PAD Leader Sondhi Raps PM Yingluck Over Flood Crisis

[nurofiend]

When you abuse your office to change the tax law so that you can avoid paying billions of baht in taxes, that's theft. What truly amuses me is that there are still people around trying to minimise Thaksin's crimes by simply calling it disrepectful, sneaky and underhanded.

well you see, i'm not trying to 'minimise Thaksin's crimes'... i'm pointing out that it wasn't actually a crime but a nasty thing to do.

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

[gl555]

When you abuse your office to change the tax law so that you can avoid paying billions of baht in taxes, that's theft. What truly amuses me is that there are still people around trying to minimise Thaksin's crimes by simply calling it disrepectful, sneaky and underhanded.

well you see, i'm not trying to 'minimise Thaksin's crimes'... i'm pointing out that it wasn't actually a crime but a nasty thing to do.

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

[nurofiend]

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

[ThaiOats]

When you abuse your office to change the tax law so that you can avoid paying billions of baht in taxes, that's theft. What truly amuses me is that there are still people around trying to minimise Thaksin's crimes by simply calling it disrepectful, sneaky and underhanded.

well you see, i'm not trying to 'minimise Thaksin's crimes'... i'm pointing out that it wasn't actually a crime but a nasty thing to do.

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

Ok let's go with what you've said and it wasn't a crime (not against the law). Just a nasty thing to do. In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay? In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?

Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. I can't go and ask Thai people because I'm Thai, it's taboo. I'd lose my business and gossip would spread amongst Thai people if they knew my political views.

I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?

[nurofiend]

Ok let's go with what you've said and it wasn't a crime (not against the law). Just a nasty thing to do. In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay? In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?

Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. I can't go and ask Thai people because I'm Thai, it's taboo. I'd lose my business and gossip would spread amongst Thai people if they knew my political views.

I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?

"In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... where did i say it was 'okay'?

"In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... see above.

"Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. "

i haven't got the time nor the energy to go through the pros and cons of the thaksin regime... seriously!

how about you do it and then i'll talk about it with you?

i don't know what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much because... i'm not one of his supporters

"I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?"

again, how do i know? ask his supporters.

i'm not going to defend myself to you by explaining exactly what i think of him just to prove that i'm not a blind supporter but i'll just say, i'm not a fan of the man...

so you're better of asking someone who is.

but if you want to 'weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime'... i'm all ears (or eyes)

[gl555]

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

See that's where your Red moral compass is all screwed up. At first I thought it was just your limited intellect not getting it but I realise it's not that you're just stupid, it's also that you Reds have a different sense of 'justice' for your own.

Let me break it down again. He as a Prime Minister changed the law so that not paying the capitals gains tax was technically legal, that however doesn't make what he did right or legal. He did break the law. It's called abuse of office. Since he broke the law in the first place, it makes him not paying the tax also illegal. The problem with the Thaksin Red defenders are that because it was Thaksin the beloved who did it, it's not that bad a thing to do. It's 'nasty' but you forgive him. Like I said, the Red moral compass!

If you support the Reds, you support the Reds. Why deny it? No reasonable or supposedly neutral person could just write off what Thaksin did as just 'a nasty thing to do', It was kleptocracy pure and simple.

[nurofiend]

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

See that's where your Red moral compass is all screwed up. At first I thought it was just your limited intellect not getting it but I realise it's not that you're just stupid, it's also that you Reds have a different sense of 'justice' for your own.

Let me break it down again. He as a Prime Minister changed the law so that not paying the capitals gains tax was technically legal, that however doesn't make what he did right or legal. He did break the law. It's called abuse of office. Since he broke the law in the first place, it makes him not paying the tax also illegal. The problem with the Thaksin Red defenders are that because it was Thaksin the beloved who did it, it's not that bad a thing to do. It's 'nasty' but you forgive him. Like I said, the Red moral compass!

If you support the Reds, you support the Reds. Why deny it? No reasonable or supposedly neutral person could just write off what Thaksin did as just 'a nasty thing to do', It was kleptocracy pure and simple.

deep breaths

see the 'hate and venom' i spoke of

i never said it was 'right' or 'okay' or 'good'

i said it was nasty, sneaky, underhanded, disrespectful.. but not a crime...that's all, it wasn't ever a defence of the action and only the blind shouldn't be able to see that.

you can keep calling me red until you're blue in the face, if it will simplify it for you in your mind then carry on thinking it.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nurofiend

[tlansford]

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

wow, very active so late at night :-)

gl555 is one of those posters who sees red around every corner. I mentioned just today already that there are a group (significant, too) on TV who label anyone who is not biased as a red supporter. And given the low number of his posts and his venomous nature, I am beginning to suspect that he is actually one of those 'reincarnated' banned TVF posters.

Personally, I think those of us in the middle, rather than being labeled red-supporters, need a support group instead. Life is tough here on TVF with the flaming and hounding.

The issue of Thaksin and his tax avoidance - nice to see this come up. For me, this is one of those defining things about him (and there are a couple of others, too). He could have afforded to pay his fair share and instead, he connived a way to not only not pay his fair share, he found a way to pay ZERO. This is not only displays an incredible lack of integrity, it is amazingly unpatriotic for anyone who has personally benefited so much from the country, and completely inexcusable for someone who is in govt and serving the people, much less some one who is the PM. IMO he should have been proud to pay his taxes... at least if he cared one ounce for his country - it is pretty clear that he does not.

But as for gl555's claims (no, not talking about his use of the word "moron"), it was not illegal. No, technically, not illegal. But inexcusable none the less.

Have a good night

Edited October 20, 2011 by tlansford

[ThaiOats]

Ok let's go with what you've said and it wasn't a crime (not against the law). Just a nasty thing to do. In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay? In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?

Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. I can't go and ask Thai people because I'm Thai, it's taboo. I'd lose my business and gossip would spread amongst Thai people if they knew my political views.

I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?

"In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... where did i say it was 'okay'?

"In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... see above.

"Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. "

i haven't got the time nor the energy to go through the pros and cons of the thaksin regime... seriously!

how about you do it and then i'll talk about it with you?

i don't know what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much because... i'm not one of his supporters

"I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?"

again, how do i know? ask his supporters.

i'm not going to defend myself to you by explaining exactly what i think of him just to prove that i'm not a blind supporter but i'll just say, i'm not a fan of the man...

so you're better of asking someone who is.

but if you want to 'weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime'... i'm all ears (or eyes)

Ok then my apologies to you then. I'm not trying to paint you as a supporter or not, I was under the impression that you MAY be and trying to get a better understanding. I have my own opinions already of the pros and cons, but that's a conclusion that I've deducted myself. I'd like to hear it from his supporters. In short, I'm just trying to see what was "Ok" about Thaksin and how it all makes him a savior in his supporter's eyes.

[nurofiend]

Ok let's go with what you've said and it wasn't a crime (not against the law). Just a nasty thing to do. In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay? In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?

Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. I can't go and ask Thai people because I'm Thai, it's taboo. I'd lose my business and gossip would spread amongst Thai people if they knew my political views.

I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?

"In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... where did i say it was 'okay'?

"In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... see above.

"Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. "

i haven't got the time nor the energy to go through the pros and cons of the thaksin regime... seriously!

how about you do it and then i'll talk about it with you?

i don't know what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much because... i'm not one of his supporters

"I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?"

again, how do i know? ask his supporters.

i'm not going to defend myself to you by explaining exactly what i think of him just to prove that i'm not a blind supporter but i'll just say, i'm not a fan of the man...

so you're better of asking someone who is.

but if you want to 'weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime'... i'm all ears (or eyes)

Ok then my apologies to you then. I'm not trying to paint you as a supporter or not, I was under the impression that you MAY be and trying to get a better understanding. I have my own opinions already of the pros and cons, but that's a conclusion that I've deducted myself. I'd like to hear it from his supporters. In short, I'm just trying to see what was "Ok" about Thaksin and how it all makes him a savior in his supporter's eyes.

oh fair enough...

i was simply asking what the 'crime' was, that's all.

[gl555]

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

See that's where your Red moral compass is all screwed up. At first I thought it was just your limited intellect not getting it but I realise it's not that you're just stupid, it's also that you Reds have a different sense of 'justice' for your own.

Let me break it down again. He as a Prime Minister changed the law so that not paying the capitals gains tax was technically legal, that however doesn't make what he did right or legal. He did break the law. It's called abuse of office. Since he broke the law in the first place, it makes him not paying the tax also illegal. The problem with the Thaksin Red defenders are that because it was Thaksin the beloved who did it, it's not that bad a thing to do. It's 'nasty' but you forgive him. Like I said, the Red moral compass!

If you support the Reds, you support the Reds. Why deny it? No reasonable or supposedly neutral person could just write off what Thaksin did as just 'a nasty thing to do', It was kleptocracy pure and simple.

deep breaths

see the 'hate and venom' i spoke of

i never said it was 'right' or 'okay' or 'good'

i said it was nasty, sneaky, underhanded, disrespectful.. but not a crime...that's all, it wasn't ever a defence of the action and only the blind shouldn't be able to see that.

you can keep calling me red until you're blue in the face, if it will simplify it for you in your mind then carry on thinking it.

Once again, tax evasion is a crime. Abusing your powers as a Prime Minister to change the law to evade tax is also crime. It was nasty, underhanded, sneaky, disrespectful AND ALSO A CRIME. And yes you are a Red and it does simplify things because we know where you stand because no matter what Thaksin did or will do, you'll still defend him.

[nurofiend]

wow, very active so late at night :-)

gl555 is one of those posters who sees red around every corner. I mentioned just today already that there are a group (significant, too) on TV who label anyone who is not biased as a red supporter. And given the low number of his posts and his venomous nature, I am beginning to suspect that he is actually one of those 'reincarnated' banned TVF posters.

Personally, I think those of us in the middle, rather than being labeled red-supporters, need a support group instead. Life is tough here on TVF with the flaming and hounding.

The issue of Thaksin and his tax avoidance - nice to see this come up. For me, this is one of those defining things about him (and there are a couple of others, too). He could have afforded to pay his fair share and instead, he connived a way to not only not pay his fair share, he found a way to pay ZERO. This is not only displays an incredible lack of integrity, it is amazingly unpatriotic for anyone who has personally benefited so much from the country, and completely inexcusable for someone who is in govt and serving the people, much less some one who is the PM. IMO he should have been proud to pay his taxes... at least if he cared one ounce for his country - it is pretty clear that he does not.

But as for gl555's claims (no, not talking about his use of the word "moron"), it was not illegal. No, technically, not illegal. But inexcusable none the less.

Have a good night

inexcusable i agree with, hence my comments..

and my point exactly was that it was not technically illegal, nothing more.. no apologies, no excuses but yeah it's not a shock to me reading the type of posts he made.. at all

[nurofiend]

Once again, tax evasion is a crime. Abusing your powers as a Prime Minister to change the law to evade tax is also crime. It was nasty, underhanded, sneaky, disrespectful AND ALSO A CRIME. And yes you are a Red and it does simplify things because we know where you stand because no matter what Thaksin did or will do, you'll still defend him.

and once again, it wasn't tax evasion... it was tax avoidance, the only point i was ever making.

if you want to see clarifying facts as defending him yet still calling the act nasty, underhanded, sneaky, disrespectful, then so be it... it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

"And yes you are a Red and it does simplify things because we know where you stand because no matter what Thaksin did or will do, you'll still defend him."

haha you can think what you like, i wouldn't change you for the world... very amusing.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nurofiend

[gl555]

Once again, tax evasion is a crime. Abusing your powers as a Prime Minister to change the law to evade tax is also crime. It was nasty, underhanded, sneaky, disrespectful AND ALSO A CRIME. And yes you are a Red and it does simplify things because we know where you stand because no matter what Thaksin did or will do, you'll still defend him.

and once again, it wasn't tax evasion... it was tax avoidance, the only point i was ever making.

if you want to see clarifying facts as defending him yet still calling the act nasty, underhanded, sneaky, disrespectful, then so be it... it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

"And yes you are a Red and it does simplify things because we know where you stand because no matter what Thaksin did or will do, you'll still defend him."

haha you can think what you like, i wouldn't change you for the world... very amusing.

When you illegally abuse your power to change the tax laws with the sole purpose of not paying your own taxes, it's tax evasion.

And yes I will think what I like.

[gregb]

Ok let's go with what you've said and it wasn't a crime (not against the law). Just a nasty thing to do. In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay? In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?

Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. I can't go and ask Thai people because I'm Thai, it's taboo. I'd lose my business and gossip would spread amongst Thai people if they knew my political views.

I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?

"In a dictatorship where the dictator isn't actually violating any laws (since he/she pretty much is the law) but does a bunch of nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... where did i say it was 'okay'?

"In a democracy where there's grafting to benefit certain individuals so they get away with nasty things, is it still okay?"

no... see above.

"Please weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime.. seriously. While doing so, please mention his deeds in selling Shin Corp and his Ratchadaprisek deal and your opinions too. Oh and don't forget the nepotism. I'd really like to see a short list of what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much. "

i haven't got the time nor the energy to go through the pros and cons of the thaksin regime... seriously!

how about you do it and then i'll talk about it with you?

i don't know what he did in the eyes of his supporters to want him back so much because... i'm not one of his supporters

"I want to know why he's considered a "savior". What has he done that can negate some of his nasty things?"

again, how do i know? ask his supporters.

i'm not going to defend myself to you by explaining exactly what i think of him just to prove that i'm not a blind supporter but i'll just say, i'm not a fan of the man...

so you're better of asking someone who is.

but if you want to 'weigh the pros and cons of the Thaksin regime'... i'm all ears (or eyes)

Ok then my apologies to you then. I'm not trying to paint you as a supporter or not, I was under the impression that you MAY be and trying to get a better understanding. I have my own opinions already of the pros and cons, but that's a conclusion that I've deducted myself. I'd like to hear it from his supporters. In short, I'm just trying to see what was "Ok" about Thaksin and how it all makes him a savior in his supporter's eyes.

oh fair enough...

i was simply asking what the 'crime' was, that's all.

Abuse of office. Asked and answered.

In a functioning democracy with an actual independent judiciary he would have been impeached, sentenced to prison, and that would have been the end of it.

Since Thailand ended its fledgling attempt at democracy once Thaksin was elected to office, successfully subverted justice in 2001 and eviscerated all checks and balances that would hinder his absolute power, there was nobody left to accuse him or try him for this crime. Thus, he was able to change the laws at a whim to suit himself. That is what dictators do. Until he was tossed out that is, and the judiciary was finally free to convict his sorry ass.

He actually was convicted of abuse of office in the Ratchada land scandal. But of course, I'm sure you believe that wasn't fair and was politically motivated. Most red supporters make this argument and ignore the larger picture of his overriding guilt.

[nurofiend]

Abuse of office. Asked and answered.

In a functioning democracy with an actual independent judiciary he would have been impeached, sentenced to prison, and that would have been the end of it.

Since Thailand ended its fledgling attempt at democracy once Thaksin was elected to office, successfully subverted justice in 2001 and eviscerated all checks and balances that would hinder his absolute power, there was nobody left to accuse him or try him for this crime. Thus, he was able to change the laws at a whim to suit himself. That is what dictators do. Until he was tossed out that is, and the judiciary was finally free to convict his sorry ass.

He actually was convicted of abuse of office in the Ratchada land scandal. But of course, I'm sure you believe that wasn't fair and was politically motivated. Most red supporters make this argument and ignore the larger picture of his overriding guilt.

how come he wasn't convicted for abuse of office for shin corp then?

i'll not bother take issue with yet another 'red supporter' comment

[gregb]

Abuse of office. Asked and answered.

In a functioning democracy with an actual independent judiciary he would have been impeached, sentenced to prison, and that would have been the end of it.

Since Thailand ended its fledgling attempt at democracy once Thaksin was elected to office, successfully subverted justice in 2001 and eviscerated all checks and balances that would hinder his absolute power, there was nobody left to accuse him or try him for this crime. Thus, he was able to change the laws at a whim to suit himself. That is what dictators do. Until he was tossed out that is, and the judiciary was finally free to convict his sorry ass.

He actually was convicted of abuse of office in the Ratchada land scandal. But of course, I'm sure you believe that wasn't fair and was politically motivated. Most red supporters make this argument and ignore the larger picture of his overriding guilt.

how come he wasn't convicted for abuse of office for shin corp then?

i'll not bother take issue with yet another 'red supporter' comment

He was convicted for the easiest thing to convict him of. The one where there was an air tight case against him and where he couldn't easily bribe his way out of the problem or corrupt the witnesses.

It is completely disingenuous of you to try and say he isn't guilty simply because he wasn't convicted of your preferred crime which he also committed. This is a typical tactic of red shirt supporters. Try and obfuscate the problem and deflect attention from his guilt.

If you are defending him, you are a Thaksin supporter. And your comments show you are defending him. If you don't realize your bias then nobody can help you see the truth.

[nurofiend]

Abuse of office. Asked and answered.

In a functioning democracy with an actual independent judiciary he would have been impeached, sentenced to prison, and that would have been the end of it.

Since Thailand ended its fledgling attempt at democracy once Thaksin was elected to office, successfully subverted justice in 2001 and eviscerated all checks and balances that would hinder his absolute power, there was nobody left to accuse him or try him for this crime. Thus, he was able to change the laws at a whim to suit himself. That is what dictators do. Until he was tossed out that is, and the judiciary was finally free to convict his sorry ass.

He actually was convicted of abuse of office in the Ratchada land scandal. But of course, I'm sure you believe that wasn't fair and was politically motivated. Most red supporters make this argument and ignore the larger picture of his overriding guilt.

how come he wasn't convicted for abuse of office for shin corp then?

i'll not bother take issue with yet another 'red supporter' comment

He was convicted for the easiest thing to convict him of. The one where there was an air tight case against him and where he couldn't easily bribe his way out of the problem or corrupt the witnesses.

It is completely disingenuous of you to try and say he isn't guilty simply because he wasn't convicted of your preferred crime which he also committed. This is a typical tactic of red shirt supporters. Try and obfuscate the problem and deflect attention from his guilt.

If you are defending him, you are a Thaksin supporter. And your comments show you are defending him. If you don't realize your bias then nobody can help you see the truth.

well that's why i said he wasn't guilty.. because i think that is the fact

did he find a dishonest way of doing it legally? i think so.. and that's simply the point i was making

tax avoidance is still dishonest and immoral but not illegal, the only point i was making is that it technically wasn't a crime

how is saying it as it is, defending him? how is calling what he did nasty, disrespectful etc, defending him?

you say

"If you are defending him, you are a Thaksin supporter"

therein lies the simplistic black and white view that some people have on here..

i'd find it hard to be a supporter of a man who i don't like and if i was a red shirt supporter i certainly wouldn't be afraid or hesitant to admit it to anyone posting on here!!

[BabySun]

Sondhi

Can't he just plug a leaking sewer somewhere by sticking his head in it?

Now, that would be a service to the nation.

Tha best post of this season.

[whybother]

could you clear this up for me.. how exactly is thaksin using thailands money?

Thaksin WAS using Thailand's money ... but the courts confiscated a lot of it.

Thaksin also has a number of corruption charges hanging over him in relation to government deals relating to his old company. (ie using Thailand's money to buy things off his company).

[whybother]

well that's why i said he wasn't guilty.. because i think that is the fact

<snip>

He's not guilty ... YET.

One of the reasons he is in self-imposed exile is to avoid outstanding court cases going ahead.

[Buchholz]

four stories in a one short article, the title is misleading - should be "sondhi goes to prison, but before that try to offend the pm, so he can double his sentence"

He can't go to prison until the plaintiff Thaksin answers the summons from the Appeals Court.

[Buchholz]

He goes to jail for 3 years ? It's a bit too early to rejoice but if it's confirmed I say good riddance !

No Thaksin in court, no jail time.

.

[metisdead]

Last time I looked, this topic is about PAD Leader Sondhi Raps PM Yingluck Over Flood Crisis, discussion of this would be on topic while discussion of Thaksin Shinawatra and his court cases/tax avoidance issues would be another topic altogether. Let's get back on topic.

A post has been removed as a poster had deleted quoted post headers as he had reached the maximum number of nested quotes allowed leading to misunderstanding of who posted what. When deleting quoted posts to meet the nested quotes criteria, be careful so as to delete individual posts while keeping the quote headers intact. When replying to certain parts of a post, learn how to use the Insert quotation feature, just copy the content you wish to respond to and paste the content in between the quote brackets.

[h90]

one quote removed

TAN is also linked to (belongs to ? ) Sondhi. What do you expect ?

Sondhi is a crook and a failed businessman. ASTV, the jewel of Sondhis empire, can't pay its debts and was forced off the air a few days ago. Sondhi is again condemned for defamation.

And that's this guy the hero of the yellow brigades ?

He goes to jail for 3 years ? It's a bit too early to rejoice but if it's confirmed I say good riddance !

Everything you just said more or less applies to Thaksin as well. Colored heroes are so heroic.

Well Sondhi made mistakes with HIS money, while Thaksin is using Thailands money.

that makes a big difference.

could you clear this up for me.. how exactly is thaksin using thailands money?

If you just came recently to Thailand:

Corruption at building the airport

Not paying tax on the sale of his satellites

Giving Myanmar a big loan for purchases from his company

just to name three best known cases

[BabySun]

Sondhi

Can't he just plug a leaking sewer somewhere by sticking his head in it?

Now, that would be a service to the nation.

The very best post of this year!

[louse1953]

"Leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, Sondhi Limthongkul commented on the flood management, as carried out by the government, led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, saying that he sympathizes with Yingluck who must be at her wit's end due to her limited intelligence. "

I don't like Sondhi but that about sums up the whole situation. I don't doubt Yingluck is working hard and doing her best to control this crisis but unfortunately she just doesn't have the brains nor the ability to do so.

Is she a one "man" show or what?Arn't there other people in the government or army who have expertise in crisis management.She is a politician,not a magician.She would have ability in her own area.

[louse1953]

It was a crime. And it's obvious you're a Red supporter because only those morons could go around saying someone abusing their office in order to steal billions is not committing a crime. But it's a nasty thing to do!

aw be nice now.. i'm not a red shirt supporter tho and ive criticized them in posts, unlike you i don't suffer from blind bias

what laws were broken?

He already changed the laws so technically speaking, he broke no laws. Is that what you wanted to hear?

You Red supporters are all alike. You obviously are Reds with your obvious support for Thaksin, defending him and trying to ignore the crimes he has commited. But you guys always deny it here. It's pretty amusing really.

well yes, that is what i wanted to hear... because that's EXACTLY the point i was making, if you're not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word 'crime' then i apologize for taking it up with you.

it wasn't a crime - tick

it was a nasty thing to do - tick

i'm not a red supporter, if i was then i wouldn't have any bad words to say about thaksin or the red shirts...but guess what? i do, so here we are.

however on this site i definitely do lean towards those that do support the reds or those that take issue with the drivel that sometimes gets written by the yellow majority... i think they all get branded with the 'red shirt supporter' monicker because they don't all pat eachother on the back post after post about how stupid yingluck is and show a bit of disagreement sometimes.

it's because the people who get branded as such on here seem to make their points with less venom and hate, that i lean towards their side on here but only if i feel there's a legit point/argument to be made.

i don't think the red shirts are a bad bunch and i don't think the yellow shirts are either, i think there's bad elements of both, sure.

Thaksin is convicted and will go to prison unless appealed,kings pardon or deal done etc.

[Tanaka]

Sondhi

Can't he just plug a leaking sewer somewhere by sticking his head in it?

Now, that would be a service to the nation.

Yes , but what he said is Bang-on.... she has a very limited intelligence..... poor darling..

Well, she is a Shinawatra and a red shirt so what do you expect?