lannarebirth Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 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..... <deleted>? You may want to have another look at that and edit it if there's still time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 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 Of course and maybe shooting the electorate also had something to do with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 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 Of course and maybe shooting the electorate also had something to do with it.... So are you claiming philw, that all those 2,500 or more unaccused, untried, random killings of the "Thaksin War Against Drugs" were not eligible to vote yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 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 Of course and maybe shooting the electorate also had something to do with it.... So are you claiming philw, that all those 2,500 or more unaccused, untried, random killings of the "Thaksin War Against Drugs" were not eligible to vote yet? It's irrelevant to the point under discussion and I am sure that you know it. Please don't put words into my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 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. Actually its P.S not Pee Ess and Gaddafi not Gaddafy as you are so fond of correcting posters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 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. Actually its P.S not Pee Ess and Gaddafi not Gaddafy as you are so fond of correcting posters! Sorry to extract the MAJIC, but the Pee Ess is being taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazes Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 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. Actually its P.S not Pee Ess and Gaddafi not Gaddafy as you are so fond of correcting posters! Sorry to extract the MAJIC, but the Pee Ess is being taken. Thank you. Precisely. I have seen Ghaddafi spelt a myriad ways, but I have never seen (before yesterday) the word "moot" mistaken for "mute". Perhaps MAJIC (ah, those shouting capitals turn me on so much) should put me on MUTE. That would solve the problem of having to receive public vocabulary lessons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) 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. Actually its P.S not Pee Ess and Gaddafi not Gaddafy as you are so fond of correcting posters! Sorry to extract the MAJIC, but the Pee Ess is being taken. Thank you. Precisely. I have seen Ghaddafi spelt a myriad ways, but I have never seen (before yesterday) the word "moot" mistaken for "mute". Perhaps MAJIC (ah, those shouting capitals turn me on so much) should put me on MUTE. That would solve the problem of having to receive public vocabulary lessons. Pray enlighten me,where have I ever used the words:Mute and Moot? or for that matter mistaken the two? Edited December 12, 2011 by MAJIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Why must Yingluck use tax payer money to fly to Singapore to meet her brother? Is she not rich enough to pay for her own air-ticket to Singapore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So, from the reports that MPs were flying to Singapore to visit Thaksin, it seems that Thaksin WAS in Singapore. If Thaksin's and Yingluck's trips overlapped, I can't imagine that Yingluck DIDN'T meet with Thaksin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So, from the reports that MPs were flying to Singapore to visit Thaksin, it seems that Thaksin WAS in Singapore. If Thaksin's and Yingluck's trips overlapped, I can't imagine that Yingluck DIDN'T meet with Thaksin. The press glue 100% to Yingluck during her few hours in Singapore. Unless Thaksin hid in the ladies, why the press didn't manage to snap a shot? Not a single one. Even with their iPhones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siripon Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So, from the reports that MPs were flying to Singapore to visit Thaksin, it seems that Thaksin WAS in Singapore. If Thaksin's and Yingluck's trips overlapped, I can't imagine that Yingluck DIDN'T meet with Thaksin. The press glue 100% to Yingluck during her few hours in Singapore. Unless Thaksin hid in the ladies, why the press didn't manage to snap a shot? Not a single one. Even with their iPhones? Why would Thaksin meet Yingluk? She's not important for him,,'a clone', in his words. Far more revelant are the MPs jostling for Cabinet positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 continues: PM'S FUGITIVE BROTHER Thaksin 'swamped' by anxious politicos: Singapore Follow this link: //CLOSED// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts