whybother Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 If the many dems governement before 2001 had given the poor thais ,you so despised , opportunities to get a better life , perhaps there would be far less corruption possible .Since the dems are corrupt of course , it was not in their interest . Poor people always have poor choices ... And given the choice to move forward, they reject that and instead want to go back to the corrupt ways of Thaksin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougar52 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 A BLOG talking about "eye witness". That's the one with diarrhea. Not reliable at all. agree, it is like the Red's doctored tape of the PM "ordering the killing from last year; and as far is I know the only killings then was 2 civilians that we killed my the Reds because the residents wanted the reds to leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 THE NATION: Urgent- high-ranking source- no election on Nov 14. All new ball game. Have to agree. Abhisit has given the reds every opportunity, including dissolving parliament and new elections well ahead of time. The minority refused the invitation, and Abhisit has every legal right to stay put until December, 2011. Good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. The party in power was disbanded by a court , allowing for the opposition to take over . Since when in a democracy the coalition in power is decided by a few judges that are unelected officials ? what do you smoke on your free time ? In such case you MUST have a general election , else no popular mandate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregb Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Thank you Pornsasi for pointing this out to some of the people here that have VERY short memories on this particular person. Before any real reconciliation can take place these Terrorist Yellow shirt leaders must be legally dealt with, because at the moment they are still on the loose with big smiles on their faces. What a joke. The sad thing is, if the reds would limit their protests to demanding other criminals be brought to justice, rather than trying to pardon the biggest criminal of all, they would have the support of most of the country. Unfortunately, the reds won't do that, and their entire movement is discredited because of it. There will never be reconciliation in Thailand at all until the people start taking the crimes of their patrons seriously. As long as the reds continue to glorify the crimes of Thaksin then the only way to move forward is through war. It's too bad really, because that will just leave the rest of us having to depend on government officials who, while smaller criminals than Thaksin, are still criminals. The reds could truly do a good thing if they would just denounce that evil man and his despicable behaviour. But they'll never actually do that. They are too busy enjoying the spoils he gives them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxLee Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 The red shirts are not going anywhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Yay for RED DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech ... not if you're talking against the reds. Freedom of movement ... not if you're against the reds. Freedom to vote ... only if you vote for the reds. Yay for MOB DEMOCRACY. Get a few thousand people together and demand that the government step down. It's funny how the reds are the majority, but they can only get 5,000 to the last day of their protest. Not to mention that the red party only got 40% of the vote in the last election ... not a majority. And ofcourse, the majority of MPs, that represent the people of Thailand, support the government. The majority of MPs do not represent anyone anymore but themselves . The copy and paste parliament born after the court ruling has no popular mandate to start with. Rest is BS We both know that They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. Pornsasi seems to be all for democracy ----- so long as it goes the way the reds want. MP's are elected by the people to represent them. MP's elect the PM. In the 2007 election cycle the small parties ran on a platform that they would not back the PPP to form a government. They, then, did exactly what they said they would not do. The dem's didn't cry. They formed a strong opposition party and life went on. When PPP was disbanded for proven electoral fraud in 2008. The small parties and the MP's that chose not to join yet another Thaksin proxy party changed alliances. The small parties did what they originally promised their constituencies they would do. The "Friends of Newin" faction of the PPP chose not to join PTP. You have to be relatively clueless to think that Newin's people would not be re-elected in a heartbeat in their constituencies. So the law of the land is upheld ---- every foreign government acknowledges the current government's legitimacy ... but it isn't enough for pornsasi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Hmmmm1) Suthep is not a MP 2) The 1997 Constitution is not the Constitution of Thailand 3) Suthep scares me --- but so far he appears to have treated the protestors according to the law. Including his responsibility on April 10th. 4) Sevenhills is perpetuating a lie --- the PAD leaders have been charged with crimes and their cases are ongoing. They are out on bail. They are not "terrorists" and have not been accused of that. The current government is not the same government that was in place at the time of the airport protest in 2008. Cases that began in 2006 have just been completed this year. Yeah and the red shirts are terrorists right ? . Well stop for a day or two reading the Nation if you can , and read CNN , the BBC , or other independant medias . Then tell me in those who calls the red shirts terrorists ? NONE Please read those , that would make you a power of good Note : I will abstain of posting here the many videos of violent acts by the yellow shirts . You would dismiss them as fabrication anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. The party in power was disbanded by a court , allowing for the opposition to take over . Since when in a democracy the coalition in power is decided by a few judges that are unelected officials ? what do you smoke on your free time ? In such case you MUST have a general election , else no popular mandate . Like I said earlier ... around in circles. How many times has this been explained to you? Do you have a memory problem? If MPs break the law, UNELECTED JUDGES are allowed to ban them. Can you tell me anywhere in the world where judges are elected? The PPP executive were banned. By-elections were held for all vacant seats (except about 5 party list seats). The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP. At a vote to replace the banned PM (Somchai), Abhisit was elected. The only reason the PTP are not in government is because a group of MPs decided to no longer support them. Obviously, in such a case you DON'T HAVE TO have a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiamRose Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. They may have been voted for, but the only thing they represent is their bank accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatherF Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 The red shirts are not going anywhere.... And you know this because? FF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Yay for RED DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech ... not if you're talking against the reds. Freedom of movement ... not if you're against the reds. Freedom to vote ... only if you vote for the reds. Yay for MOB DEMOCRACY. Get a few thousand people together and demand that the government step down. It's funny how the reds are the majority, but they can only get 5,000 to the last day of their protest. Not to mention that the red party only got 40% of the vote in the last election ... not a majority. And ofcourse, the majority of MPs, that represent the people of Thailand, support the government. The majority of MPs do not represent anyone anymore but themselves . The copy and paste parliament born after the court ruling has no popular mandate to start with. Rest is BS We both know that They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. Pornsasi seems to be all for democracy ----- so long as it goes the way the reds want. MP's are elected by the people to represent them. MP's elect the PM. In the 2007 election cycle the small parties ran on a platform that they would not back the PPP to form a government. They, then, did exactly what they said they would not do. The dem's didn't cry. They formed a strong opposition party and life went on. When PPP was disbanded for proven electoral fraud in 2008. The small parties and the MP's that chose not to join yet another Thaksin proxy party changed alliances. The small parties did what they originally promised their constituencies they would do. The "Friends of Newin" faction of the PPP chose not to join PTP. You have to be relatively clueless to think that Newin's people would not be re-elected in a heartbeat in their constituencies. So the law of the land is upheld ---- every foreign government acknowledges the current government's legitimacy ... but it isn't enough for pornsasi? They (Abhisit) are legally elected , I never said otherwise . They however DO NOT have a popular mandate And if you trust so much foreigners then read the foreign press Edited May 12, 2010 by pornsasi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmon Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Now we will probably see increases in violence escalating to a full on civil war soon or some version there of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. They may have been voted for, but the only thing they represent is their bank accounts. Yes that too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatherF Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. They may have been voted for, but the only thing they represent is their bank accounts. Yes that too Not like Thaksin then............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardy1943 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Better late than never I guess. The should have happened at the beginning. Really sad to see the country in this condition. Hope things can calm down and Thailand can recover it's lost face. They lost face a long time ago by letting the Yellow Shirt shut down the Airport. Try that in any other country and see what happens? Red Shirt Yellow Shirt who cares this whole thing is like a CARTOON. Edited May 12, 2010 by hardy1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiksilva Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Now we will probably see increases in violence escalating to a full on civil war soon or some version there of. Perhaps, but I think not just yet. I think the most likely outcome will be a siege. Eventually fuel for generators will run out, as will food and water. That will most likely lead to the numbers dwindling and those who remain will be in a much more weakened state. This will make retaking the area much easier and hopefully safer for all concerned. I think we are just going to have to get used to this.. for quite some time to come. Edited May 12, 2010 by quiksilva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Like I said earlier ... around in circles. How many times has this been explained to you? Do you have a memory problem?If MPs break the law, UNELECTED JUDGES are allowed to ban them. Can you tell me anywhere in the world where judges are elected? The PPP executive were banned. By-elections were held for all vacant seats (except about 5 party list seats). The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP. At a vote to replace the banned PM (Somchai), Abhisit was elected. The only reason the PTP are not in government is because a group of MPs decided to no longer support them. Obviously, in such a case you DON'T HAVE TO have a general election. Thats why Abhisit is legally elected . Thats also why he dont have a popular mandate . We agree for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrytheyoung Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 interesting to follow..... About severing supply lines: Human Rights associations/commissions, International medias and bodies.... Public Relation operation good for....? 1- The Reds 2- Abhisit ?????/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. They may have been voted for, but the only thing they represent is their bank accounts. Yes that too Not like Thaksin then............... Thaksin same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Better late than never I guess. The should have happened at the beginning. Really sad to see the country in this condition. Hope things can calm down and Thailand can recover it's lost face. They lost face a long time ago by letting the Yellow Shirt shut down the Airport. Try that in any other country and see what happens? Red Shirt Yellow Shirt who cares this whole thing is like a CARTOON. That about describes it , yes . A cartoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThienTu Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Since there are no CREDIBLE sources in that BLOG .......... ... Nor here in TV Then why are you here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Notice there's no calls from the red shirt stage asking the supporters to get their cameras out this time around? Kinda backfired a little bit on them last time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 interesting to follow..... About severing supply lines: Human Rights associations/commissions, International medias and bodies.... Public Relation operation good for....?1- The Reds 2- Abhisit ?????/ THe dems are good at cut and paste . Expecting the yellows to take over at Rajprasong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
321niti123 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Like I said earlier ... around in circles. How many times has this been explained to you? Do you have a memory problem?If MPs break the law, UNELECTED JUDGES are allowed to ban them. Can you tell me anywhere in the world where judges are elected? The PPP executive were banned. By-elections were held for all vacant seats (except about 5 party list seats). The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP. At a vote to replace the banned PM (Somchai), Abhisit was elected. The only reason the PTP are not in government is because a group of MPs decided to no longer support them. Obviously, in such a case you DON'T HAVE TO have a general election. Thats why Abhisit is legally elected . Thats also why he dont have a popular mandate . We agree for once Majority Vote=MP Majority MP=government so therefore logically majority vote=government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Since there are no CREDIBLE sources in that BLOG .......... ... Nor here in TV Then why are you here? For the same reason as you . It gives me a clue on what NOT to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahvail Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. The party in power was disbanded by a court , allowing for the opposition to take over . Since when in a democracy the coalition in power is decided by a few judges that are unelected officials ? what do you smoke on your free time ? In such case you MUST have a general election , else no popular mandate . Like I said earlier ... around in circles. How many times has this been explained to you? Do you have a memory problem? If MPs break the law, UNELECTED JUDGES are allowed to ban them. Can you tell me anywhere in the world where judges are elected? The PPP executive were banned. By-elections were held for all vacant seats (except about 5 party list seats). The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP. At a vote to replace the banned PM (Somchai), Abhisit was elected. The only reason the PTP are not in government is because a group of MPs decided to no longer support them. Obviously, in such a case you DON'T HAVE TO have a general election. It's about the 40th time this has been explained nicely to Pornsasi. Sadly, he seems incapable of looking up the information and confirming for himself. I suggest to save time, that the response post always be the same cut and paste, to match his cut and paste frivolous and untrue statements about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornsasi Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Like I said earlier ... around in circles. How many times has this been explained to you? Do you have a memory problem?If MPs break the law, UNELECTED JUDGES are allowed to ban them. Can you tell me anywhere in the world where judges are elected? The PPP executive were banned. By-elections were held for all vacant seats (except about 5 party list seats). The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP. At a vote to replace the banned PM (Somchai), Abhisit was elected. The only reason the PTP are not in government is because a group of MPs decided to no longer support them. Obviously, in such a case you DON'T HAVE TO have a general election. Thats why Abhisit is legally elected . Thats also why he dont have a popular mandate . We agree for once Majority Vote=MP Majority MP=government so therefore logically majority vote=government Look you and a few others here dont have a clue about what democracy really means Particularly when it comes to the question of popular mandate which is the basic tenet of democracy you look at the kitchen or the bathroom but not at the pillars of the house . I am sure you are one who believes that democracy is just only about respecting the law i.e in this case the constitution . Well a few here can tell you that dictators , some of them at least , are law abiders . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 interesting to follow..... About severing supply lines: Human Rights associations/commissions, International medias and bodies.... Public Relation operation good for....?1- The Reds 2- Abhisit ?????/ How are the negotiations going Jerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahvail Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Yay for RED DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech ... not if you're talking against the reds. Freedom of movement ... not if you're against the reds. Freedom to vote ... only if you vote for the reds. Yay for MOB DEMOCRACY. Get a few thousand people together and demand that the government step down. It's funny how the reds are the majority, but they can only get 5,000 to the last day of their protest. Not to mention that the red party only got 40% of the vote in the last election ... not a majority. And ofcourse, the majority of MPs, that represent the people of Thailand, support the government. /quote The majority of MPs do not represent anyone anymore but themselves . The copy and paste parliament born after the court ruling has no popular mandate to start with. Rest is BS We both know that They were voted for, and they represent their electorates. Just because they don't support the reds does not change that fact. Pornsasi seems to be all for democracy ----- so long as it goes the way the reds want. MP's are elected by the people to represent them. MP's elect the PM. In the 2007 election cycle the small parties ran on a platform that they would not back the PPP to form a government. They, then, did exactly what they said they would not do. The dem's didn't cry. They formed a strong opposition party and life went on. When PPP was disbanded for proven electoral fraud in 2008. The small parties and the MP's that chose not to join yet another Thaksin proxy party changed alliances. The small parties did what they originally promised their constituencies they would do. The "Friends of Newin" faction of the PPP chose not to join PTP. You have to be relatively clueless to think that Newin's people would not be re-elected in a heartbeat in their constituencies. So the law of the land is upheld ---- every foreign government acknowledges the current government's legitimacy ... but it isn't enough for pornsasi? They (Abhisit) are legally elected , I never said otherwise . They however DO NOT have a popular mandate And if you trust so much foreigners then read the foreign press You are the one who said read CNN and BBC to support *your* take on things. I call Double Standards on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts