CalgaryII Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 OzMick, #28^ ".....when sufficient elected MPs decided they no longer wished to be associated with a party found guilty of electoral fraud, they changed alliance. Really? Is that what happened? You wouldn't be joshing us, would you OzMick....just a little, between you and I. Sounds very honorable by those MP's.............Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 On the contrary, let me correct you. The government that you continually refer to as "stolen" was not a goernment at all as its mandate had expired. Subsequent the coup there was an election, and when sufficient elected MPs decided they no longer wished to be associated with a party found guilty of electoral fraud, they changed alliance and formed a co-alition with the Democrats. No coup was involved, not even a judicial coup as the courts were carrying out their normal duties of punishing electoral misbehaviour - one of the basic tenets of democracy. OzMike you have like many others told Calgaryll and others of his ilk many times what the situation was, yet he and his ilk understand nothing, Bigots tend not to understand what they hear or read if it deviates from their small mindsets Or don't believe. Or rather, see through all the Oppositional BS, without swallowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 OzMick, #28^ ".....when sufficient elected MPs decided they no longer wished to be associated with a party found guilty of electoral fraud, they changed alliance. Really? Is that what happened? You wouldn't be joshing us, would you OzMick....just a little, between you and I. Sounds very honorable by those MP's.............Really? CalgaryII doesn't listen to facts and he doesn't listen to logical argument. because he has no intention of doing so, he is a troll. Please totally ignore him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Damned Hamsters lose in the place again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) CalgaryII doesn't listen to facts and he doesn't listen to logical argument. because he has no intention of doing so, he is a troll. Please totally ignore him. That's not nice scorecard. Everybody needs some love. A troll?....I don't thinks so. I don't set out to make someone angry as is the MO of trolls. Only express an alternative point-of-view. In some venues, that ends up seeming to be a contrarian. Even though that is not my intent either. It just happens. I admit it is more fun for a political junkie to have disagreement........it would be boring otherwise. Edited February 16, 2012 by CalgaryII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Could the author or any other PT/red basher please post a list of great achievements by Deputy Agriculture Ministers in Thailand? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Seems that Deputy Ministers of all stripes are considered a waste of space, if no-one is willing to defend them. Is it possible that these positions are given out as sinecures for favors rendered/to be rendered, then? Could the author or any other PT/red basher please post a list of great achievements by Deputy Agriculture Ministers in Thailand? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Huh? If they came to power via non-electoral machinations such as a coup, or Parliamentary manipulative and coercive methods, they are an electoral sham...or in other words, parties that come to power by non-electoral means are an electoral sham.. Yes. I think I got that right. Is that what you were asking? So the PPP government, who came to power by coercing parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join the PPP, are an electoral sham. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Huh? If they came to power via non-electoral machinations such as a coup, or Parliamentary manipulative and coercive methods, they are an electoral sham...or in other words, parties that come to power by non-electoral means are an electoral sham.. Yes. I think I got that right. Is that what you were asking? So the PPP government, who came to power by coercing parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join the PPP, are an electoral sham. Yes? The PPP government was an elected Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Huh? If they came to power via non-electoral machinations such as a coup, or Parliamentary manipulative and coercive methods, they are an electoral sham...or in other words, parties that come to power by non-electoral means are an electoral sham.. Yes. I think I got that right. Is that what you were asking? So the PPP government, who came to power by coercing parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join the PPP, are an electoral sham. Yes? The PPP government was an elected Government. The Democrat government was also an elected government. You should read up on how Westminster governments are formed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) ^ The Democrat government was also an elected government. Everybody knows the truth about that, and doesn't need rehashing. The last election showed how electable they were. Its been a slice guys,,,bedtime.....I'm outta here. Edited February 16, 2012 by CalgaryII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Huh? If they came to power via non-electoral machinations such as a coup, or Parliamentary manipulative and coercive methods, they are an electoral sham...or in other words, parties that come to power by non-electoral means are an electoral sham.. Yes. I think I got that right. Is that what you were asking? So the PPP government, who came to power by coercing parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join the PPP, are an electoral sham. Yes? The PPP government was an elected Government. The Democrat government was also an elected government. You should read up on how Westminster governments are formed. Come on, don't go acting like you don't know. Mr Chumpol Silpa-archaha said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Could the author or any other PT/red basher please post a list of great achievements by Deputy Agriculture Ministers in Thailand? Thanks in advance. Lots of Deputies in the current cabinet who deserve praise also: 2012-01-17 "Thailand won't review Rice Mortgage Scheme, says Deputy Prime Minister" http://www.oryza.com...News/14062.html 2012-01-13 "Thailand’s deputy prime minister, Chalerm Yubamrung, said that the arrest came after weeks of coordination with Israel." http://www.nytimes.c...rror-alert.html 2011-10-30 "Deputy Prime Minister briefs Diplomatic Corps and International Organizations on Flood Relief and Recovery Plan" http://reliefweb.int/node/456165 2011-08-30 "Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said insulting Thailand's royals was "unacceptable" and identified an online campaign as an immediate priority." http://www.telegraph...e-monarchy.html This one on a banned politician. Brave statement as his PM denied any problem in Thailand: 2004-07-07 "Thailand's deputy agriculture minister, Newin Chidchob, said today that tests had confirmed fresh outbreaks of bird flu in two central provinces where thousands of chickens died recently." http://articles.lati...rld/fg-birdflu7 Edited February 16, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 ^ The Democrat government was also an elected government. Everybody knows the truth about that, and doesn't need rehashing. The last election showed how electable they were. It's irrelevant whether they got elected in the last election or not. Given how much of a political junkie you profess to be, I'm surprised you keep going back to that. As I said earlier, does it mean that every sitting government that gets defeated should never have been in government? The facts are that, as with the PPP government (both of them), the Democrat government was formed with a coalition of elected MPs. That's how governments are formed? If the Thaksin proxy party supporters are so against governments being formed mid-term, then the PPP and PTP should have called elections when their sitting PM was dumped. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Come on, don't go acting like you don't know. Mr Chumpol Silpa-archaha said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". Money? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Come on, don't go acting like you don't know. Mr Chumpol Silpa-archaha said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". Money? That's the way. Blatantly deny the obvious and continue bleating on with the party line. Others have had clear eyes for a long time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Good to know the clear-eyed are not extinct. But clear sight normally requires two eyes, not just one, doesn't it? Come on, don't go acting like you don't know. Mr Chumpol Silpa-archaha said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". Money? That's the way. Blatantly deny the obvious and continue bleating on with the party line. Others have had clear eyes for a long time now. Edited February 16, 2012 by Reasonableman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 That's the way. Blatantly deny the obvious and continue bleating on with the party line. Others have had clear eyes for a long time now. Did he actually say why? He just said he didn't have a choice. If he didn't join, he wouldn't have had a seat at the trough. For him, and many Thai politicians, there simply is no other choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTumTiger Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Som Tum Tiger - ^ Oh, I don't know, maybe when they started rioting, attacking unarmed bystanders, intimidating anyone who disagreed with them shooting at soldiers, lobbing grenades, and burning down dozens of buildings, most sensible people took those actions to be completely crazy. They were protesting a theft of their elected Govt. via a coup Then when attacked by the representatives of that coup, they fought back. What did you expect them to do ...."hey, roll me over and do it again". Most protests turn into riots when protesters are attacked. Your characterization of their fightback is grossly magnified in keeping with the agenda of the armed aggressors who attacked them. Several of the fightback scenarios you reference are in dispute, as to who was responsible. Several were done by the coupists in order to embarrass the Red Shirts. Those who fired the bullets killing over 90 taxpayers seem to be blameless with you. But the fightback is demonized. Doesn't compute. If it was as you say, the voters in the last election were not convinced, and did not succumb to the Opposition's agenda as you have. They elected these Red Shirts, thereby validating their protests, and invalidating the attack upon them. If things were as you say, are the voters complicit then? No they weren't, you can't possibly believe that. They had an election, and their party WON! They had two chances to form the government, failed miserably both times, and then the opposition got a chance. Yes I am sure there was army arm twisting, and I don't agree with that - but they asked for, and got an early election date AND TURNED IT DOWN. Stop sputtering about coup this, coup that. They had a chance 6 months to get everything they wanted - but Thaksin wanted more, they rejected the offer (on national tv, do you remember? hard to spin that) and then proceeded to intensify their protests SYSTEMATICALLY to provoke a reaction. You believe they didn't' fire at soldiers? You believe they didn't' lob grenades? You believe they didn't torch dozens of buildings? You are wrong. Fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Just out of the blue, but as far as I know NONE of the UDD leaders who are also Pheu Thai MPs have been voted for directly. All were on the party list, just like our PM. Edited February 17, 2012 by rubl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 ^ Do you mean how they were attacked at government house on April 8 and Thaicom on April 9? Oh, that's right. It was the red shirts doing the attacking then. They were protesting. That is what protesters do! And their protests were justified! Voters validated it in the election that followed. They protested that they were being governed by an unelected minority, when they knew they were the electoral majority. Anyone who accepts that is a fool. So invading a hospital is a ligitimate way of protesting? Please let us know next time you need to stay in one, and where. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 OzMick, #28^ ".....when sufficient elected MPs decided they no longer wished to be associated with a party found guilty of electoral fraud, they changed alliance. Really? Is that what happened? You wouldn't be joshing us, would you OzMick....just a little, between you and I. Sounds very honorable by those MP's.............Really? CalgaryII doesn't listen to facts and he doesn't listen to logical argument. because he has no intention of doing so, he is a troll. Please totally ignore him. If only would not repeatedly quote his rubbish I would put him on ignore lol. 1 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