Red-Shirts To Elect Official Leader

[TAWP]

rubl, #11

Coup originated armed aggression? Like in persons involved in the coup started armed agression?

Yes.

They were not amused by those who opposed their coup.

Even less so, when they had the audacity to resist the aggression.

Who the hell did those taxpayers think they were.

Why take a group that supposedly is representing the very minor of any tax-payers and call them a group of tax-payers, as if they - and not the other side - is the ones paying the majority of the taxes?

Is this just another of your dishonest spins?

[TAWP]

rubl, #11

Coup originated armed aggression? Like in persons involved in the coup started armed agression?

Yes.

They were not amused by those who opposed their coup.

Even less so, when they had the audacity to resist the aggression.

Who the hell did those taxpayers think they were.

coup cheerleaders abound here.

in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Is the new Memo out, directing all agents to start using the term 'taxpayers' about their group when posting their propaganda on the web-boards?

[TAWP]

The UDD/Red Shirts are dominantly female. That is a fact which surprises me anyone would question. One may quibble about the 80% thing - give or take a percentage - but that is all.

Unless you can prove it, it isn't a fact.

They don't claim to be an organization of the poor.

They claim to be a pro-democracy movement, brought together as a result of a coup stealing the Govt. they elected, and elected again last year.

Their protests demonstrated the justified frustration they were experiencing, knowing full-well they were being governed by an electoral minority. That fact was born out by last years election.

So having a parliamentary majority, as Democrats and the other parties, is now called a 'minority' by the Agents?

And having less than 50% of the votes is a majority and pretends to represent the majority of the taxpayers - does that mean that 52% of the voting that didn't vote for PTP - and those that didn't vote at all, on average is poorer than those that voted for PTP?

Your argumentation gets very confusing.

[TAWP]

I find it interesting that a pro-democracy organization doesn't implement true democracy in their organization...

[hellodolly]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

You are optimistic all right be nice if you could get two feet on the ground to go with it. First you say they were justified in their terrorism because they were being ruled by a minority of people. Well it should not come as a surprise to you but it will they are still being ruled by a minority of the people.

Are you saying they would be justified to copy the red shirt's actions? You know grenade launchers rifles closing down a large part of the business district invading hospitals putting thousands of people out of work and then coming around and saying we had to do it because the majority of the people did not elect you. So give us 7,500,000 Baht apiece.

[lungmi]

Does it not sound strange to be named United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship When your guiding light who paid your way in your aborted coup was trying to become dictator?

Misunderstanding, they still fight against dictatorship. Mr.T? Chalerm? Yingluck? Micky Mouse?

[rubl]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

Your optimism is well placed. TLansford will most likely forgive you the typing error in his name

[lungmi]

I'm bored to hear as the last argument (facts don't count) that the "majority" vote for....

My idea is to make a new party: One populist promise ---- free to wear a helmet.

The lower income of underpaid policemen at the end of the month must be conterbalanced by special supplies from the government.

I think we would have a big majority of votes.

[tlansford]

Ozmick, #23

"Some" believe the UDD is 80% women - that would be you and who else? Does this organisation have a published membership list, or are you making this up as you

The UDD/Red Shirts are dominantly female. That is a fact which surprises me anyone would question. One may quibble about the 80% thing - give or take a percentage - but that is all.

One only needs to attend one of their major events to see this in reality.

Your referral to to the red shirts as taxpayers lacks credibility. They claim to be an organisation of the poor,

They don't claim to be an organization of the poor.

They claim to be a pro-democracy movement, brought together as a result of a coup stealing the Govt. they elected, and elected again last year.

Their protests demonstrated the justified frustration they were experiencing, knowing full-well they were being governed by an electoral minority. That fact was born out by last years election.

They knew this, and the electoral minority governing them who tried to firstly ignore them out-of-existence, than did the unspeakable, was a factor they corrected last July

and most seem to be nett tax recipients paying only a little VAT (as does nearly every Thai) and receiving substantial (and increasing) agricultural subsidies in return for their easily bought votes.

Again, one side of the political divide suggesting only the other side enables the scourge of vote-buying.

It is an argument steeped in arrogance.

If you have any proof that they are in fact "tax payers" please present it, though why this would give their action any increase in legitimacy is questionable and actually opposite to their own claims - that the poor have as much right to a voice as the rich.

Their actions are legitimized by the coup perpetrated upon them.

Any reactionary resistance is accordingly legitimate, and validated by the electoral majority they proved to be.

You are absolutely correct - all people have a right to an electoral voice, regardless how one tries to segment the economic pie. When they are deprived, they also have a right to resists such a thing, and to resist those who through armed might try to impose their minority dominance.

Please recognise that the successful coup of 2006 removed a government whose mandate hd expired and a resigned caretaker PM who failed to organise an election in the constitutionally alloted time while he tried to build influence in the military. OTOH the failed coup of 2010....."

Removing an elected Govt. does not a successful coup make.

That lack of success was brought into sharp relief at R'song.

The 2006 coup superceded everything, and trying to characterize resistance to it as a counter-coup is ludicrous.

".........2010 was attempting to force from office a legitimately elected government with almost 2 years of mandate to govern.

Controlled, manipulated and coerced Parliamentary manueverings does not a legitimately elected Government make.

Only the current Opposition and all its' elements would swallow such a thing.

The voters of last year did not.

ozmick is falling half-way back into an old claim of his. It used to be that "no elections had been scheduled", now it is "failed to organise an election in the constitutionally alloted time " which is equally false. Elections were already set by the EC for mid-October 2006, 5 weeks after the coup.

[tlansford]

".........2010 was attempting to force from office a legitimately elected government with almost 2 years of mandate to govern.

Controlled, manipulated and coerced Parliamentary manueverings does not a legitimately elected Government make.

Only the current Opposition and all its' elements would swallow such a thing.

The voters of last year did not.

A majority of the voters didn't swallow what Thaksin's proxy party for dishing out.

And your point is? Never mind, your point is always the same.

Regardless of what you think, the voters still handed a majority of the seats in parliament to the PTP - which is the result that counts in an election.

In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't and 60% of the seats. Election results like that are black & white, and hard to deny as well...

But, ...

You may continue with your denial-fantasy if that is what makes you happy... it won't change reality anyway.

[tlansford]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

keep your optimism. It's refreshing.

[rubl]

".........2010 was attempting to force from office a legitimately elected government with almost 2 years of mandate to govern.

Controlled, manipulated and coerced Parliamentary manueverings does not a legitimately elected Government make.

Only the current Opposition and all its' elements would swallow such a thing.

The voters of last year did not.

A majority of the voters didn't swallow what Thaksin's proxy party for dishing out.

And your point is? Never mind, your point is always the same.

Regardless of what you think, the voters still handed a majority of the seats in parliament to the PTP - which is the result that counts in an election.

In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't and 60% of the seats. Election results like that are black & white, and hard to deny as well...

But, ...

You may continue with your denial-fantasy if that is what makes you happy... it won't change reality anyway.

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the topic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

".........2010 was attempting to force from office a legitimately elected government with almost 2 years of mandate to govern.

Controlled, manipulated and coerced Parliamentary manueverings does not a legitimately elected Government make.

Only the current Opposition and all its' elements would swallow such a thing.

The voters of last year did not.

A majority of the voters didn't swallow what Thaksin's proxy party for dishing out.

And your point is? Never mind, your point is always the same.

Regardless of what you think, the voters still handed a majority of the seats in parliament to the PTP - which is the result that counts in an election.

In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't and 60% of the seats. Election results like that are black & white, and hard to deny as well...

But, ...

You may continue with your denial-fantasy if that is what makes you happy... it won't change reality anyway.

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the opic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Thanks for the comment. You were close : 75% voter turn out. In most elections, the non-voters track the voters in their opinion. It is unlikely that 100% turnout would have moved the results significantly and with a 22% spread in the seats, it would have been nearly impossible to have had a different winner. Regarding the coalition, as in other parliamentary democracies, voters know the political partners and opponents when they head to the voting booth. In this election it was no different with public statements made by all of the main parties before the voting WRT to their possible / not possible coalition partners. So I would say that voters did know that when they voted.

Regarding the UDD, Nick has pointed out that the UDD is the umbrella organization for the various groups within the red-shirt movement, not the largest group among many. What he does point out is that within the red shirt movement, there are diverse groups and differing opinions & ideas on strategy, and that the more radical elements are not always in-line with the majority of the red-shirt groups.

[DP25]

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the topic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Lets not forget that the previous coalition government had the support of a majority of the popular vote, if you're going to add in coalition partners like the Thaksinistas are now doing. Dems had more votes in the party list as well

As for the number of voters, it was low in this last election. 3 million fewer people voted in the election, thanks to Brother Hun Sen shelling Thai territory in an opportune moment prior to the election and getting the yellow shirts to boycott the election as a result. Fine piece of electioneering there

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Regarding the UDD, Nick has pointed out that the UDD is the umbrella organization for the various groups within the red-shirt movement, not the largest group among many. What he does point out is that within the red shirt movement, there are diverse groups and differing opinions & ideas on strategy, and that the more radical elements are not always in-line with the majority of the red-shirt groups.

I do not remember Nick having said the UDD is an umbrella organisation for various red-shirt factions. Somehow I remember only the UDD being the largest with other factions just being that.

As it's 01:50 AM I'm not going to check on this now. I'll do some searching tomorrow night after returning from work (assuming I still have the strenght).

All the best to posters here and a good night whatever your timezone may be

[OzMick]

Ozmick, #23

"Some" believe the UDD is 80% women - that would be you and who else? Does this organisation have a published membership list, or are you making this up as you

The UDD/Red Shirts are dominantly female. That is a fact which surprises me anyone would question. One may quibble about the 80% thing - give or take a percentage - but that is all.

One only needs to attend one of their major events to see this in reality.

Your referral to to the red shirts as taxpayers lacks credibility. They claim to be an organisation of the poor,

They don't claim to be an organization of the poor.

They claim to be a pro-democracy movement, brought together as a result of a coup stealing the Govt. they elected, and elected again last year.

Their protests demonstrated the justified frustration they were experiencing, knowing full-well they were being governed by an electoral minority. That fact was born out by last years election.

They knew this, and the electoral minority governing them who tried to firstly ignore them out-of-existence, than did the unspeakable, was a factor they corrected last July

and most seem to be nett tax recipients paying only a little VAT (as does nearly every Thai) and receiving substantial (and increasing) agricultural subsidies in return for their easily bought votes.

Again, one side of the political divide suggesting only the other side enables the scourge of vote-buying.

It is an argument steeped in arrogance.

If you have any proof that they are in fact "tax payers" please present it, though why this would give their action any increase in legitimacy is questionable and actually opposite to their own claims - that the poor have as much right to a voice as the rich.

Their actions are legitimized by the coup perpetrated upon them.

Any reactionary resistance is accordingly legitimate, and validated by the electoral majority they proved to be.

You are absolutely correct - all people have a right to an electoral voice, regardless how one tries to segment the economic pie. When they are deprived, they also have a right to resists such a thing, and to resist those who through armed might try to impose their minority dominance.

Please recognise that the successful coup of 2006 removed a government whose mandate hd expired and a resigned caretaker PM who failed to organise an election in the constitutionally alloted time while he tried to build influence in the military. OTOH the failed coup of 2010....."

Removing an elected Govt. does not a successful coup make.

That lack of success was brought into sharp relief at R'song.

The 2006 coup superceded everything, and trying to characterize resistance to it as a counter-coup is ludicrous.

".........2010 was attempting to force from office a legitimately elected government with almost 2 years of mandate to govern.

Controlled, manipulated and coerced Parliamentary manueverings does not a legitimately elected Government make.

Only the current Opposition and all its' elements would swallow such a thing.

The voters of last year did not.

Psalms 16:11

[tlansford]

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the topic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Lets not forget that the previous coalition government had the support of a majority of the popular vote, if you're going to add in coalition partners like the Thaksinistas are now doing. Dems had more votes in the party list as well

As for the number of voters, it was low in this last election. 3 million fewer people voted in the election, thanks to Brother Hun Sen shelling Thai territory in an opportune moment prior to the election and getting the yellow shirts to boycott the election as a result. Fine piece of electioneering there

If you mean to say the majority of the popular vote of the generals, then we agree. But those results were not published, so we won't ever know. On the other hand, there was no general (no pun intended) election prior to the formation of the Abhisit administration - a fact you are well aware of. Please do not now try to say "that doesn't matter, it's all the same... ". Please, ...

Edited February 13, 2012 by tlansford

[longway]

rubl, #11

Coup originated armed aggression? Like in persons involved in the coup started armed agression?

Yes.

They were not amused by those who opposed their coup.

Even less so, when they had the audacity to resist the aggression.

Who the hell did those taxpayers think they were.

coup cheerleaders abound here.

in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

The red shirts are not pro democracy activists, they are anti army activists. Fair enough but change the name of the umbrella group from UFDD to UFA (United Front against the Army).

Or even more accurately the AAPTC = Anti Army Pro Thaksin Coalition.

Edited February 13, 2012 by longway

[Ricardo]

coup cheerleaders abound here.

in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

and Thaksin in a democrat, who cares about the people, and Yingluck thinks for herself ?

Edited February 13, 2012 by Ricardo

[longway]

^ and anyone who voted for the PT is a red shirt and anyone who voted for the democrats is a yellow shirt, if Tlandsford can tear himslef away from his fantasy land for a few moments he can look and comment on this:

http://asiafoundatio...iland#natsurvey

Given that 95% of the thai population are pro democracy, why are there so few reds, its a fantasy to portray people who dont support the red shirts in there current form as anti-democratic

Edited February 14, 2012 by longway

[DP25]

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the topic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Lets not forget that the previous coalition government had the support of a majority of the popular vote, if you're going to add in coalition partners like the Thaksinistas are now doing. Dems had more votes in the party list as well

As for the number of voters, it was low in this last election. 3 million fewer people voted in the election, thanks to Brother Hun Sen shelling Thai territory in an opportune moment prior to the election and getting the yellow shirts to boycott the election as a result. Fine piece of electioneering there

If you mean to say the majority of the popular vote of the generals, then we agree. But those results were not published, so we won't ever know. On the other hand, there was no general (no pun intended) election prior to the formation of the Abhisit administration - a fact you are well aware of. Please do not now try to say "that doesn't matter, it's all the same... ". Please, ...

Yawn. Of course there was, in 2007, and again there were elections for disqualified candidates. Every candidate in parliament was voted on and they formed a coalition. The specific alliance was not voted on, but neither was the one the before it or this one either. Like it or not Thaksin's party was a minority of the popular vote as well back then, now, and will be in the future.

[whybother]

A majority of the voters didn't swallow what Thaksin's proxy party for dishing out.

And your point is? Never mind, your point is always the same.

Regardless of what you think, the voters still handed a majority of the seats in parliament to the PTP - which is the result that counts in an election.

In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't and 60% of the seats. Election results like that are black & white, and hard to deny as well...

But, ...

You may continue with your denial-fantasy if that is what makes you happy... it won't change reality anyway.

The PTP got the majority of seats, but they could theoretically get that with 21% of the vote. Would you be saying "the voters" if it was only 21%?

[DP25]

Given that 95% of the thai population are pro democracy, why are there so few reds, its a fantasy to portray people who dont support the red shirts in there current form as anti-democratic

It's simply a propaganda smear to dismiss criticism, an orchestrated effort by a billionaire fugitive eager to have his ill gotten loot returned to him. Support returning Thaksins billions or you are against "democracy". It's the same smear they use anytime criticism is directed against them now, you have to unconditionally support any outrage or corruption or be labelled an enemy of the people.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Of course there are no other candidates. How could they possibly decide... A public debate??? Oh the thought of it!!! Maybe a fight to the death with big sticks or hand grenades and burning tyres would be more their style

Already done that one!!!!!

[gregb]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

keep your optimism. It's refreshing.

Good to know optimism is refreshing.

I am optimistic that those in the military and anyone in the country of good moral character will do something like they did in 2006 to mitigate Thaksin and other red terrorists who attempt to impose tyranny and inflict injustice on the good people of this country.

I do feel refreshed.

[tlansford]

Minor detail only, "In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't", but the voters didn't know that at the time. The coalition was formed afterwards. Would some of the small coalition parties have got more or less votes if this would have been known ?

With only 70% (?) of the eligable voters having voted, strictly speaking talking about a majority if incorrect. Effectively the current coalition government has a seat majority in parliament, that's for sure. How and why is a totally different discussion from the topic of "red-shirts to elect official leader'. The topic title is incorrect as well. A number of posters, amongst others our esteemed local reporter/journalist Nick Nostritz have said that the UDD is only the (probably) largest (and most vocal, my opinion) of the red-shirt factions.

Lets not forget that the previous coalition government had the support of a majority of the popular vote, if you're going to add in coalition partners like the Thaksinistas are now doing. Dems had more votes in the party list as well

As for the number of voters, it was low in this last election. 3 million fewer people voted in the election, thanks to Brother Hun Sen shelling Thai territory in an opportune moment prior to the election and getting the yellow shirts to boycott the election as a result. Fine piece of electioneering there

If you mean to say the majority of the popular vote of the generals, then we agree. But those results were not published, so we won't ever know. On the other hand, there was no general (no pun intended) election prior to the formation of the Abhisit administration - a fact you are well aware of. Please do not now try to say "that doesn't matter, it's all the same... ". Please, ...

Yawn. Of course there was, in 2007, and again there were elections for disqualified candidates. Every candidate in parliament was voted on and they formed a coalition. The specific alliance was not voted on, but neither was the one the before it or this one either. Like it or not Thaksin's party was a minority of the popular vote as well back then, now, and will be in the future.

you're getting sleepy...

The last time I checked, the 2007 election put the PPP in power, not the democrats. 48.5% of parliament seats.

To paraphrase your reply :

Like it or not, the democratic party was a smaller minority of the popular vote as well back then, now, and will be in the future.

[tlansford]

A majority of the voters didn't swallow what Thaksin's proxy party for dishing out.

And your point is? Never mind, your point is always the same.

Regardless of what you think, the voters still handed a majority of the seats in parliament to the PTP - which is the result that counts in an election.

In addition, those voters gave >54% of the popular vote to the current gov't and 60% of the seats. Election results like that are black & white, and hard to deny as well...

But, ...

You may continue with your denial-fantasy if that is what makes you happy... it won't change reality anyway.

The PTP got the majority of seats, but they could theoretically get that with 21% of the vote. Would you be saying "the voters" if it was only 21%?

with 40 parties in the race, your numbers are theoretically possible, but unlikely. The last time the democrats put together a coalition in the 90's they won around 21% of the vote although they alone did not have close to a majority of seats.

But that is the point which makes the results last July so convincing.

My points about the results is not support for the government, but an acknowledgement that the electorate made a very clear choice. A 22 point spread is a lot in any election, anywhere.

[DP25]

The last time I checked, the 2007 election put the PPP in power, not the democrats. 48.5% of parliament seats.

To paraphrase your reply :

Like it or not, the democratic party was a smaller minority of the popular vote as well back then, now, and will be in the future.

The 2007 election didn't put any party in power, as no party got a majority of the seats in parliament or even in the popular vote. It elected individual MPs, and the largest party was forced to form a coalition as they did not have enough seats (those small parties betrayed their constituents as they had campaigned on not forming a coalition with Thaksin). Later another coalition was formed.

And the Dems were not a smaller minority of the popular vote in 2007, slightly more people chose them in the party list than the PPP.. Both were then, and are now, NOT the majority, despite what the Thaksin propoganda machine continue to try to claim. And the only reason the Dems did worse in this last election was because Hun Sen border war which split the yellow shirts from the Dems. Even with that boycott, only 44% of votes cast were for Thaksin party.

[hanuman1]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

keep your optimism. It's refreshing.

Good to know optimism is refreshing.

I am optimistic that those in the military and anyone in the country of good moral character will do something like they did in 2006 to mitigate Thaksin and other red terrorists who attempt to impose tyranny and inflict injustice on the good people of this country.

I do feel refreshed.

What's it like being governed by terrorists, gregb?

Personally, I wouldn't want my family to live in a country with a government like that. You must be a very brave person. Well done.

[pastitche]

Tansford, #25

'.......in the TVF universe, taxpayers are terrorists, and tanks &solders are checks & balances...

Are they beyond redemption?

Given some reasonable discussions between fellow Political Junkies, I don't think so.

I'm an inveterate optimist.

keep your optimism. It's refreshing.

Good to know optimism is refreshing.

I am optimistic that those in the military and anyone in the country of good moral character will do something like they did in 2006 to mitigate Thaksin and other red terrorists who attempt to impose tyranny and inflict injustice on the good people of this country.

I do feel refreshed.

What's it like being governed by terrorists, gregb?

Personally, I wouldn't want my family to live in a country with a government like that. You must be a very brave person. Well done.

And meanwhile in the real world........