you're feeding the fire? I happen to agree with your posts and admire your body of work posting here, but kindly take care not to get so involved with irrationality itself. The guy's hauled in much more than enuff rope by now, so sit back and have a cold one till next time, ok?

I have been accused of being a Thaksin apologist, a liar about where I live, led by the nose, a paid shill, and other things.

Am I acting irrationally by responding to and calling out said attacks?

Am I reacting irrationally by shining the light of day on the flawed, biased, double standard logic employed by one side in the argument?

I don't think so. You go ahead and let me know when it's ok to disagree with the forum groupthink tribe without being insulted, labeled and belittled.

I'm relaxed. I have barely responded in kind to jdinasia or animatic and have, for the most part, not wasted time on the tarded out troll, yokiswara.

I'm down for calm, reasoned debate. Are the others?

Can animatic, jdinasia honestly debate without the personal insults and labels? I haven't seen too much of it to know if it is possible.

It might be that all of you could consider chilling for a while, that's all. It's just that I can't remember seeing such strong words and such passion in the extreme around here during my several years as a TVF reader and more recently as a member.

Every one of you hit the showers - separately according to pov with neither group in the building simultaneously.

[britmaveric]

^don't take things personally and let it be known although I disagree with JD, I do think he is a genuinely nice lad. Politics is highly charged topic and brings the worst out in people... each side always thinks they are right and there is no middle ground. Keep that in mind and thicken the skin a bit.

I remember the old thai visa Bear Pit days... oh my if you want to see people at their throats then this was the time. It makes these discussions look like relative child's play.

Edited March 31, 2010 by britmaveric

[Publicus]

^don't take things personally and let it be known although I disagree with JD, I do think he is a genuinely nice lad. Politics is highly charged topic and brings the worst out in people... each side always thinks they are right and there is no middle ground. Keep that in mind and thicken the skin a bit.

I remember the old thai visa Bear Pit days... oh my if you want to see people at their throats then this was the time. It makes these discussions look like relative child's play.

Your perspective is well taken. The past 6 or so years have seen some food fights and some gouging and gashing, but generally TVF posters have reigned themselves in. However, the present convulsions of shall we say rhetoric are as fierce as anything seen in Thai society itself during its recent years of division and sharp hostility. I guess as we approach yet another final push of all final pushes after several previous final, final pushes of all final pushes, with idle intervals in between, nerves can be as frayed here as in the society itself.

This day however I feel like I'm in the room with Thaksin and his BS being confronted by his most severe critics, no holds barred. I'm sure however that that experience would be far more wild than anything seen here even today.

Methinks we love Thailand too much to leave it to the Thais to settle among themselves.

[MellowYellow]

^don't take things personally and let it be known although I disagree with JD, I do think he is a genuinely nice lad. Politics is highly charged topic and brings the worst out in people... each side always thinks they are right and there is no middle ground. Keep that in mind and thicken the skin a bit.

I remember the old thai visa Bear Pit days... oh my if you want to see people at their throats then this was the time. It makes these discussions look like relative child's play.

Fair enough.

At the same time, unlike what I suspect a lot of low count posters will do, I'm not going to back down from the argument and let them shout loudest becaause of their personal slanging.

Argue issues, facts, etc, but several posters come after me with personal attacks and know nothing about me, for the simple fact that I disagree with them.

Also, I have made multiple statements towards the middle ground and the response was overwhelming further personal attacks.

High post count + some sort of TVF rep /= the right to shit on those who disagree with you. But that's my opinion.

As for bear pit, I know the scene from another forum with similar open warfare. The difference there is those who control the debate aren't actively involved and supporting one side in it. But I guess it's against rules here to call them out.

Peace all.

[Siam Simon]

your hate makes you blind.

disclaimer for haters with b/w logic: that doesn't mean that you have to love thaksin, but its better to become realistic and to look at few other issues too.

otherwise just type ' i hate Thaksin' all the time. your point is clear but don't start to argue if you have no other motivation for the debate.

Why don't you try and debate my argument rather than just saying "I hate Thaksin".

I don't like Thaksin because the facts have convinced me that he is not a likable person.

Please provide some facts to convince me otherwise.

The point Mazeltov repeatedly tries to make is that the shake-up in Thailand involves far more than just the odious Thaksin. Some crucial ingredients cannot be discussed on TV because the forum is based in Thailand. Others are willfully avoided or danced around by some debaters, which makes one wonder if those debaters are professional agitators for the Dems (like Plus was) or are just amateur propogandists.

[shawndoc]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

All of these points are supported by the current government (Yes, even the first one).

Since the red shirts are protesting the government, their must be something they disagree with the government about. What is it?

[MellowYellow]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

All of these points are supported by the current government (Yes, even the first one).

Since the red shirts are protesting the government, their must be something they disagree with the government about. What is it?

If the government supports the 1st point, please refer me to this admission.

I'd be shocked if they supported the last 2 as I don't think ANY political party here actually supports them. In fact the PAD's new political party actively opposes them.

[anotherpeter]

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

I'm a bit confused about this one.

The rural poor vote for their MPs. The MPs that they vote for represent them in parliament (but maybe not government).

Are you suggesting that whoever gets the majority of MPs in the country to form government, that the MPs that the rural poor voted for should be in government even if they aren't part of the majority? Democracy?

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

Only the rural poor can do this. They have the power of their own vote.

[anotherpeter]

The point Mazeltov repeatedly tries to make is that the shake-up in Thailand involves far more than just the odious Thaksin. Some crucial ingredients cannot be discussed on TV because the forum is based in Thailand. Others are willfully avoided or danced around by some debaters, which makes one wonder if those debaters are professional agitators for the Dems (like Plus was) or are just amateur propogandists.

Regardless of when (whatever you are talking about) happens, Thaksin is still not good for the country.

[MellowYellow]

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

I'm a bit confused about this one.

The rural poor vote for their MPs. The MPs that they vote for represent them in parliament (but maybe not government).

Are you suggesting that whoever gets the majority of MPs in the country to form government, that the MPs that the rural poor voted for should be in government even if they aren't part of the majority? Democracy?

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

Only the rural poor can do this. They have the power of their own vote.

Maybe I'm tired or your tired, But, in the nicest possible way, I don't understand how your are drawing your conclusions about what I've written or making your assertions. Seriously, not a flame, I really don't see how you are getting from Point A (my post) to point B (your assertion about what I posted.)

Please lay it out for me in logical steps.

[shawndoc]

-The legitimacy of a government born of military/judicial/mob coups should be challenged.

-The right of the rural poor to a better standard of living, including education and health care.

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

All of these points are supported by the current government (Yes, even the first one).

Since the red shirts are protesting the government, their must be something they disagree with the government about. What is it?

If the government supports the 1st point, please refer me to this admission.

I'd be shocked if they supported the last 2 as I don't think ANY political party here actually supports them. In fact the PAD's new political party actively opposes them.

The current government is working on a series of changes to the constitution for that very reason. They've even offered to add in many (all?) of the PTP's ideas. This is being done to help correct some of the bad ideas put forth by the coup. And they've repeatedly offered to hold new elections before the constitutionally mandated time, and have offered to hold more negotiations with the red shirts as to when those elections can take place. In my mind that satisfies number 1.

As to the last two, who is proposing to remove the ability to vote from the poor or have representation? Yes, I know a few idiots in the PAD called for this at one point, but none of them are part of the current government nor has anyone in the government supported this idea that I know of. It is certainly not something that anyone is power is actively trying to take away.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

Unfortunately the rural poor tend to vote for whoever pays them for their vote...... not for whoever has the best agenda for the country. And the people/parties paying for votes are usually not the ones who would care for the rural poor - once they (the rural poor) have taken the 200 Baht and cast their vote they are out of the picture until the next election.

Or can anyone here SERIOUSLY give an example of SOMETHING that has gotten BETTER for the rural poor while Thaksin was in power? By that i mean REALLY better, in a long-term kind of way, not the short-term attention grabbers like village fund loans (which have to be paid back with interest, in turn thereby only generating more money for Thaksin's pockets).

Did education get any better under Thaksin?

Did farming become more efficient?

Did farmers get more money for their produce?

Yes, of course i know about the 30-Baht-healthcare scheme - it came *just* too late for my my boyfriend's father, he died of kidney failure a few weeks before the scheme was implemented because the whole family could not get together the money for the required dialysis which amounted to almost 40k Baht per month. After going on with it for about two years everyone was in debt and it was just no longer possible. Did Thaksin offer some help? Nope, he was too busy counting money. And was that healthcare scheme thought out well? Future funding secured? "No" to both, it was just another populist measure. What do we get for 30 Baht these days? Four hours waiting at the hospital, 2 minutes with a doctor, sent home with a pack of Paracetamol. Which would cost 20 Baht at the pharmacy, without the waiting.

While i do not support PAD's idea of devaluating the rural poor's votes (which was just that - an idea, never actually more than just words) i still think as long as those people keep selling their votes this country will always be run by crooks. Unless of course such crook is removed through a coup - sadly, in Thaksin's case there was no other possibility because he had pretty much disabled all other methods.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[anotherpeter]

-The right of the rural poor to equal representation and power in governemnt.

I'm a bit confused about this one.

The rural poor vote for their MPs. The MPs that they vote for represent them in parliament (but maybe not government).

Are you suggesting that whoever gets the majority of MPs in the country to form government, that the MPs that the rural poor voted for should be in government even if they aren't part of the majority? Democracy?

-The right of the rural poor to maintain the power of the vote.

Only the rural poor can do this. They have the power of their own vote.

Maybe I'm tired or your tired, But, in the nicest possible way, I don't understand how your are drawing your conclusions about what I've written or making your assertions. Seriously, not a flame, I really don't see how you are getting from Point A (my post) to point B (your assertion about what I posted.)

Please lay it out for me in logical steps.

Cool. No flame. Discussion. That's what I like.

Going back and reading the posts, I took it that your 4 points were the basic things that the reds (or just you ... not 100% sure) wanted. If that is incorrect, then I misunderstood the discussion.

Given that my understanding of your posts is correct, then I don't understand how, if the poor don't already have this, how do you suggest that the poor get "equal" representation and power over their own vote?

The people vote in elections, MPs get elected, some MPs form government, some are in opposition to keep the government in line. In my opinion, they have power over their own vote (if they don't, it's not because of the government - but maybe my misunderstanding of what you mean by this) and they have representation, either in government or in opposition.

As my signature says "please correct me if i'm wrong, because I usually am".

[anotherpeter]

Hi.

Unfortunately the rural poor tend to vote for whoever pays them for their vote...... not for whoever has the best agenda for the country. And the people/parties paying for votes are usually not the ones who would care for the rural poor - once they (the rural poor) have taken the 200 Baht and cast their vote they are out of the picture until the next election.

Or can anyone here SERIOUSLY give an example of SOMETHING that has gotten BETTER for the rural poor while Thaksin was in power? By that i mean REALLY better, in a long-term kind of way, not the short-term attention grabbers like village fund loans (which have to be paid back with interest, in turn thereby only generating more money for Thaksin's pockets).

Did education get any better under Thaksin?

Did farming become more efficient?

Did farmers get more money for their produce?

Yes, of course i know about the 30-Baht-healthcare scheme - it came *just* too late for my my boyfriend's father, he died of kidney failure a few weeks before the scheme was implemented because the whole family could not get together the money for the required dialysis which amounted to almost 40k Baht per month. After going on with it for about two years everyone was in debt and it was just no longer possible. Did Thaksin offer some help? Nope, he was too busy counting money. And was that healthcare scheme thought out well? Future funding secured? "No" to both, it was just another populist measure. What do we get for 30 Baht these days? Four hours waiting at the hospital, 2 minutes with a doctor, sent home with a pack of Paracetamol. Which would cost 20 Baht at the pharmacy, without the waiting.

While i do not support PAD's idea of devaluating the rural poor's votes (which was just that - an idea, never actually more than just words) i still think as long as those people keep selling their votes this country will always be run by crooks. Unless of course such crook is removed through a coup - sadly, in Thaksin's case there was no other possibility because he had pretty much disabled all other methods.

Best regards.....

Thanh

HEAR! HEAR!

I'll support some of the ideals of the reds for the poor farmers, but I can't support the reds, because supporting the reds means supporting Thaksin.

[MellowYellow]

HEAR! HEAR!

I'll support some of the ideals of the reds for the poor farmers, but I can't support the reds, because supporting the reds means supporting Thaksin.

This is a non sequitar which, if you grant me some time I'll get to disecting later.

It's a flawed logic path which becomes evident upon reaching the ultimate conclusion.

[anotherpeter]

HEAR! HEAR!

I'll support some of the ideals of the reds for the poor farmers, but I can't support the reds, because supporting the reds means supporting Thaksin.

This is a non sequitar which, if you grant me some time I'll get to disecting later.

It's a flawed logic path which becomes evident upon reaching the ultimate conclusion.

OK. I'll keep it simple then.

I don't support the reds because they support Thaksin.

[MellowYellow]

Cool. No flame. Discussion. That's what I like.

Going back and reading the posts, I took it that your 4 points were the basic things that the reds (or just you ... not 100% sure) wanted. If that is incorrect, then I misunderstood the discussion.

Given that my understanding of your posts is correct, then I don't understand how, if the poor don't already have this, how do you suggest that the poor get "equal" representation and power over their own vote?

The people vote in elections, MPs get elected, some MPs form government, some are in opposition to keep the government in line. In my opinion, they have power over their own vote (if they don't, it's not because of the government - but maybe my misunderstanding of what you mean by this) and they have representation, either in government or in opposition.

As my signature says "please correct me if i'm wrong, because I usually am".

To start, I cut some of the inner quotes to reduce clutter.

I'm not challenging the basic description of the parlimentry process. It, however, does not take place in a vacumn.

The 4 points are 100% things I want and think the red shirts want.

I think with point 1, the poor getting equal representation and power over their own vote has been diluted/threatened from multiple angles.

I think they reasonably see the combination of military coup followed by multiple judiciary coups (coupled with the mob pressure exerted by PAD) as direct attacks on their votes as each of those events were aimed squarely at the party they voted for in large numbers. I don't want to get into the corruption or whatnot for the purpose of this discusion, just to say that multiple shots from BKK from multiple directions were aimed directly at the party they most identified with.

It is reasonable to take that personal and as a threat in my opinion.

Other threat angles come from the allegations of corruption and vote buying at local levels. I have no doubt this happens in almost all electoral regions in Thailand to some degree or other. In their eyes, the party they identify with most, was disbanded because of it, yet the rival parties who practice the same corruption in some degree get o with a wrist slap.

It is reasonable to take that personal and as a threat in my opinion.

The PAD firmly supported The Democrats in taking over government control after the PPP were disbanded. Some Democrats publicly cheered on the PAD actions. The Currrent Finance Minister appeared on their rally stage during their protests. The PAD spewed "New Politics" and have now formed "New Politics" party. The main thrust behind the concept was to get more appointed MPs, heavily favoring the elite/hyper educated.

I'm not saying PAD=Democrats definitively (even though I could using the same logic that you use in saying RED = Thaksin) but there is clear interplay and definitiely enough of the surface to once again present a credible threat to the voting power of the poor.

[MellowYellow]

HEAR! HEAR!

I'll support some of the ideals of the reds for the poor farmers, but I can't support the reds, because supporting the reds means supporting Thaksin.

This is a non sequitar which, if you grant me some time I'll get to disecting later.

It's a flawed logic path which becomes evident upon reaching the ultimate conclusion.

OK. I'll keep it simple then.

I don't support the reds because they support Thaksin.

That is a clear unarguable statement.

I would describe myself as "I support the reds IN SPITE of Thaksin"

[jdinasia]

To start, I cut some of the inner quotes to reduce clutter.

I'm not challenging the basic description of the parlimentry process. It, however, does not take place in a vacumn.

The 4 points are 100% things I want and think the red shirts want.

I think with point 1, the poor getting equal representation and power over their own vote has been diluted/threatened from multiple angles.

I think they reasonably see the combination of military coup followed by multiple judiciary coups (coupled with the mob pressure exerted by PAD) as direct attacks on their votes as each of those events were aimed squarely at the party they voted for in large numbers. I don't want to get into the corruption or whatnot for the purpose of this discusion, just to say that multiple shots from BKK from multiple directions were aimed directly at the party they most identified with.

It is reasonable to take that personal and as a threat in my opinion.

Other threat angles come from the allegations of corruption and vote buying at local levels. I have no doubt this happens in almost all electoral regions in Thailand to some degree or other. In their eyes, the party they identify with most, was disbanded because of it, yet the rival parties who practice the same corruption in some degree get o with a wrist slap.

It is reasonable to take that personal and as a threat in my opinion.

The PAD firmly supported The Democrats in taking over government control after the PPP were disbanded. Some Democrats publicly cheered on the PAD actions. The Currrent Finance Minister appeared on their rally stage during their protests. The PAD spewed "New Politics" and have now formed "New Politics" party. The main thrust behind the concept was to get more appointed MPs, heavily favoring the elite/hyper educated.

I'm not saying PAD=Democrats definitively (even though I could using the same logic that you use in saying RED = Thaksin) but there is clear interplay and definitiely enough of the surface to once again present a credible threat to the voting power of the poor.

Ummmm to start with, weren't you quoting forum rules recently? Here is one you may wish to revisit.

Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

You might want to revisit the quoted post speaking of "judicial coups" in light of that. The PPP was not disbanded because of a random act of vote buying. It was disbanded because a PARTY EXECUTIVE was filmed making a payoff. They knew the EC reccomendation before they were disbanded and had enough time to form PTP. They could have dissolved the house and run a new election without the PPP party executives under the PTP banner but chose not to. The law in Thailand is that if a party executive is caught in electoral fraud, the whole party is disbanded. The court acted on the EC reccomendation and in accordance with Thai law so obviously there was no "judicial coup".

If you vote for corrupt thieves repeatedly then you have very little room to complain about the consequences.

[MellowYellow]

Ummmm to start with, weren't you quoting forum rules recently? Here is one you may wish to revisit.

Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

You might want to revisit the quoted post speaking of "judicial coups" in light of that. The PPP was not disbanded because of a random act of vote buying. It was disbanded because a PARTY EXECUTIVE was filmed making a payoff. They knew the EC reccomendation before they were disbanded and had enough time to form PTP. They could have dissolved the house and run a new election without the PPP party executives under the PTP banner but chose not to. The law in Thailand is that if a party executive is caught in electoral fraud, the whole party is disbanded. The court acted on the EC reccomendation and in accordance with Thai law so obviously there was no "judicial coup".

“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d'état.

If you vote for corrupt thieves repeatedly then you have very little room to complain about the consequences.

Ahhh, to the crux of it we come. They don't deserve their votes because they keep voting for people who the military, judiciary, and mostly elite BKKians don't like.

[thaihome]

Ahhh, to the crux of it we come. They don't deserve their votes because they keep voting for people who the military, judiciary, and mostly elite BKKians don't like.

Just to jump in here a moment. The crux of the matter is that with the exception of the party executives that lost their seats and the party list members (30 I think in total), the same people are still in Parliament, so they did not lose their representation. What they lost was the support of a couple of factions that had formed their coalition.

We all know who those two people are, if you have issues, they are the ones that should be blamed. Now anyone that knows anything about how things work in the areas these two gentlemen operate, knows they will have no problems getting their people elected again whenever the next election takes place.

To say “They don't deserve their votes because they keep voting for people who the military, judiciary, and mostly elite BKKians don't like.” is disingenuous at best and most likely pure populist demagoguery.

TH

Edited April 1, 2010 by thaihome

[jdinasia]

"A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder", thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d'état.

If you vote for corrupt thieves repeatedly then you have very little room to complain about the consequences.

Ahhh, to the crux of it we come. They don't deserve their votes because they keep voting for people who the military, judiciary, and mostly elite BKKians don't like.

enforcing the law of the land is not a coup --- to suggest that he judiciary has participated in one is not appropriate.

As for your "crux of the matter" -- yet another strawman. The crux of the matter is that TRT was disbanded for legitimate reasons as was PPP. NOT that the people the reds voted for were disliked.