rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You, not her, were the one claiming the decision to show wonderful adaptability. yep I can observe this......<trolling crap snipped> So you observed it, so you give the rationale for your observation. She had minimum 3 choices by all accounts, she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. All be it at the expense of some pointless jibes from the Dems and a few Thai visa members, in my opinion that is adaptability Thank you for answering. Adapting is something required when something unforeseen occurs. Of the three choices you mention, the floods in the south was the only one that couldn't have been planned for, but this wasn't what she attended. I therefore struggle to observe this wonderful adaptability that causes your swooning. Unless of course, as whybother pondered, she was unaware that the BOI Fair was happening, or who would be attending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. As for the no ill effect, do you not find it a smidgen disrespectful to those in a disaster area to be told the PM can not visit them because of an important parliament commitment she then choses to attend barely at all? Edited January 7, 2012 by rixalex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. As for the no ill effect, do you not find it a smidgen disrespectful to those in a disaster area to be told the PM can not visit them because of an important parliament commitment she then chose to attend barely at all? They are grown ups and as such will attempt to understand........while the childish stamp their feet and make a horrible pointless noise.......Yingluck will make her decisions, and in this case perhaps posters are miffed because in the interests of Thailand and the economy she probably made the correct choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 So much bitterness and depressing hate demonstrated on this thread. Take a lesson from Yoda; 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. As for the no ill effect, do you not find it a smidgen disrespectful to those in a disaster area to be told the PM can not visit them because of an important parliament commitment she then chose to attend barely at all? They are grown ups and as such will attempt to understand........while the childish stamp their feet and make a horrible pointless noise.......Yingluck will make her decisions, and in this case perhaps posters are miffed because in the interests of Thailand and the economy she probably made the correct choice Haven't seen any childish stamping of feet, just some reasonable questions being asked like, should a PM not be in full attendance at budget debate, and should a PM not lie about the reason why she was unable to visit people. I can see though you are too busy swooning at her wonderful adaptability right now to address them. Perhaps when you have recovered yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 So much bitterness and depressing hate demonstrated on this thread. Take a lesson from Yoda; I don't have bitterness or hatred, but i do think politicians need to remain under the spotlight and have their actions continually questioned - doing so helps keep them honest (as honest as a politician can be) and what is more, is far healthier than this, isn't she wonderful, isn't she radiant, i prostrate myself at her feet hero worship nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. As for the no ill effect, do you not find it a smidgen disrespectful to those in a disaster area to be told the PM can not visit them because of an important parliament commitment she then chose to attend barely at all? They are grown ups and as such will attempt to understand........while the childish stamp their feet and make a horrible pointless noise.......Yingluck will make her decisions, and in this case perhaps posters are miffed because in the interests of Thailand and the economy she probably made the correct choice Haven't seen any childish stamping of feet, just some reasonable questions being asked like, should a PM not be in full attendance at budget debate, and should a PM not lie about the reason why she was unable to visit people. I can see though you are too busy swooning at her wonderful adaptability right now to address them. Perhaps when you have recovered yourself... If you really are that concerned about the PM's presence at the budget debate, shouldn't you be commenting on the thread from November when the budget was submitted and the debate held? This specific debate is in respect to supplementary spending, Therein lies part of the problem with this thread. There is no recognition that the budget was submitted in November and the PM was present for that process, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 she was able to adapt her schedule to cause no ill effect and gain maximum benefit. As for the no ill effect, do you not find it a smidgen disrespectful to those in a disaster area to be told the PM can not visit them because of an important parliament commitment she then chose to attend barely at all? They are grown ups and as such will attempt to understand........while the childish stamp their feet and make a horrible pointless noise.......Yingluck will make her decisions, and in this case perhaps posters are miffed because in the interests of Thailand and the economy she probably made the correct choice Haven't seen any childish stamping of feet, just some reasonable questions being asked like, should a PM not be in full attendance at budget debate, and should a PM not lie about the reason why she was unable to visit people. I can see though you are too busy swooning at her wonderful adaptability right now to address them. Perhaps when you have recovered yourself... Your and others inability to absorb and adapt to the information that her services may have been more suitably utilised elsewhere is rather obvious, as per my comment further up the thread.......childish?...well how would you put it?......blind ignorance.....perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 If you really are that concerned about the PM's presence at the budget debate, shouldn't you be commenting on the thread from November when the budget was submitted and the debate held? This specific debate is in respect to supplementary spending, Therein lies part of the problem with this thread. There is no recognition that the budget was submitted in November and the PM was present for that process, So then why did the PM not state that as this was merely a debate on supplementary spending, and that as she had already attended the budget debate in November, she would attend only briefly, and then concentrate her time on the BOI Fair, which is what would keep her from visiting the disaster area in the south? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) So much bitterness and depressing hate demonstrated on this thread. Take a lesson from Yoda; I don't have bitterness or hatred, but i do think politicians need to remain under the spotlight and have their actions continually questioned - doing so helps keep them honest (as honest as a politician can be) and what is more, is far healthier than this, isn't she wonderful, isn't she radiant, i prostrate myself at her feet hero worship nonsense. There is no issue if the questions are asked, and when response is obtained, a sensible view is forwarded, sadly too many, and I include you here, once the critism has begun find it diffucult to adjust to new information.....and thus if the initial critical diatribe is diluted they go off on tangents to maintain a level of criticism........I mean look at you now, a little tongue in cheek compliment and you make it sound like a major crime....... .healthier?.......In my opinion very strange behaviour for one merely trying to keep politicians honest. Edited January 7, 2012 by 473geo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 If you really are that concerned about the PM's presence at the budget debate, shouldn't you be commenting on the thread from November when the budget was submitted and the debate held? This specific debate is in respect to supplementary spending, Therein lies part of the problem with this thread. There is no recognition that the budget was submitted in November and the PM was present for that process, So then why did the PM not state that as this was merely a debate on supplementary spending, and that as she had already attended the budget debate in November, she would attend only briefly, and then concentrate her time on the BOI Fair, which is what would keep her from visiting the disaster area in the south? Security? just an option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Your and others inability to absorb and adapt to the information that her services may have been more suitably utilised elsewhere is rather obvious, as per my comment further up the thread.......childish?...well how would you put it?......blind ignorance.....perhaps? They may have been better utilised, they may not have been. I'm ready to admit i don't know sufficient about what she could have contributed of use had she gone to the debate, nor what she did contribute by going to the Fair, to answer that one. My question is, as both the budget debate and the BOI Fair were not suddenly sprung upon her, why did she state her reasoning for not going to visit people in the south, as being her commitment to attend the debate, when that plainly was not true? As for blind ignorance, what i'm seeing a lot more of right now is blind love. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Your and others inability to absorb and adapt to the information that her services may have been more suitably utilised elsewhere is rather obvious, as per my comment further up the thread.......childish?...well how would you put it?......blind ignorance.....perhaps? They may have been better utilised, they may not have been. I'm ready to admit i don't know sufficient about what she could have contributed of use had she gone to the debate, nor what she did contribute by going to the Fair, to answer that one. My question is, as both the budget debate and the BOI Fair were not suddenly sprung upon her, why did she state her reasoning for not going to visit people in the south, as being her commitment to attend the debate, when that plainly was not true? As for blind ignorance, what i'm seeing a lot more of right now is blind love. Yeah right, the more you put in your quips, the more obvious it is your question is already answered and you cannot man up..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There is no issue if the questions are asked, and when response is obtained, a sensible view is forwarded, Until the post you made below this one about security being a possible reason, the point was that there was no response from any of you as to why she had told people in the south that she couldn't visit them because of commitments to be at the debate, only to then spend her time at the Fair. All the response we got was, "you just hate her" and "actually she is wonderful" and "you are childish" type stuff. Great but it didn't address the question, nor was it sensible, i'm sure you agree. I mean look at you now, a little tongue in cheek compliment and you make it sound like a major crime....... Tongue in cheek isn't a crime... tongue between cheeks however should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There is no issue if the questions are asked, and when response is obtained, a sensible view is forwarded, Until the post you made below this one about security being a possible reason, the point was that there was no response from any of you as to why she had told people in the south that she couldn't visit them because of commitments to be at the debate, only to then spend her time at the Fair. All the response we got was, "you just hate her" and "actually she is wonderful" and "you are childish" type stuff. Great but it didn't address the question, nor was it sensible, i'm sure you agree. I mean look at you now, a little tongue in cheek compliment and you make it sound like a major crime....... Tongue in cheek isn't a crime... tongue between cheeks however should be. see post above....I'm ahead of your thinking.......you really need to adapt to this situation....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Yeah right, the more you put in your quips, the more obvious it is your question is already answered and you cannot man up..... My question hasn't been answered. You have put forward one possible explanation - security. It's a possible answer. It's speculation. It is though i concede a lot more than the five pages prior had offered by way of an answer, so congratulations for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Security? just an option So she's not really going down south tomorrow as she's advertised? I mean, it wouldn't be very secure announcing it a day before, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 If you really are that concerned about the PM's presence at the budget debate, shouldn't you be commenting on the thread from November when the budget was submitted and the debate held? This specific debate is in respect to supplementary spending, Therein lies part of the problem with this thread. There is no recognition that the budget was submitted in November and the PM was present for that process, So then why did the PM not state that as this was merely a debate on supplementary spending, and that as she had already attended the budget debate in November, she would attend only briefly, and then concentrate her time on the BOI Fair, which is what would keep her from visiting the disaster area in the south? Perhaps the media sources you rely on for your daily dose of what to think did not report what she may have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Security? just an option So she's not really going down south tomorrow as she's advertised? I mean, it wouldn't be very secure announcing it a day before, would it? Perhaps by going south she was speaking idiomatically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Security? just an option So she's not really going down south tomorrow as she's advertised? I mean, it wouldn't be very secure announcing it a day before, would it? The PM has little say on whether or not she can go if the security forces tasked with her protection say no. It's really no different than the President of the USA not making a trip to Kabul or the PM of South Korea visiting the DMZ if the security people say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffcool Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 In case anyone is interested, the PM had meetings/discussions in respect to key foreign investors during her absence from the house. Also there was a national security issue of pressing importance. I shall put it diplomatically, her presence was required. In terms of cost benefit, sitting in the house listening to members drone on about items not related to the budget vs. keeping some important investors onside and addressing national security was considered more important. She's a big girl and such criticism comes with the turf. She will not lose any sleep over the matterr, but the investors group are grateful as are the thousands of Thais that will still have jobs. As you are all very higly situated in Thai society with your important positions and hiso wives/concubines, please check with your sources. Do you really think anyone would permit her to attend an important meeting on her own? Answer important questions? Make important decisions? I think she cut the ribbon at Impact and had tea and butties with armed forces. Like that one..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Perhaps the media sources you rely on for your daily dose of what to think did not report what she may have said? Let's hear it then. What did your media sources report on what she may have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Security? just an option So she's not really going down south tomorrow as she's advertised? I mean, it wouldn't be very secure announcing it a day before, would it? The PM has little say on whether or not she can go if the security forces tasked with her protection say no. It's really no different than the President of the USA not making a trip to Kabul or the PM of South Korea visiting the DMZ if the security people say no. I'm not talking about whether she should go down south or whether she has any say in it. She (they) gives a day's notice of traveling down south, but there is a suggestion that the reason she didn't tell people she was opening the BOI event was security. Right ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Would her presence make any difference to the budget being approved? Remind me...... why did the people not vote to retain the previous government?......when presumably the PM did attend such events Molehills and mountains posting by the usual suspects If one person from the opposition goes outside the country for 3 days it is a disaster. If the PM refuses to do her job over a period of weeks everything is alright. Ok, gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 In case anyone is interested, the PM had meetings/discussions in respect to key foreign investors during her absence from the house. Also there was a national security issue of pressing importance. I shall put it diplomatically, her presence was required. In terms of cost benefit, sitting in the house listening to members drone on about items not related to the budget vs. keeping some important investors onside and addressing national security was considered more important. She's a big girl and such criticism comes with the turf. She will not lose any sleep over the matterr, but the investors group are grateful as are the thousands of Thais that will still have jobs. As you are all very higly situated in Thai society with your important positions and hiso wives/concubines, please check with your sources. Do you really think anyone would permit her to attend an important meeting on her own? Answer important questions? Make important decisions? I think she cut the ribbon at Impact and had tea and butties with armed forces. I think you should be careful taking anything a person writes that pretends to be connected - while sporting avatars of himself as he does. You think this person is in the know or merely re-iterating things he read on an other forum or written in some other papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Security? just an option So she's not really going down south tomorrow as she's advertised? I mean, it wouldn't be very secure announcing it a day before, would it? The PM has little say on whether or not she can go if the security forces tasked with her protection say no. It's really no different than the President of the USA not making a trip to Kabul or the PM of South Korea visiting the DMZ if the security people say no. That's not the point being raised. If, as 473 hypothesises, the PM told everyone she was going to the debate as a cunning foil to would-be trouble makers, so that she could attend the Fair, are we then to assume that her advertised trip south is just another foil, and that this time tomorrow she will in fact be lunching in Chaing Rai or some other such place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Perhaps the media sources you rely on for your daily dose of what to think did not report what she may have said? Let's hear it then. What did your media sources report on what she may have said? But rixalex when GK divulges pertinent information the unbiased people striving to keep the government honest choose to accuse him of making his information up.........in order to continue their unbiased criticism of the PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smutcakes Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 How sad we do not have a PM anymore like Abhisit who personally wrote the budget, answered questions on it and attended every parlimentary sitting in his time Is it not normal the world over for leaders of countries to actually have a large team of 'brains' behind them who are the actual ones making the decisions, policies etc. I am sure Khun Abhisit did it all himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Would her presence make any difference to the budget being approved? Remind me...... why did the people not vote to retain the previous government?......when presumably the PM did attend such events Molehills and mountains posting by the usual suspects If one person from the opposition goes outside the country for 3 days it is a disaster. If the PM refuses to do her job over a period of weeks everything is alright. Ok, gotcha. You cannot find reference from me to Abhisit taking a break.....and yes the same brush paints the same colour on those that did........so your point is my comment is valid for both actions.......thank you Edited January 7, 2012 by 473geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTumTiger Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Why you spend so much time debating the actions of a barbie doll are beyond me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now