PM Yingluck Denies Meeting Thaksin In Singapore

[metisdead]

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.

Another poster removed the messed up quote tags from the same post when replying to that post making it look like another poster posted what he did not.

[blazes]

Fact: Blair and Brown were very experienced Politicians and long standing MPs,before they became Prime Ministers,

and it is highly unlikely Yingluck will be around as long, as the inexperienced???? previous and current world leaders, that you quoted.Believe it or not Experience does count for a lot!

Whether she met her Brother in Hong Kong or not, remains to be seen!

Oh dear, what a ramble (severely truncated here in my "quote"). she is supposed to have met Big Brother in bleeding Singapore. wake up at the back of the class.

As for EXPERIENCE. Yes indeed, the "experienced" Bliar and Brown (they sound like undertakers) both shared in bankrupting the United Kingdom.

How many dead in Iraq? How many billions spent on nuclear weapons? How many now unemployed (though the "experience" of Cameron and HIS clique has to be dragged in here.) And how do Brits like seeing their PM (Bliar) popping off to Texas and being the poodle/lapdog of one of the truly most corrupt politicians of all time.

If this kind of "experience" is what you value, God help us all.

It's weird how people can blindly lambaste the Thai PM, but yet blindly accept the lies and vanity and general <deleted> of the British "ruling" class. Ah, but I keep forgetting: the latter have "experience" on their side. Long live B&B. (but thankfully no longer as operating politicians.)

Edited December 10, 2011 by blazes

[metisdead]

A series of posts that became confusional and bickering as to who said what has been removed. It appears that the wording of quoted posts were not altered, so the whole sequence of posts was removed to remove anymore confusion .

[surangw]

Although Thaksin may be 'guiding' his sister he will not want want her to become too successful.

Somehow, I don't think that is going to be a problem.

accidents happen

[phiphidon]

The whole point being if she met him why does she deny it ???????????????? something to hide ? guilty feeling ? must be something wrong with it or why not a clean open book. posters that must have read about-the promises, the helicopter excuse, the illness to avoid a meeting, and a host of other lies. why do posters think that the sun shines out of ]]] ]]]] when all this charade is taking place----truthful about this government some posters feel they shouldn't be.

So where is your proof (or that of the OP come to that) that she did meet him? She denied she met him because she was asked whether she met him according to "reports" and she hadn't. End of, no conspiracy here. Most of these stories coming out from the Nation, and its ilk, of denials are because they ask questions about things she didn't say/do/imply etc so she replies in the negative, what is so suprising? They might as well have asked did she meet Elvis in Singapore and when she denied it make a story out of it. Though some on here would probably still say she was lying.

Ginjag doesn't need proof because he/she was making no claim one way or the other. You should have known that when he/she started with The whole point being if she met him....Notice the "if"?

Nobody seems to know how much truth there is to the speculation. The discussion is therefore one of a hypothetical nature - as follows: if she, PM of Thailand, met him, her brother, a criminal on the run, would you be ok with that, and would you also be ok with her lying about it so as to avoid legal difficulties. My feeling is that no, whatever obvious loyalty she has to family, she should put the country first, and let authorities deal with her brother's case, just as they would deal with any other case, and that she should in no way interfere - that includes meeting him. If she is going to do so, she should at least have the courage of her convictions, and honesty to the public, to not lie about it. Prime Ministers shouldn't be lying about anything for that matter, whatever the reason. OK, dodge questions you don't want to answer, say when asked if you contacted your brother via Skype that you have no comment, but don't flat out lie.

My feeling on Prime Ministers lying as being unacceptable is obviously however not one shared by some people here, Mr Bowskill for one. No doubt he will say that since in his opinion they all lie, that makes it ok and we shouldn't waste time condemning them when they get found out. With this attitude, how will standards ever get raised, when the public ceases caring or demanding?

Thanks rixalex, yes IF was the word that the cleaver poster missed, and what (phi phi) stories do you expect to come out of the nation----it's political yes-but without these news opposition it would be a sad state more than it is, all that rubbish posting about Elvis made me laugh. weigh up how many truths in the 3 months of rule, and how many lies, add them up PhiPhi............which holds the balance.???

Ah, now I see. If you post something that contains the phrase "If" in it and then go on to make claims about she is lying because she has a guilty conscience etc. then that is a different case that does not require any form of backing whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever learn the netiquette that some posters on here demand. Never mind. I'll just carry on and wait for you to correct me when I'm obviously wrong.

PS. The posting about Elvis was supposed to make you laugh or a least give a wry smile, some of you are wound a bit too tight, you need to let go a little.

[473geo]

Probably wound up trying to dispense comment without making comment if I am correct

[MAJIC]

Fact: Blair and Brown were very experienced Politicians and long standing MPs,before they became Prime Ministers,

and it is highly unlikely Yingluck will be around as long, as the inexperienced???? previous and current world leaders, that you quoted.Believe it or not Experience does count for a lot!

Whether she met her Brother in Hong Kong or not, remains to be seen!

Oh dear, what a ramble (severely truncated here in my "quote"). she is supposed to have met Big Brother in bleeding Singapore. wake up at the back of the class.

As for EXPERIENCE. Yes indeed, the "experienced" Bliar and Brown (they sound like undertakers) both shared in bankrupting the United Kingdom.

How many dead in Iraq? How many billions spent on nuclear weapons? How many now unemployed (though the "experience" of Cameron and HIS clique has to be dragged in here.) And how do Brits like seeing their PM (Bliar) popping off to Texas and being the poodle/lapdog of one of the truly most corrupt politicians of all time.

If this kind of "experience" is what you value, God help us all.

It's weird how people can blindly lambaste the Thai PM, but yet blindly accept the lies and vanity and general <deleted> of the British "ruling" class. Ah, but I keep forgetting: the latter have "experience" on their side. Long live B&B. (but thankfully no longer as operating politicians.)

MAJIC:

Well at least Hong Kong got you focused back onto the real Topic,and not Rambling and Whittering on about Blair,Brown,and Obama,who you claim, came into Politics and became National Leaders,with no previous Political experience. Which is utter and complete nonsense!

I am not going to get into arguments about Blair,Brown and Obama,unless you wish to start three new seperate threads,but I suggest you brush up on your Political History knowledge before you decide to do so.

And of course Yingluck may very well be telling the truth that she did not meet her Absconder Brother in Singapore,but there are plenty of other places for a meeting though?

Finally whether you accept it or not,those with Qualifications,Skills,and Previous Experience,are the ones who normally get the Job. Except if someone else with the power pulls the strings,and hands out the Job on a plate...... to the Novice "Clone"

Don't waste your time arguing,she will not be around that long,to gain the necessary experience!

Edited December 10, 2011 by MAJIC

[DLock]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

[blazes]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

I am sorry if it is confusing:

KISS they say (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Ok, I will try and keep it simple:

Nowhere do I claim that "political experience" is either useful or useless when it comes to political leadership. I am merely claiming it is irrelevant (not worth a rat's arse for those of you who prefer simpler English) on this one ground:

the present mess in Europe and the US has been brought about entirely by people who had boundless political experience. Not to mention the mess in the Middle East brought about (also) by men of boundless experience (and greed).

If you prefer that kind of experience, so be it.

[ginjag]

reply to phiphi...#95

Pre election-post election there have been so many dubious events and you should have noted them, people get tight when other posters do not admit to the lies that were told to the people to get elected, big money is spent worldwide on elections but this country is one of those that openly gives money out to be elected--but it's not to help the people it's to help the ''''FAMILY and friends'''' I would like to see more honesty from posters who seem to be hell bent on defending the Family in power, and deny the whole circus of events. The slant remark about the guilty conscience --no way she could have ,these people are as brazen as you can get and family money is their only want.

[DLock]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

I am sorry if it is confusing:

KISS they say (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Ok, I will try and keep it simple:

Nowhere do I claim that "political experience" is either useful or useless when it comes to political leadership. I am merely claiming it is irrelevant (not worth a rat's arse for those of you who prefer simpler English) on this one ground:

the present mess in Europe and the US has been brought about entirely by people who had boundless political experience. Not to mention the mess in the Middle East brought about (also) by men of boundless experience (and greed).

If you prefer that kind of experience, so be it.

You can try and keep it as simple as you feel you can comprehend...

But, trying to say that Yingluck with zero experience is a valid person to run Thailand, just because others with more experience have screwed up, is a very weak premise.

And it's not just lack of experience.

How do you answer that she is the Sister of a convicted felon that ran away?

Let's cut through all the theory. Yingluck was elected by her party because her surname is Shinawatra. That's all we should be discussing. Thaksin told his party what to do and they did it. He put his personal selfish, greedy wants before that of a nation in order to have her try and change the rules so he could come back and pick up where her left of, running Thailand like his own personal company.

If you were in any doubt, the recent attempt to get him pardoned and the return of his passport as a New Years gift should be plenty of evidence.

You are not looking at the big picture. You are getting bogged down on "experience" when in reality, it's a mute point. She has no place being PM of Thailand.

Note, I am not even discussing her last 5 months...and best you don't either.

[Siripon]

It's not only her spoken English she messes up, in her address to Princess Sirindhorn last week she mispronounced Thai words.

The media have been extremely kind to her so far, partly because she's a woman and attractive, partly because of the floods, and quite possibly due to money. But her incompetence and evasiveness in response to questions has worn the media's patience thin.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Siripon

[bridge2bridge]

Hard to Believe that.

[blazes]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

I am sorry if it is confusing:

KISS they say (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Ok, I will try and keep it simple:

Nowhere do I claim that "political experience" is either useful or useless when it comes to political leadership. I am merely claiming it is irrelevant (not worth a rat's arse for those of you who prefer simpler English) on this one ground:

the present mess in Europe and the US has been brought about entirely by people who had boundless political experience. Not to mention the mess in the Middle East brought about (also) by men of boundless experience (and greed).

If you prefer that kind of experience, so be it.

You can try and keep it as simple as you feel you can comprehend...

But, trying to say that Yingluck with zero experience is a valid person to run Thailand, just because others with more experience have screwed up, is a very weak premise.

And it's not just lack of experience.

How do you answer that she is the Sister of a convicted felon that ran away?

Let's cut through all the theory. Yingluck was elected by her party because her surname is Shinawatra. That's all we should be discussing. Thaksin told his party what to do and they did it. He put his personal selfish, greedy wants before that of a nation in order to have her try and change the rules so he could come back and pick up where her left of, running Thailand like his own personal company.

If you were in any doubt, the recent attempt to get him pardoned and the return of his passport as a New Years gift should be plenty of evidence.

You are not looking at the big picture. You are getting bogged down on "experience" when in reality, it's a mute point. She has no place being PM of Thailand.

Note, I am not even discussing her last 5 months...and best you don't either.

"Moot" I think you mean, not "mute", which is perhaps what you should now be attempting.

Ok, let's switch and maybe un-mute you. Sure, Ms Y S may be less than desirable in all kinds of ways (though I would hate it if society told me to eff off simply because my brother/sister was a convicted felon...why is that MY fault?) Irrelevant though.

The main problem with this thread is simple (but a beautiful illustration of how our world "works".) Someone gets their knickers in a twist cos ms YS may have met Mr TS in some bar in Singapore (or even HK, as some would assert).

Ok, little problems arise: should the PM of any country be meeting any criminal. answer: probably not. However (experience suggests - ha ha) that other countries have no scruple in dealing with "criminals" when it suits them. Examples: America deals with Taliban in Afghanistan (both now and in the 1980s); Reagan dealt with Contras (right-wing death squads in El Salvador, not to mention his dealing with Iran); and the governments of both UK and USA deal with people (on Wall St and the City) who SHOULD be behind bars, by any rational and moral view of the world.

But the main point to be made is this: while you squabble about Ms Y this or Ms Y that, you forget that the main indictment you can level against her is that her government (elected by the People on the promise of gew-gaws like laptops for kids or 300 bt per day minimum wage...) is run by the elite, by the people who want no fundamental change in this society. Bread and circuses....give the masses a laptop to shut them up.

While you argue about her personality or her family relations, it is Business As Usual in the conduct of the state's affairs. This is how the ruling class EVERYWHERE continues to rule. You give the masses a little something to be pleased about and you get them arguing among themselves as to this or that that the "celebrity" politician has done, and meanwhile you make sure that nothing fundamentally changes. Distract the people as long as you can get away with it.

It is not her handling of the "floods' that decides her fate, but her handling of the need for profound transformations in this society. Is she capable of prodding big change forward? probably not. condemn her on that, but not on meaningless trivialities like whether she is a "clone" of BB or whether she is attractive or a pooying.

For the same reason, condemn Obama, given, like the Red Shirts here, a massive mandate for change, and yet has changed sweet FA.

What one looks for, in any politician anywhere is some kind of moral vision. Not a vision of how to put more money in your pocket, but some kind of integrity...you know it when you see it. I fear that Yingluck does not score highly when it comes to moral vision. But condemn her on that, rather than her ability speaking various languages or whether she meets her big bro.....

[blazes]

Pee Ess:

Talking of politicians meeting felons: didn't both Presidents Carter and Clinton have ne'er-do-well brothers who brought them some embarrassment? (I think Carter's brother was caught peeing in a public place, so that doesn't make him, as far as I know, a felon.) Didn't JFK do business with the Mafia? Didn't Thatcher's son get into trouble in southern Africa? Didn't Gaddafy give the LSE a lot of money? (slightly embarrassing in light of recent events).

Show me a clean world on this side of the turf.

[473geo]

Could it also be a possibility that Yingluck was elected because the alternative presented a poor campaign based on an ill thought out anti Thaksin platform

Edited December 11, 2011 by 473geo

[rixalex]

Pee Ess:

Talking of politicians meeting felons: didn't both Presidents Carter and Clinton have ne'er-do-well brothers who brought them some embarrassment? (I think Carter's brother was caught peeing in a public place, so that doesn't make him, as far as I know, a felon.) Didn't JFK do business with the Mafia? Didn't Thatcher's son get into trouble in southern Africa? Didn't Gaddafy give the LSE a lot of money? (slightly embarrassing in light of recent events).

Show me a clean world on this side of the turf.

The premise for all your arguments in defence of YL seems to be based entirely on simply citing examples of other people you think have committed the same or worse. Seems a bizarre way of defending someone to me. Would you defend a shop lifter by citing examples of bank robbers? A murderer by citing examples of serial killers?

I can appreciate having a low expectancy for politicians. I can't appreciate why you have any interest in defending any one of them, for delivering on that expectancy.

[blazes]

Pee Ess:

Talking of politicians meeting felons: didn't both Presidents Carter and Clinton have ne'er-do-well brothers who brought them some embarrassment? (I think Carter's brother was caught peeing in a public place, so that doesn't make him, as far as I know, a felon.) Didn't JFK do business with the Mafia? Didn't Thatcher's son get into trouble in southern Africa? Didn't Gaddafy give the LSE a lot of money? (slightly embarrassing in light of recent events).

Show me a clean world on this side of the turf.

The premise for all your arguments in defence of YL seems to be based entirely on simply citing examples of other people you think have committed the same or worse. Seems a bizarre way of defending someone to me. Would you defend a shop lifter by citing examples of bank robbers? A murderer by citing examples of serial killers?

I can appreciate having a low expectancy for politicians. I can't appreciate why you have any interest in defending any one of them, for delivering on that expectancy.

I am not "defending" her in the slightest. Merely drawing attention to the hypocrisy involved in singling her out for this kind of attention when "meeting with felons" has been the common practice of all men and women of experience everywhere.

And if I WERE defending her, I would argue that, yes, using precedent is one way to win one's case. The case that Yingluck is no better, no worse, than any politician anywhere.

Now, go ahead and tell us what you want out of a Thai prime minister....

[rixalex]

The premise for all your arguments in defence of YL seems to be based entirely on simply citing examples of other people you think have committed the same or worse. Seems a bizarre way of defending someone to me. Would you defend a shop lifter by citing examples of bank robbers? A murderer by citing examples of serial killers?

I can appreciate having a low expectancy for politicians. I can't appreciate why you have any interest in defending any one of them, for delivering on that expectancy.

I am not "defending" her in the slightest. Merely drawing attention to the hypocrisy involved in singling her out for this kind of attention when "meeting with felons" has been the common practice of all men and women of experience everywhere.

It would only be hypocrisy if one were defending the actions of those people in those examples you made. I am not, and if you want to start a thread on those topics, in the appropriate forum, i am happy to come along and contribute my own condemnation where i see fit. This is not the place. This thread is about Yingluck and Thaksin, and as such, it isn't a case on singling her (or him) out, it is simply a case of those two people being the topic of conversation.

[rixalex]

And if I WERE defending her, I would argue that, yes, using precedent is one way to win one's case.

Precedent is used in a court of law, where courts have previously reached a verdict on a comparable case. You on the other hand, are simply citing failings in other politicians, as being reason for us to accept the failings of Yingluck. It's not quite the same thing.

[phiphidon]

And if I WERE defending her, I would argue that, yes, using precedent is one way to win one's case.

Precedent is used in a court of law, where courts have previously reached a verdict on a comparable case. You on the other hand, are simply citing failings in other politicians, as being reason for us to accept the failings of Yingluck. It's not quite the same thing.

Yes it is, and it's also used in everyday speech meaning prior (in time) i.e happened before.

[DLock]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

I am sorry if it is confusing:

KISS they say (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Ok, I will try and keep it simple:

Nowhere do I claim that "political experience" is either useful or useless when it comes to political leadership. I am merely claiming it is irrelevant (not worth a rat's arse for those of you who prefer simpler English) on this one ground:

the present mess in Europe and the US has been brought about entirely by people who had boundless political experience. Not to mention the mess in the Middle East brought about (also) by men of boundless experience (and greed).

If you prefer that kind of experience, so be it.

You can try and keep it as simple as you feel you can comprehend...

But, trying to say that Yingluck with zero experience is a valid person to run Thailand, just because others with more experience have screwed up, is a very weak premise.

And it's not just lack of experience.

How do you answer that she is the Sister of a convicted felon that ran away?

Let's cut through all the theory. Yingluck was elected by her party because her surname is Shinawatra. That's all we should be discussing. Thaksin told his party what to do and they did it. He put his personal selfish, greedy wants before that of a nation in order to have her try and change the rules so he could come back and pick up where her left of, running Thailand like his own personal company.

If you were in any doubt, the recent attempt to get him pardoned and the return of his passport as a New Years gift should be plenty of evidence.

You are not looking at the big picture. You are getting bogged down on "experience" when in reality, it's a mute point. She has no place being PM of Thailand.

Note, I am not even discussing her last 5 months...and best you don't either.

"Moot" I think you mean, not "mute", which is perhaps what you should now be attempting.

Ok, let's switch and maybe un-mute you. Sure, Ms Y S may be less than desirable in all kinds of ways (though I would hate it if society told me to eff off simply because my brother/sister was a convicted felon...why is that MY fault?) Irrelevant though.

The main problem with this thread is simple (but a beautiful illustration of how our world "works".) Someone gets their knickers in a twist cos ms YS may have met Mr TS in some bar in Singapore (or even HK, as some would assert).

Ok, little problems arise: should the PM of any country be meeting any criminal. answer: probably not. However (experience suggests - ha ha) that other countries have no scruple in dealing with "criminals" when it suits them. Examples: America deals with Taliban in Afghanistan (both now and in the 1980s); Reagan dealt with Contras (right-wing death squads in El Salvador, not to mention his dealing with Iran); and the governments of both UK and USA deal with people (on Wall St and the City) who SHOULD be behind bars, by any rational and moral view of the world.

But the main point to be made is this: while you squabble about Ms Y this or Ms Y that, you forget that the main indictment you can level against her is that her government (elected by the People on the promise of gew-gaws like laptops for kids or 300 bt per day minimum wage...) is run by the elite, by the people who want no fundamental change in this society. Bread and circuses....give the masses a laptop to shut them up.

While you argue about her personality or her family relations, it is Business As Usual in the conduct of the state's affairs. This is how the ruling class EVERYWHERE continues to rule. You give the masses a little something to be pleased about and you get them arguing among themselves as to this or that that the "celebrity" politician has done, and meanwhile you make sure that nothing fundamentally changes. Distract the people as long as you can get away with it.

It is not her handling of the "floods' that decides her fate, but her handling of the need for profound transformations in this society. Is she capable of prodding big change forward? probably not. condemn her on that, but not on meaningless trivialities like whether she is a "clone" of BB or whether she is attractive or a pooying.

For the same reason, condemn Obama, given, like the Red Shirts here, a massive mandate for change, and yet has changed sweet FA.

What one looks for, in any politician anywhere is some kind of moral vision. Not a vision of how to put more money in your pocket, but some kind of integrity...you know it when you see it. I fear that Yingluck does not score highly when it comes to moral vision. But condemn her on that, rather than her ability speaking various languages or whether she meets her big bro.....

What is your actual point again?

I read this, but you are all over the place that I doubt you actually know what you are arguing against anymore.

Try again.

[rixalex]

And if I WERE defending her, I would argue that, yes, using precedent is one way to win one's case.

Precedent is used in a court of law, where courts have previously reached a verdict on a comparable case. You on the other hand, are simply citing failings in other politicians, as being reason for us to accept the failings of Yingluck. It's not quite the same thing.

Yes it is, and it's also used in everyday speech meaning prior (in time) i.e happened before.

If you are using precedent in the context of "winning one's case" - which he was - that means citing a prior court ruling of a similar case, it does not mean happened before.

[DLock]

Pee Ess:

Talking of politicians meeting felons: didn't both Presidents Carter and Clinton have ne'er-do-well brothers who brought them some embarrassment? (I think Carter's brother was caught peeing in a public place, so that doesn't make him, as far as I know, a felon.) Didn't JFK do business with the Mafia? Didn't Thatcher's son get into trouble in southern Africa? Didn't Gaddafy give the LSE a lot of money? (slightly embarrassing in light of recent events).

Show me a clean world on this side of the turf.

The premise for all your arguments in defence of YL seems to be based entirely on simply citing examples of other people you think have committed the same or worse. Seems a bizarre way of defending someone to me. Would you defend a shop lifter by citing examples of bank robbers? A murderer by citing examples of serial killers?

I can appreciate having a low expectancy for politicians. I can't appreciate why you have any interest in defending any one of them, for delivering on that expectancy.

I am not "defending" her in the slightest. Merely drawing attention to the hypocrisy involved in singling her out for this kind of attention when "meeting with felons" has been the common practice of all men and women of experience everywhere.

And if I WERE defending her, I would argue that, yes, using precedent is one way to win one's case. The case that Yingluck is no better, no worse, than any politician anywhere.

Now, go ahead and tell us what you want out of a Thai prime minister....

Perhaps you enjoy "meeting with felons" and that is " common practice of all men and women of experience everywhere" in your circle of friends.

But I don't think I have ever met a felon. If I did, I didn't know it.

Yingluck may be "no better, no worse, than any politician anywhere", but you have failed to answer the basic points that Yingluck is only PM because of her name and Thaksins grand scheme.

If the PTP had gone out onto the street and chosen the first semi-attractive woman walking by and made her PM, I'd be less critical of having that post, and I'd guess the results of the last 5 months would be more or less the same...

Fail.

[ozzieman05]

Could it also be a possibility that Yingluck was elected because the alternative presented a poor campaign based on an ill thought out anti Thaksin platform

Or the Dems fought an election with the truth

while the winners used lies and lies to win the simple people

Or was that the Australian Government

Hard to tell them apart these days

[lannarebirth]

Responding to Blazes post, which is so confused with Quotes, it does not let me respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be in the back of the class, but at least I'm in the right class.

Your post is largely irrelevant, and your hatred for Blair and Brown deserve their own thread so I can school you there as well.

I am unsure of your exact point in your rambling response, but lets assume its primarily about experience. Given that B&B are career politicians and in your observations have done poorly, then what chance does Yingluck have with zero experience? They would not have the chance to screw up (your opinion) without that experience, so like it or not, it is a prerequisite for the right to screw up.

I don't think anyone is exclusively lambasting Yingluck for being Thai PM. They are criticizing her right to be there in the first place.

Let me try and make it simpler for you with an example. Yingluck getting the job as PM is like a woman who has zero experience running a particular business being thrust to the CEO position just because she is the Sister of the CEO that just got caught embezzling $1billion and ran away to another country. She was hired because it is his only chance to make up the rules to bring him back and let him keep the money.

Sir, if you truly think that is right or just, then clearly, we have different value systems.

Now get back to the right class.

I am sorry if it is confusing:

KISS they say (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Ok, I will try and keep it simple:

Nowhere do I claim that "political experience" is either useful or useless when it comes to political leadership. I am merely claiming it is irrelevant (not worth a rat's arse for those of you who prefer simpler English) on this one ground:

the present mess in Europe and the US has been brought about entirely by people who had boundless political experience. Not to mention the mess in the Middle East brought about (also) by men of boundless experience (and greed).

If you prefer that kind of experience, so be it.

"Political Experience" is extremely important if one is trying to govern a nation. From the people's standpoint it would be wished that that "political experience" would be married with goodwill and perhaps a bit of knowledge and perhaps a sense of servility to those who elected you.

[metisdead]

A post has been deleted for failure to use quote function leading to misunderstanding of who posted what.

An off topic post has been removed.

[473geo]

Could it also be a possibility that Yingluck was elected because the alternative presented a poor campaign based on an ill thought out anti Thaksin platform

Or the Dems fought an election with the truth

while the winners used lies and lies to win the simple people

Or was that the Australian Government

Hard to tell them apart these days

Truth or lies.....the people voted for change......and the Dems could not retrieve the situation with their woeful campaign

Also experience did play a major part in the election.......not Yinglucks lack of it

People voted PTP because they obviously disliked the experience they endured under the Dems government

[DLock]

Could it also be a possibility that Yingluck was elected because the alternative presented a poor campaign based on an ill thought out anti Thaksin platform

Or the Dems fought an election with the truth

while the winners used lies and lies to win the simple people

Or was that the Australian Government

Hard to tell them apart these days

Truth or lies.....the people voted for change......and the Dems could not retrieve the situation with their woeful campaign

Also experience did play a major part in the election.......not Yinglucks lack of it

People voted PTP because they obviously disliked the experience they endured under the Dems government

“Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.” - Franklin Pierce Adams.

I think you are partly correct.

[metisdead]

A post of a libellous and defammatory nature has been removed:

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.