yellow1red1 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Who has avoided paying damages by "becoming a non elected member of cabinet"? Well it a pointless question by you because as yet nobody has avoided paying damages because as yet we do not know if they will pay or not, but I am sure you know this full well and I am sure you know that I refer to Kasit who so far has avoided any charges as he is a member of the cabinet whilst not being elected for parliament. Ergo by becoming a one elected member of the cabinet you can avoid charges and therefore probably avoid damages. <snip> A pointless question? I was just wondering who you were referring to? A pointless statement by you if "nobody has avoided paying damages" by being a member of cabinet. i didn't say anyone had avoided paying damages by becoming a member of the cabinet, it seems in your haste to start a spat that you missed one important factor, what was actually written. never mind, try a little harder next time if you 2 come to blows ---- blow me 1rst 5555 funny thing is you seem to agree on the issues, like, for eg, Kasit DID avoid due prosecution but, instead, enjoy B/C level repartee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I note Bucholtz and Rubi appear to accept violence, provided it is possible to highlight more violent outburts by another....... Interesting view Come on then, let's see the quote where Bucholtz and Rubi appeared to say they accept violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I note Bucholtz and Rubi appear to accept violence, provided it is possible to highlight more violent outburts by another....... Interesting view Come on then, let's see the quote where Bucholtz and Rubi appeared to say they accept violence. Agreed --- Please show us where either stated that Geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 One post making an unsubstantiated allegation has been removed from view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Appear.........guys........not....... 'have stated' You will note that in his response Buchholtz (correct spelling).......has avoided condemning violence for political gain...... Rubi on the other hand accepted in this thread the presence of the PAD SriSaket caused the confrontation, rather than suggest the PAD should have left, he stated the PAD supporters were 'defending' themselves.........thus implying violence and confrontation in certain circumstances is acceptable........... Again an interesting view if transposed to other protest situations don't you think? Edited March 27, 2011 by 473geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Appear.........guys........not....... 'have stated' You will note that in his response Buchholtz (correct spelling).......has avoided condemning violence for political gain...... Rubi on the other hand accepted in this thread the presence of the PAD SriSaket caused the confrontation, rather than suggest the PAD should have left, he stated the PAD supporters were 'defending' themselves.........thus implying violence and confrontation in certain circumstances is acceptable........... Again an interesting view if transposed to other protest situations don't you think? Maybe you should have a read of some of the posts again. You appear to be reading things that aren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Posters who have accused others of being paid to post have had their posting rights removed, and will continue to do so. Those of you bickering at each other instead of discussing the topic are are on the short list to join them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Appear.........guys........not....... 'have stated' You will note that in his response Buchholtz (correct spelling).......has avoided condemning violence for political gain...... Rubi on the other hand accepted in this thread the presence of the PAD SriSaket caused the confrontation, rather than suggest the PAD should have left, he stated the PAD supporters were 'defending' themselves.........thus implying violence and confrontation in certain circumstances is acceptable........... Again an interesting view if transposed to other protest situations don't you think? Maybe you should have a read of some of the posts again. You appear to be reading things that aren't there. Ah but that is the essential part of understanding political diatribe, the truth is not always in what is said.......but often in what is not said........... Also, everything is open to interpretation........as we see many times in every day discussion on Thai Visa.........I'm disappointed to have to point this out to you........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 The PAD violated the principles of peaceful assembly as evidenced by PAD-led protesters putting on masks and wielding wooden and iron sticks to raid the grounds of the two airports, the verdict said. Some posters were denying there were violent elements at the airport on another thread. Hope that clarifies. I agree. And that also concludes that an overwhelming majority of people in the streets of 2010 is now defined as 'violent elements' since they had masks/carried sticks/shoot rockets/throw stones/fired handguns/etc. Thanks for agreeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Ah but that is the essential part of understanding political diatribe, the truth is not always in what is said.......but often in what is not said........... Also, everything is open to interpretation........as we see many times in every day discussion on Thai Visa.........I'm disappointed to have to point this out to you........ For politicians maybe, but not for posters on TV. What they say is what they say. You might be able to interpret what they have said, but you can't interpret what they haven't said. That's called "making things up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Ah but that is the essential part of understanding political diatribe, the truth is not always in what is said.......but often in what is not said........... Also, everything is open to interpretation........as we see many times in every day discussion on Thai Visa.........I'm disappointed to have to point this out to you........ For politicians maybe, but not for posters on TV. What they say is what they say. You might be able to interpret what they have said, but you can't interpret what they haven't said. That's called "making things up". No.......... it is called looking at the facts presented and the facts omitted and drawing reasonable conclusion........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Ok, back on the subject please. Enough of this pedantic nitpicking. You guys are like a bunch of old grannies some days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) No.......... it is called looking at the facts presented and the facts omitted and drawing reasonable conclusion........... So based on that, you also "appear to accept violence, provided it is possible to highlight more violent outburts by another......" as you presented some facts and omitted other facts. edit: having seen cdnvic's post above, that's my last comment on the matter. Edited March 27, 2011 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Rubi on the other hand accepted in this thread the presence of the PAD SriSaket caused the confrontation, rather than suggest the PAD should have left, he stated the PAD supporters were 'defending' themselves.........thus implying violence and confrontation in certain circumstances is acceptable........... I also accept that yesterday the presence of police in London caused a confrontation with protesters. I don't want to imply the police should not be there. On the other hand the protesters might have stayed home, knowing the police would be there. Confrontation may be acceptable sometimes, violence hardly ever. In SiSaKet the PAD just wanted to demonstrate along the border, villagers didn't want them to go there and do that. Slightly different situation. Maybe the PAD should not have defended themselves, but relied on police to keep the villagers from hurting them? Those PAD people should have worn a shirt like k. Jatuporn with an image of the late Mohandas Gandhi (edit: add: started late today, seems I missed some of the fun: removed already. This one had my (misspelled) name, no more after this) Edited March 27, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ableguy Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Just a simple question, what is the net worth of these individuals ? I doubt a single bhat will ever be paid just the usual BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now