Thai Govt Coalition Partners, PAD React To Peace Talks

[anotherpeter]

<snip>

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

Do you support the reds goals of getting Thaksin back as leader and getting his money back? based on the statement above, that would be NO.

Do you think that if the reds win their campaign ("for the poor, and for free and fair elections"), that they will NOT get Thaksin back as leader and get his money back?

[MellowYellow]

"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.

You can use whatever rule you like to defend "newspeak". It is what it is.

We already know that we disagree on the meaning and basis of the word "legitimacy" wrt Thai Politics, so I'm not going re-engage in that argument again. Suffice to say I think the reasons, taken as a whole were illegitimate, you think they were legitimate.

[MellowYellow]

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

I was responding specificlly ad directly to one statement. I tried to make that clear with the quote boxes.

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

Taken in the context of a response to that statement, I don't think it is disengenuous at all..

[MellowYellow]

<snip>

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

Do you support the reds goals of getting Thaksin back as leader and getting his money back? based on the statement above, that would be NO.

Do you think that if the reds win their campaign ("for the poor, and for free and fair elections"), that they will NOT get Thaksin back as leader and get his money back?

No and No.

Also NOT and NOT.

[zirc]

Despite any hollow protestations that the Reds are not about Thaksin, until such time as he is completely removed from the Red scene, the Reds will only be about Thaksin.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ph...3033281124.jpg/

The Reds might also consider removing themselves from all the other current Red criminal litigants (and Lord knows there's a bunch of them ) that are presently amongst the Reds if they are to ever been taken seriously.

That they haven't tells the story of what is what with the Reds.

** btw, as the news photo says, Thailand has had "enough" of this Thaksin character.

[anotherpeter]

<snip>

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

Do you support the reds goals of getting Thaksin back as leader and getting his money back? based on the statement above, that would be NO.

Do you think that if the reds win their campaign ("for the poor, and for free and fair elections"), that they will NOT get Thaksin back as leader and get his money back?

No and No.

Also NOT and NOT.

"NOT and NOT" ...??

Do you think that one of the reds goals is getting Thaksin back and getting his money back?

[jdinasia]

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.

You can use whatever rule you like to defend "newspeak". It is what it is.

We already know that we disagree on the meaning and basis of the word "legitimacy" wrt Thai Politics, so I'm not going re-engage in that argument again. Suffice to say I think the reasons, taken as a whole were illegitimate, you think they were legitimate.

The fact that TRT was caught paying parties to contest the failed election AND that a PPP executive was caught (ON FILM) paying off people violated the law. The law states that when party executives are caught commiting electoral fraud, the party is disbanded. You calling it a 'judicial coup', violates the rules and the law. (and since you were quoting the rules recently .....)

[MellowYellow]

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/17/pol...cs_30091207.php

Khamnoon Sitthisamarn, a columnist and editor at the paper, wrote on Monday that the new "political phenomena" with Abhisit as PM "was genuinely a PAD victory!" The editor, who is also an appointed senator, how-ever did admit in his column that this was an "Anuphong-style coup d'etat."

You better start enforcing the rules and laws on your favorite propaganda daily, The Nation.

[jdinasia]

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/17/pol...cs_30091207.php

Khamnoon Sitthisamarn, a columnist and editor at the paper, wrote on Monday that the new "political phenomena" with Abhisit as PM "was genuinely a PAD victory!" The editor, who is also an appointed senator, how-ever did admit in his column that this was an "Anuphong-style coup d'etat."

You better start enforcing the rules and laws on your favorite propaganda daily, The Nation.

Unlike you, who defamed the courts, the quote does not mention the courts at all.

[MellowYellow]

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/17/pol...cs_30091207.php

Khamnoon Sitthisamarn, a columnist and editor at the paper, wrote on Monday that the new "political phenomena" with Abhisit as PM "was genuinely a PAD victory!" The editor, who is also an appointed senator, how-ever did admit in his column that this was an "Anuphong-style coup d'etat."

You better start enforcing the rules and laws on your favorite propaganda daily, The Nation.

Unlike you, who defamed the courts, the quote does not mention the courts at all.

I wonder if even you believe the spew that you spew.

[yoshiwara]

<snip>

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

Do you support the reds goals of getting Thaksin back as leader and getting his money back? based on the statement above, that would be NO.

Do you think that if the reds win their campaign ("for the poor, and for free and fair elections"), that they will NOT get Thaksin back as leader and get his money back?

No and No.

Also NOT and NOT.

"NOT and NOT" ...??

Do you think that one of the reds goals is getting Thaksin back and getting his money back?

You will not get a straight answer to that one.

Of course getting back Thaksin is the singular goal of the reds.

For anybody supporting the reds, they can do a little ideological striptease and coyly suggest that they don't support Thaksin.

But the practical end result is the same, reds in, Thaksin in.

Some avowed liberals like a little clean cover.

But they are fellow-travellers nonetheless.

Thaksin's boys.

[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"

I asked what is the red movmensts ideals. Now you say that your answer was what you THINK is their ideals. So not even you know what it is. The reds and the rurlal poor is not the same. On what the rural poor needs have most in here same opion.

[traderjm]

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

The bold part is really the bottom line to me, I hear so much about vote buying, but fact is they can not be bought if they are NOT for sale. So the problem is WHY are they always for sale? Why is anything ever for sale? Questions that are too big for my simple mind to answer, I'll leave it those visitors here to neatly sum up the decades (centuries?) old issues of Thailand in a neat little box with a bow.

[wayfarer108]

They all make very good points. If the reds really want to see and and to the stalemate then they must be willing to compromise. Ultimatums will get them nowhere.

Not quite. Ultimatums got them to talk to Abhisist directly when he initially refused.

Where have you been? Abhisit never refused to talk to the Redshirts. All along he has been offering to talk to them. I watched Abhisit being interviewed on Thai television nightly during the first week of the protests, and in every single interview he said he was ready to talk with Red leaders at any time.

It has been the Redshirt leaders who have refused to enter into talks, until now, saying they would not talk unless Parliament was dissolved first. Now they are talking to the government without the pre-condition. So it is the government, not the Redshirts, who have the upper hand as far as entering into negotiations in the first place.

It's hilarious the way the Reds have tried to paint the talks as some sort of victory for their demonstration. Only another Red would buy that propaganda.

"It's hilarious the way the Reds have tried to paint the talks as some sort of victory for their demonstration. Only another Red would buy that propaganda."

They've gone from a demonised and belittled "rabble" on the streets to 6 hours of prime time television over 2 two days in live debate with the Prime Minister..........

And made their points to a nationwide audience........

looks like some sort of success to me.

philw

Phil, that's only in your mind. They're still a demonised and belittled rabble, to the majority of my Thai friends, co-workers and family.

[kraxlhuber]

My opinion, no charter amendments yet, first the elections, and then the amendments by the majority 'chosen by the people' and not backed by any protest group / army or any other group.

Thailand will need some new political parties then...

a time ago,there was a socialist party.

I know some country and poeple abhorr the word "Socialist",but thats where the world is giong from now.

Distribute evenly the resources,pay for service rendered according to the merits.

Why have Sweden ,Germany and most european country a socialist party and in government as well.

Works fine.The citizen have coverage from the cradle to thegrave,and work hard for it.

If you have only 2 partys(major) then its either Y.or R. Or De.or Re.

Squabbling to no end.