random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. Blanket amnesty, as i understand it, means that everybody involved in a case or in a given period is cleared of wrong-doing. That is what you said you disagreed with, and that is why i asked whether you would also oppose amnesties on an individual basis. Is it at all possible for you to discuss this without the patronising, condescending, baiting crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. Blanket amnesty, as i understand it, means that everybody involved in a case or in a given period is cleared of wrong-doing. That is what you said you disagreed with, and that is why i asked whether you would also oppose amnesties on an individual basis. Is it at all possible for you to discuss this without the patronising, condescending, baiting crap? I would suggest your 'let me guess' comment is patronising, so what is good for the goose etc, a simple question form you will suffice without you trying to preempt an answer. So when you stop your 'crap' I am happy to follow suit. As for your other comment I guess we disagree on 'blanket'. in my opinion it means that NOBODY gets an amnesty, is that clear enough? Edited June 10, 2011 by random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. No it doesn't. Opposing a "blanket amnesty" means ONLY that, opposing an amnesty for everyone at once regardless of situation. And, as he rightly noted, that does NOT, in any way,rule out being in favor of targeted or limited amnesties, as you try to imply. 'Your use of English', did not convey your intent, and actually, his did. So I think you had avoided the question. Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. No it doesn't. Opposing a "blanket amnesty" means ONLY that, and, as he rightly noted, that does NOT rule out being in favor of targeted or limited amnesties. So I think you had avoided the question. really, did you not read my clarification above?? oh, p.s, I really don't care what you think, you hold no control over me and I think its a little obnoxious that you actually think I care what you think Edited June 10, 2011 by random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I would suggest your 'let me guess' comment is patronising, so what is good for the goose etc, a simple question form you will suffice without you trying to preempt an answer. So when you stop your 'crap' I am happy to follow suit. As for your other comment I guess we disagree on 'blanket'. in my opinion it means that NOBODY gets an amnesty, is that clear enough? My "let me guess" comment was simply, as the phrase suggests, a guess. If you found it patronising, i apologise. As for "blanket amnesty", i don't have a dictionary definition in front of me, but i can tell you that of late it has been used by certain parties in Thai politics to refer to allowing a number of people from all sides of the divide, off the hook, so if you said you opposed that, it doesn't mean you also oppose amnesties given on an individual basis. Anyway, i'm assuming from all this that you do. Oops. Sorry. Guessing and assuming you find patronising. Let me rephrase that into a question then. Do you oppose individual amnesties? Would you be opposed, say for example, to Thaksin being given an amnesty? If yes, does that mean you oppose Yingluck and the PT party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) I would suggest your 'let me guess' comment is patronising, so what is good for the goose etc, a simple question form you will suffice without you trying to preempt an answer. So when you stop your 'crap' I am happy to follow suit. As for your other comment I guess we disagree on 'blanket'. in my opinion it means that NOBODY gets an amnesty, is that clear enough? My "let me guess" comment was simply, as the phrase suggests, a guess. If you found it patronising, i apologise. As for "blanket amnesty", i don't have a dictionary definition in front of me, but i can tell you that of late it has been used by certain parties in Thai politics to refer to allowing a number of people from all sides of the divide, off the hook, so if you said you opposed that, it doesn't mean you also oppose amnesties given on an individual basis. Anyway, i'm assuming from all this that you do. Oops. Sorry. Guessing and assuming you find patronising. Let me rephrase that into a question then. Do you oppose individual amnesties? Would you be opposed, say for example, to Thaksin being given an amnesty? If yes, does that mean you oppose Yingluck and the PT party? Thank you for you apology, that is very decent :jap: sadly I seemed to have lumped you in with the group of posters on here that resort to these tactics and bullying and who i rightly treat with the contempt they deserve. I will be more careful in future, I don't oppose PTP, I do not have to agree with all their policies to support them, I think the amnesty policy is wrong, but to oppose them on this would be an admittance that they only have one policy, which they don't, In my home country I also sometimes do not agree with certain policies of the party I vote for. I disagree more with the policies and actions of the dems and this is how I form my opinion. Edited June 10, 2011 by random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) But Abhisit explained to Manit that his resignation did not mean he had committed wrongdoing but that the iron rule had to be complied with. If Thaksin had used the same criteria of Cabinet ministers resigning their post with just allegations, it would have resulted in even a greater number of his already unprecedented number of Cabinet shufflings as he used an opposite criteria of fight tooth and nail to remain in your post irregardless of the clarity of corruption against you. Samak would never have been PM ....... but random gently skips over the violence of the reds (Samak's history wasn't spotless on violence either) and the vast corruption under all the Thaksin and Thaksin proxy parties. I doubt that anyone will ever see the inside of a court room for the actual violence that took place in 2010 (Apr/May) but that some of the red shirt leaders will see the inside of a courtroom for inciting violence. Abhisit surely covered his ass with written rules of engagement and if it is ever found that those rules of engagement were violated it will fall on the unit commanders ....who will almost certainly be protected by their oaths. "Give me an A Give me a B ..." is also patronizing " But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet " is beyond patronizing and actually insulting.... Edited June 10, 2011 by jdinasia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. Blanket amnesty, as i understand it, means that everybody involved in a case or in a given period is cleared of wrong-doing. That is what you said you disagreed with, and that is why i asked whether you would also oppose amnesties on an individual basis. Is it at all possible for you to discuss this without the patronising, condescending, baiting crap? I would suggest your 'let me guess' comment is patronising, so what is good for the goose etc, a simple question form you will suffice without you trying to preempt an answer. So when you stop your 'crap' I am happy to follow suit. As for your other comment I guess we disagree on 'blanket'. in my opinion it means that NOBODY gets an amnesty, is that clear enough? As you are giving english lessons, please help with which sense of the 'blanket' leads you to understand that is not a wide coverage. It must be related to the way that 'demonstators' (93 thereof) includes members of the thai military, innocent bystanders, journalists, medics, et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't oppose PTP, I do not have to agree with all their policies to support them, I think the amnesty policy is wrong, but to oppose them on this would be an admittance that they only have one policy, which they don't, In my home country I also sometimes do not agree with certain policies of the party I vote for. Specifically then, which of PT's policies do you agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) I disagree more with the policies and actions of the dems and this is how I form my opinion. Which of the Democrats' policies are you against? Edited June 10, 2011 by hyperdimension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) If there would ever come a PM into power that would be able to actually stop or severely curtail corruption in this country he would not live long. It is completely unrealistic to expect a PM who has been in office for 2 years to get rid of it. Absolutely true. Abhisit might not have been able to make a drastic impact on corruption, but he has moved things in the right direction, not least by being a PM who has served his time without using it to enrich himself - at least as far as we know, obviously in the course of time, scandals may yet be revealed, but as it stands at the moment, he is clean, and even his most fervent of bashers have struggled to pin anything on him in terms of corruption - proof of that being the way the reds tried to whip up a storm about his nationality - i mean, come on, surely there must have been some juicier corruption story out there for them to bring him down on? It seems not. Another move forward in terms of tackling corruption has been his honesty on the subject. Whilst other PMs would no doubt be on the BS offensive telling us what strides they had made, here we have a PM admitting his own disappointment on not having been able to do more. Refreshingly candid. A third move forward was his sticking to the criteria that if you are even charged with corruption, you must leave (as was described earlier in the thread). Previous governments certainly didn't have that as both Somchai and Samak's adminstrations were rife with Ministers charged with a whole assortment of charges and who were all adamant in their refusal to leave office. Heck, some of them were resistant to even go after conviction. Abhisit's adherence to a standard that is reasonable and consistent with many other nations is noteworthy and something that hopefully any future governments sticks to for the trend-setting that it is. . Edited June 10, 2011 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 something that hopefully any future governments sticks to for the trend-setting that it is. Does anyone, particularly the Pheu Thai party supporters, expect there to be less corruption if Pheu Thai forms government, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Abhisit said he might have made the mistake of not using marketing to lead politics."Instead, I left the truth to be proved by action. This has become a weak point that allowed opponents to distort the facts about my work constantly during the past two years," he said. Pheu Thai's and the UDD's (and Thaksin / Robert Amsterdam's) propaganda efforts have worked, as they have exploited the lack of intellectual capacity of millions of Thais, while Abhisit has overestimated it. See the documentary The Century of the Self to see how public relations and marketing have been used to gain power over, and profit from, the masses. Edited June 10, 2011 by hyperdimension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) 'random' timestamp='1307665866' post='4479727' to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. No it doesn't. Opposing a "blanket amnesty" means ONLY that, and, as he rightly noted, that does NOT rule out being in favor of targeted or limited amnesties. So I think you had avoided the question. really, did you not read my clarification above?? oh, p.s, I really don't care what you think, you hold no control over me and I think its a little obnoxious that you actually think I care what you think Your clarification, didn't clarify much of anything. Just avoided the issue and not much else. Use of English is a pretty specific artform if used properly, and vague if not. I could care less what you think, but I do find that Rixalex does think with more than a kneejerk, so I do care to some extent about his thoughts. Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Abhisit said he might have made the mistake of not using marketing to lead politics."Instead, I left the truth to be proved by action. This has become a weak point that allowed opponents to distort the facts about my work constantly during the past two years," he said. Pheu Thai's and the UDD's (and Thaksin / Robert Amsterdam's) propaganda efforts have worked, as they have exploited the lack of intellectual capacity of millions of Thais, while Abhisit has overestimated it. See the documentary The Century of the Self to see how public relations and marketing have been used to gain power over, and profit from, the masses. The Century of The Self, on Youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Fighting corruption is a paramount task. But to allow it to some ministers, and look away while it happens is very close to a collusion. I have no firm evidence, but I can say there are fishy things going on right in front of the PM, such as the handling of Veggie oil price, Sales of rice from old stock, MOI computer lease, and K. Mongkol appointment to Perm Min. Secretary of MOI and nationwide district chiefs reshuffled with the endorsement of his very own Cabinet. Again, TV populist followers here would come up with some excuses for the charming PM. Edited June 10, 2011 by Asa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuang Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 If he did his best to fight corruption amongst his cabinet, why did he appoint Suthep as deputy pm, the man that had to stand down as an mp due to conflict of interest? More waffle from the soon to be ex pm that should never have held that position anyway, your tenure has been a complete failure and I look forward to the day you are facing a court, Dammed right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 to clarify, I do not agree with a blanket amnesty for anyone and I have never said i agree with that, Do you oppose amnesties altogether? Let me guess, you would be ready to make some exceptions? Is English not your first language? I am guessing it is not as you ask a question whilst also posting my answer to the question, a statement given before you been asked your question. But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet Maybe you just don't know what a 'blanket amnesty' means, that means nobody gets an amnesty, nobody. I hope that is clear, tomorrows lesson we are covering greetings and ordering food in a cafe. Well English is my first language, and I would understand a 'blanket amnesty' as covering absolutely everyone. Which would include the black-shirt terrorists as well as the soldiers, the PAD as well as the UDD/Red-Shirt leaders, and PM-Abhisit/DPM-Suthep as well as former-PM Thaksin. So I'm glad to hear, you don't want that, indeed nor does PM-Abhisit. But I'd love to hear Ms Yingluck spell out the same thing just as clearly, however I think we're seeing the usual Thaksin/TRT/PPP/PTP/Red-Shirt tactic of several different people saying several differing things, and hoping that their different supporters will all hear only what they want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) If he did his best to fight corruption amongst his cabinet, why did he appoint Suthep as deputy pm, the man that had to stand down as an mp due to conflict of interest? More waffle from the soon to be ex pm that should never have held that position anyway, your tenure has been a complete failure and I look forward to the day you are facing a court, Dammed right... Besides that Suthep is far from the most corrupt in the kingdom, he also was very good at dealing with the players involved and making deals that worked. Yes, he IS old school, and so corrupt, but so are the vast majority of people he'd deal with, on their terms, and there was a pressing need to keep Abhisits fingers clean in the long run, while getting things done in the short term. So why Suthep? Pragmatism in working within a system that already exists. You get more done working within a system than outside it. Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 But Abhisit explained to Manit that his resignation did not mean he had committed wrongdoing but that the iron rule had to be complied with. If Thaksin had used the same criteria of Cabinet ministers resigning their post with just allegations, it would have resulted in even a greater number of his already unprecedented number of Cabinet shufflings as he used an opposite criteria of fight tooth and nail to remain in your post irregardless of the clarity of corruption against you. Samak would never have been PM ....... but random gently skips over the violence of the reds (Samak's history wasn't spotless on violence either) and the vast corruption under all the Thaksin and Thaksin proxy parties. I doubt that anyone will ever see the inside of a court room for the actual violence that took place in 2010 (Apr/May) but that some of the red shirt leaders will see the inside of a courtroom for inciting violence. Abhisit surely covered his ass with written rules of engagement and if it is ever found that those rules of engagement were violated it will fall on the unit commanders ....who will almost certainly be protected by their oaths. "Give me an A Give me a B ..." is also patronizing " But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet " is beyond patronizing and actually insulting.... Give me an A, Give me a B, glad you find it patronizing considering your posting style, I guess you are an expert in patronizing people so i am happy that my work has been recognized by such a master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't oppose PTP, I do not have to agree with all their policies to support them, I think the amnesty policy is wrong, but to oppose them on this would be an admittance that they only have one policy, which they don't, In my home country I also sometimes do not agree with certain policies of the party I vote for. Specifically then, which of PT's policies do you agree with? For yourself and hypedimension, I choose to not discuss those aspects as is my prerogative, however feel free to offer your opinions on policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompelli Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Tackling corruption?? Forget the colours - this is easily answered with statistics. How many people fired? How many people prosecuted? How many people in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biloutte Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 can start by revenu balance sheet because my ex boss not pay now around 16 month and he never got problem olala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't oppose PTP, I do not have to agree with all their policies to support them, I think the amnesty policy is wrong, but to oppose them on this would be an admittance that they only have one policy, which they don't, In my home country I also sometimes do not agree with certain policies of the party I vote for. Specifically then, which of PT's policies do you agree with? For yourself and hypedimension, I choose to not discuss those aspects as is my prerogative, however feel free to offer your opinions on policies. It is your prerogative, but may i be permitted to ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 For yourself and hypedimension, I choose to not discuss those aspects as is my prerogative, however feel free to offer your opinions on policies. Absolutely your prerogative --- as it is the prerogative of others to draw conclusions from your silence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Samak would never have been PM ....... but random gently skips over the violence of the reds (Samak's history wasn't spotless on violence either) and the vast corruption under all the Thaksin and Thaksin proxy parties. I doubt that anyone will ever see the inside of a court room for the actual violence that took place in 2010 (Apr/May) but that some of the red shirt leaders will see the inside of a courtroom for inciting violence. Abhisit surely covered his ass with written rules of engagement and if it is ever found that those rules of engagement were violated it will fall on the unit commanders ....who will almost certainly be protected by their oaths. "Give me an A Give me a B ..." is also patronizing " But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet " is beyond patronizing and actually insulting.... Give me an A, Give me a B, glad you find it patronizing considering your posting style, I guess you are an expert in patronizing people so i am happy that my work has been recognized by such a master My posting style is blunt (granted!) but I don't cry about people being blunt back. Flaming and trolling --- I complain about Then again I have no fear about saying what I think and backing it up with facts. I understand why you choose not to answer questions that are singularly on topic though .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gers1873 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Corruption is endemic through every level of Thai society and Thai culture. I wish any politician fighting corruption well. Alas I feel they will be as successful as King Canute. :jap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 But Abhisit explained to Manit that his resignation did not mean he had committed wrongdoing but that the iron rule had to be complied with. If Thaksin had used the same criteria of Cabinet ministers resigning their post with just allegations, it would have resulted in even a greater number of his already unprecedented number of Cabinet shufflings as he used an opposite criteria of fight tooth and nail to remain in your post irregardless of the clarity of corruption against you. Samak would never have been PM ....... but random gently skips over the violence of the reds (Samak's history wasn't spotless on violence either) and the vast corruption under all the Thaksin and Thaksin proxy parties. I doubt that anyone will ever see the inside of a court room for the actual violence that took place in 2010 (Apr/May) but that some of the red shirt leaders will see the inside of a courtroom for inciting violence. Abhisit surely covered his ass with written rules of engagement and if it is ever found that those rules of engagement were violated it will fall on the unit commanders ....who will almost certainly be protected by their oaths. "Give me an A Give me a B ..." is also patronizing " But well done you, will such limited talents you have managed to turn on the computer and use t'internet " is beyond patronizing and actually insulting.... Give me an A, Give me a B, glad you find it patronizing considering your posting style, I guess you are an expert in patronizing people so i am happy that my work has been recognized by such a master Ditto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I disagree more with the policies and actions of the dems and this is how I form my opinion. Which of the Democrats' policies are you against? Yes, this is a valid question well worth an answer and not an evasion. 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