Forgive Me Please, I Don't Want To Be A Jailbird: Thai Opinion

[rixalex]

i am not and have never been a supporter of Thaksin, however

appreciate the update on the stale, "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but"

.

A penny for every time i had heard that and i'd be richer than old square face himself.

[Siam Simon]

You should ask the pertinent questions!

If Thaksin is just one of, which everyone agrees. many corrupt politicians what has he done that is so so bad? there is only one real answer to this.

You're right about the corruption Paul, but what seperated Thaksin from prior practitioners was the scale of the corruption and how he changed government policy and federal law to facilitate the corruption. How he did that brings us to the answer to your question Paul. He did it through authoritarian measures which were an offshoot of his dictatorial tendencies. Exactly the opposite of democracy, which is the goal, right? Only it wasn't the goal Paul. In fact he SAID it wasn't the goal but only a tool to be used to help him exercise his dictatorial tendencies.

Hope that helps Paul.

Nope. The scale of corruption didn't change. The participants did. Thaksin cut the wrong people out of the loop. He thought he would pull it off, but he didn't. And lannarebirth is playing about with the truth as usual with his remarks about democracy goals and Thaksin, Paul. The best advice you will get on this sub-forum is to cross-check all the 'info' with which you are provided on here. There are some right weirdos posting on here .

[lannarebirth]

You should ask the pertinent questions!

If Thaksin is just one of, which everyone agrees. many corrupt politicians what has he done that is so so bad? there is only one real answer to this.

You're right about the corruption Paul, but what seperated Thaksin from prior practitioners was the scale of the corruption and how he changed government policy and federal law to facilitate the corruption. How he did that brings us to the answer to your question Paul. He did it through authoritarian measures which were an offshoot of his dictatorial tendencies. Exactly the opposite of democracy, which is the goal, right? Only it wasn't the goal Paul. In fact he SAID it wasn't the goal but only a tool to be used to help him exercise his dictatorial tendencies.

Hope that helps Paul.

lannarebirth is playing about with the truth as usual with his remarks about democracy goals and Thaksin, Paul. The best advice you will get on this sub-forum is to cross-check all the 'info' with which you are provided on here. There are some right weirdos posting on here .

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Edited December 5, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Orac]

You should ask the pertinent questions!

If Thaksin is just one of, which everyone agrees. many corrupt politicians what has he done that is so so bad? there is only one real answer to this.

You're right about the corruption Paul, but what seperated Thaksin from prior practitioners was the scale of the corruption and how he changed government policy and federal law to facilitate the corruption. How he did that brings us to the answer to your question Paul. He did it through authoritarian measures which were an offshoot of his dictatorial tendencies. Exactly the opposite of democracy, which is the goal, right? Only it wasn't the goal Paul. In fact he SAID it wasn't the goal but only a tool to be used to help him exercise his dictatorial tendencies.

Hope that helps Paul.

lannarebirth is playing about with the truth as usual with his remarks about democracy goals and Thaksin, Paul. The best advice you will get on this sub-forum is to cross-check all the 'info' with which you are provided on here. There are some right weirdos posting on here .

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

[lannarebirth]

You're right about the corruption Paul, but what seperated Thaksin from prior practitioners was the scale of the corruption and how he changed government policy and federal law to facilitate the corruption. How he did that brings us to the answer to your question Paul. He did it through authoritarian measures which were an offshoot of his dictatorial tendencies. Exactly the opposite of democracy, which is the goal, right? Only it wasn't the goal Paul. In fact he SAID it wasn't the goal but only a tool to be used to help him exercise his dictatorial tendencies.

Hope that helps Paul.

lannarebirth is playing about with the truth as usual with his remarks about democracy goals and Thaksin, Paul. The best advice you will get on this sub-forum is to cross-check all the 'info' with which you are provided on here. There are some right weirdos posting on here .

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think most people would see it the same way as you seem to.

[nurofiend]

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think most people would see it the same way as you seem to.

he's seeing it in context and how it was meant, that's why most people here wouldn't see it the same way as he seems to.

but people always like to go 'tabloid' on that quote.

"sicko kills animal according to eyewitness - "yeah, i seen the man running over the zebra"

"report found to be out of context - "yeah, i seen the man running over the zebra crossing"

[nurofiend]

i am not and have never been a supporter of Thaksin, however

appreciate the update on the stale, "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but"

.

yeah because even if you don't like loads of things about him, if you say anything positive about anything he did you must be a "i'm no thaksin fan,but (i really am)"

you have to have a blind hatred not to be his fan it seems.

[lannarebirth]

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think most people would see it the same way as you seem to.

he's seeing it in context and how it was meant, that's why most people here wouldn't see it the same way as he seems to.

but people always like to go 'tabloid' on that quote.

"sicko kills animal according to eyewitness - "yeah, i seen the man running over the zebra"

"report found to be out of context - "yeah, i seen the man running over the zebra crossing"

Yeah, that's the PRC's central committee's goal too, but at least their constitution provides for that.

[Buchholz]

i am not and have never been a supporter of Thaksin, however

appreciate the update on the stale, "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but"

.

yeah because even if you don't like loads of things about him, if you say anything positive about anything he did you must be a "i'm no thaksin fan,but (i really am)"

you have to have a blind hatred not to be his fan it seems.

No, just a normal dislike for his lengthy list of negatives.

Besides, the gist of my post is more focused on the stock justification repeated enough times to make rixalex rich (as he pointed out in his earlier reply).

It's a feigned statement, that inevitably precedes a whole host of rationalizations in a vain attempt to whitewash those negatives and instead focusing only exaggerating a tiny handful of positives. Far from "saying anything positive", it's less than subtle stock reply that invariably contains only these positives as its sole focus. It morphs into saying "only" positive things in an often-repeated mantra.

.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[Orac]

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think most people would see it the same way as you seem to.

Maybe you could clarify what your issue is with a single party government. Being from the UK I am fairly used to them and am unsure about the effectiveness of coalition politics. The US with its two party system pretty much guarantees a single party administration.

If he had been talking about a single party state then I would not be so keen on the idea.

As for the second point, I was just pointing out that you missed of part of the quote that removed some of the context of what was being said though I would agree with you it does leave some room for interpretation.

[nurofiend]

No, just a normal dislike for his lengthy list of negatives.

Besides, the gist of my post is more focused on the stock justification repeated enough times to make rixalex rich (as he pointed out in his earlier reply).

It's a feigned statement, that inevitably precedes a whole host of rationalizations in a vain attempt to whitewash those negatives and instead focusing only exaggerating a tiny handful of positives. Far from "saying anything positive", it's less than subtle stock reply that invariably contains only these positives as its sole focus. It morphs into saying "only" positive things in an often-repeated mantra.

.

yeah because even if you don't like loads of things about him

No, just a normal dislike for his lengthy list of negatives.

It's a feigned statement, that inevitably precedes a whole host of rationalizations in a vain attempt to whitewash those negatives

i don't think stating that your not a fan of the man and then making the valid point that not everything he did was bad is a vain attempt to whitewash the negatives, at all.

by saying you're not a fan, you are very much acknowledging the negatives and just because there is a but, and there is a but ... doesn't equate to whitewashing the negatives.

it's not saying he did bad things but the good things he did absolves him of this, that just seems like the way you're reading it and i guess many of your fellow like minded compadres will read it like that too.

Edited December 5, 2011 by nurofiend

[lannarebirth]

" Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?"

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

-- Thaksin Shinawatra

Can't see anything wrong with the first statement and the second one has more context when you add the next line "The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." which suggest to me that he is refering to democracy as a means to an end rather than the end point itself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think most people would see it the same way as you seem to.

Maybe you could clarify what your issue is with a single party government. Being from the UK I am fairly used to them and am unsure about the effectiveness of coalition politics. The US with its two party system pretty much guarantees a single party administration.

If he had been talking about a single party state then I would not be so keen on the idea.

As for the second point, I was just pointing out that you missed of part of the quote that removed some of the context of what was being said though I would agree with you it does leave some room for interpretation.

My issue is in the context of this politician and the parties he fostered. I give Thaksin credit for one thing and one thing only. He DID create a political awakening in a huge segment of the Thai populace. Unfortunately, their understanding of what democracy is, is what Thaksin told them democracy is. A majority allows for the contravention of laws and threatening of judges. A majority means you can remove those other democratic government institutions that hamper your agenda and threaten those who occupy those offices. A majority means you can run roughshod over a free press. A majority means you can give convicted fugitives passports to "restore their dignity". These people don't even pay lipservice to democracy, that's why they set up their own "schools" to teach their most ardent supporters what they need for them to believe it means.

[rixalex]

i am not and have never been a supporter of Thaksin, however

appreciate the update on the stale, "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but"

.

yeah because even if you don't like loads of things about him, if you say anything positive about anything he did you must be a "i'm no thaksin fan,but (i really am)"

you have to have a blind hatred not to be his fan it seems.

You don't have to have blind hatred not to be a fan. You need to read things in context, as you were yourself advising someone else to do the post before your one above.

I have acknowledged and made mention of the good things Thaksin did for Thailand. Admittedly, it's going back some time now, because in recent history all he has done is the opposite. But when i have made mention of those good things, i have in no way suggested they justified the bad things, cos they don't.

For one example, if you were to ask me what i thought of Thaksin's role in the killing of thousands of people without trial, i would say it disgusts me. End of story. I don't feel the slightest bit of compulsion to add, "...of course a lot of those killed may well have been drug dealing scum anyway", or "...but it is true there were less drugs on the street as a result", or "...but the yellows did close the airport". I don't add those comments because whether they be true or not, they are completely irrelevant. Every person has a right to a day in court, a day to defend themselves. There is no but or exception. With the "i'm no Thaksin fan, but...", there always is. They just can't bring themselves to condemn any action of his outright. I wonder, can you?

Edited December 7, 2011 by rixalex

[nurofiend]

i am not and have never been a supporter of Thaksin, however

appreciate the update on the stale, "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but"

.

yeah because even if you don't like loads of things about him, if you say anything positive about anything he did you must be a "i'm no thaksin fan,but (i really am)"

you have to have a blind hatred not to be his fan it seems.

You don't have to have blind hatred not to be a fan. You need to read things in context, as you were yourself advising someone else to do the post before your one above.

I have acknowledged and made mention of the good things Thaksin did for Thailand. Admittedly, it's going back some time now, because in recent history all he has done is the opposite. But when i have made mention of those good things, i have in no way suggested they justified the bad things, cos they don't.

For one example, if you were to ask me what i thought of Thaksin's role in the killing of thousands of people without trial, i would say it disgusts me. End of story. I don't feel the slightest bit of compulsion to add, "...of course a lot of those killed may well have been drug dealing scum anyway", or "...but it is true there were less drugs on the street as a result", or "...but the yellows did close the airport". I don't add those comments because whether they be true or not, they are completely irrelevant. Every person has a right to a day in court, a day to defend themselves. There is no but or exception. With the "i'm no Thaksin fan, but...", there always is. They just can't bring themselves to condemn any action of his outright. I wonder, can you?

of course i can, and do.

i can say i'm no thaksin fan but - and mention some of the good things he's done (which BTW i never have on this forum)and still condemn his bad actions outright, and particularly what you've mentioned in your post re the 'drug war'.