Analysis: Beginning Of The End Of Thaksin?

[sriracha john]

It seems that the senators claimed that he was involved in the business transaction but did not say what he did that constituted involvement but they wanted the court to investigate anyway. This is sort of like a fishing expedition...."we think he did something wrong but we don't know what it was so you go spend taxpayers money to find out based solely on our expectations". This is usually considered bad form in juristic circles. If you want a court to organize a proceeding you need to have some idea of what the infraction is that you want them to investigate. Even if you have no evidence you need to at least say what it is that has been done....evidently that was not done here.

I don't know all the specifics, but from the newspapers, I gather what pm thaksin did was he took advantage of some tax loopholes. ..which is legal.

I read, he employed some keen accountants to help him do this thus ensuring he did not do anything against the law.

the resulting turmoil and demonstrations tell me that many people don't like these loopholes.

so, if people are that much against the status quo, then, the next logical step is to change the current laws to plug these loopholes that they don't like. right?

....let's see if they do this.

Rather than gloss over the issue of PM's misdeeds (errrr.... excuse me, I mean the PM's totally independent children ( ) misdeeds... ), I would suggest reading through the Ample thread. Lots of evidence of wrongdoing as the SEC has finally been forced to recognize.

[marshbags]

It seems that the senators claimed that he was involved in the business transaction but did not say what he did that constituted involvement but they wanted the court to investigate anyway. This is sort of like a fishing expedition...."we think he did something wrong but we don't know what it was so you go spend taxpayers money to find out based solely on our expectations". This is usually considered bad form in juristic circles. If you want a court to organize a proceeding you need to have some idea of what the infraction is that you want them to investigate. Even if you have no evidence you need to at least say what it is that has been done....evidently that was not done here.

I don't know all the specifics, but from the newspapers, I gather what pm thaksin did was he took advantage of some tax loopholes. ..which is legal.

I read, he employed some keen accountants to help him do this thus ensuring he did not do anything against the law.

the resulting turmoil and demonstrations tell me that many people don't like these loopholes.

so, if people are that much against the status quo, then, the next logical step is to change the current laws to plug these loopholes that they don't like. right?

....let's see if they do this.

One important thing you forgot to mention chownah was that he first manipilated all the relevant laws that allowed him to legally cheat the Thai people and there country.

When you put this into your assessment it makes your interpretation look a little bit off the point

of the fact that he and others colluded to achieve the outcome over a long period while in office, and more important while he was prime minister of Thailand.

And that is a fact.......................................

marshbags

Edited February 17, 2006 by marshbags

[chownah]

sriracha john, marshbags,

I think you guys have completely missed what I was posting about. I was not talking about what Toxin did or did not do....I was talkling about what the senators and the court did. I was simply talking about the process of requesting court action and the juristic philosophy behind it.

I'll explain again.

Depending on the laws of the land...but...generally speaking...when you think someone has done something illegal and you want a court to act what you must do is to tell the court exactly (or even approximately) what you think the person did that was illegal and also site the law which was being broken. It is even way better if you can give some evidence that they did what you are accusing them of doing but not alway necessary....but...generally speaking you need to say what the person did and what law was broken by their actions.

For example, if I went to a court and said that I know that marshbags brings money into Thailand all the time as evidenced by how much money he spends and that I think he is doing something illegal......well.....the court would refuse to deal with it because I have not said what law I think he is breaking and what he has done to break the law. On the other hand if I went and told them that marshbags takes regular trips abroad and re-enters Thailand and that I had sworn statements of people who saw him open his luggage and saw 10,000,000 baht in the luggage and that this was against Law number xyz of the pdq penal code of blah blah blah......THEN....they might get involved.

Based on the limited information in the news release it appears that the senators did not state what actions Toxin took and which laws those actions broke. IF Toxin did truly break the laws then it is a shame that the senators did not get their sh1t together so that he would be investigated...on the other hand IF he did not break the law then perhaps the senators are just bringing a sham issue to the court and it is wise for the court to not respond....I don't know IF Toxin broke the law or not.

I am only talking about LEGAL PROCEDURES here....I'm not talking about all the other political issues that you like to involve yourselves in.

[sriracha john]

I wasn't directly commenting on your post, chownah, only haha's. Sorry to allow his tag of your comments to follow into my tag of his comments.

As for what happened with the Senators at the Constitution Court, it wasn't all that surprising to me. I remember 2001.

[marshbags]

sriracha john, marshbags,

I think you guys have completely missed what I was posting about. I was not talking about what Toxin did or did not do....I was talkling about what the senators and the court did. I was simply talking about the process of requesting court action and the juristic philosophy behind it. quote.

Sorry for also getting the tags mixed up chownah, i should have directed my reply to haha. who,s post in my humble opinion failed to state the reason why he could legally

( it appears at the present time ) do what he did and up to now get away with it.

I should have separated them, my mistake and no offence intended.

As for the verdict where is the transparency from the peoples highest court in the land.

It would seem from my observations there is collusion big time once again between the 8 judges and the Kamoy in chief.

%centage of ownership is one area i feel sure they can pin him down on as it exceeds the legal limit with both companies included.

( This was one of his manipulations / changes of law that really benefited the the sell off. )

Even so i reckon with Ample and Shin combined together he is over.

Unless of course he forgot to take his staffs %centages into account. Ha Ha Ha

He wasn,t clever enough to separate the two companies,

when he was first illegally elected in my opinion but only did a paper exercise.

Also where does it state that the prime minister is allowed to oversee all government business while at the same time carrying out private business that is a detriment to the very country he is elected to protect, you 8 corrupt judges....................

Thailand once again deserves better from their peers in government.

marshbags

P.S. it is healthy to disagree without malicious intent and give different observations.

Let the debates continue in the respectful T.V. way we all enjoy without slagging each other off.

Edited February 17, 2006 by marshbags

[Jai Dee]

Senators denounce court’s decision

A small group of anti-government activists place wreaths in front of the Constitutional Court yesterday after it was announced that the court would not put Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on trial for alleged malfeasance.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday narrowly escaped a Constitutional Court trial that could have led to his ouster from office, when the court’s judges found in an eight-six decision that allegations against him “lacked sufficient evidence.”

Denouncing the decision, the 28 senators who had petitioned the court to try the prime minister for allegedly overseeing his family’s multibillion baht sale of Shin Corp shares, said they would continue to seek ways to remove Thaksin from office.

After accepting the senator’s petition on Tuesday, the court’s judges deliberated for nearly two hours yesterday only to decide that the allegations against Thaksin for violating Article 209 of the Constitution were not strong enough.

“The Constitutional Court will not conduct a probe,” stated Paiboon Varahapaitoon, the court’s secretary-general. “The petition lacked sufficient evidence to verify that the prime minister had conducted any administrative role in these business dealings.”

The eight judges who voted to dismiss the petition were Parn Jantraparn, Chumpol Na Songkhla, Nopadol Hengjareon, Manit Witayatem, Sakdi Techacharn, Sutee Suthisomboon, Pol Gen Suwan Suwanvecho and Ura Wang-Orm-Klang.

The six judges that wanted to try Thaksin are Mongkol Saratun, Preecha Chalermvanich, Suvit Teerapon, Saowanee Asawaroj, Apai Chandanachulaka and Jira Boonpojanasoontorn.

Parn, Jumpol, Sakdi and Preecha also sat on the court in 2002 when all four voted in a majority decision to clear Thaksin of an asset concealment charge.

The petition, lodged by Bangkok Senator Kaewsun Atibodhi and 27 of his colleagues, accused Thaksin of indirectly manipulating the Shin Corp deal by using his children as proxies.

The deal netted his family more than 73 billion baht tax free and placed controlling stakes of the country’s largest telecommunications company, two satellites, an airline and a television station in the hands of Singapore’s government-controlled Temasek Holdings.

Under Article 209 politicians must declare all their business dealings. The senators charged that Thaksin violated the law and should be barred from politics.

“The Constitutional Court is wrong to reject the petition,” Kaewsun said. “The petition states the case very clearly and the court is duty bound to take up the case.”

Another of the 28 senators, Pichet Pattanachote of Nakhon Ratchasima, pledged they would “retaliate” and seek other means to oust the premier. “We will find another legal channel with which to press ahead,” he said.

The atmosphere at the courthouse yesterday contrasted starkly with that of Tuesday when hundreds of people cheered the court’s acceptance of the senators’ petition.

A commotion broke out after the court’s decision was announced, with more than a hundred people shouting their disapproval. Some placed wreaths on the courthouse steps to symbolize the death of their faith in the judicial process.

The police provided increased security for the judges and prevented them from leaving the building until officers cleared the area in front of the court.

Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, decried the court’s decision. “The people can no longer depend on the Constitutional Court,” he said with a sigh yesterday. Another democracy advocate, Weng Tojirakarn, secretary-general of the Confederation for Democracy, also denounced the decision.

“The court gave a very poor excuse,” Weng said, “it is not the senators’ job to find all the evidence. If that’s the case then we do not need a Constitutional Court.”

Suriyasai predicted the court’s decision would encourage people to attend a mass anti-Thaksin rally scheduled for February 26 at Sanam Luang.

Prime Minister Thaksin yesterday refused to comment on the court’s decision but mentioned he was considering seeking a third term.

Source: ThaiDay - 17 February 2006 15:15

[asd]

Thaksin will face his own political demise during his current second term due to a political crisis sparked by widespread corruption .

[cclub75]

Thaksin will face his own political demise during his current second term due to a political crisis sparked by widespread corruption .

I start to think that he will stay. And even more, he will go for a third mandate.

After all, this man has already everything, plus 2 BILLIONS dollars in his pocket.

A rationnal man (like a gambler at casino) would stop. And take a nice retirement, full of the glory of his achievements (growth, 545645 km of new underground trains scheduled, and a few thousands deads in the south and amongst the drug dealers).

But no, it's not enough. Actually, he loves power. He despises so much everybody that he wants to prove that he is better.

In this regard, he has the perfect dictator profile.

I repeat the only solution would come from a certain palace. Otherwise, no chance. I'm afraid we are stuck.

[haha]

It seems that the senators claimed that he was involved in the business transaction but did not say what he did that constituted involvement but they wanted the court to investigate anyway. This is sort of like a fishing expedition...."we think he did something wrong but we don't know what it was so you go spend taxpayers money to find out based solely on our expectations". This is usually considered bad form in juristic circles. If you want a court to organize a proceeding you need to have some idea of what the infraction is that you want them to investigate. Even if you have no evidence you need to at least say what it is that has been done....evidently that was not done here.

I don't know all the specifics, but from the newspapers, I gather what pm thaksin did was he took advantage of some tax loopholes. ..which is legal.

I read, he employed some keen accountants to help him do this thus ensuring he did not do anything against the law.

the resulting turmoil and demonstrations tell me that many people don't like these loopholes.

so, if people are that much against the status quo, then, the next logical step is to change the current laws to plug these loopholes that they don't like. right?

....let's see if they do this.

One important thing you forgot to mention chownah was that he first manipilated all the relevant laws that allowed him to legally cheat the Thai people and there country.

When you put this into your assessment it makes your interpretation look a little bit off the point

of the fact that he and others colluded to achieve the outcome over a long period while in office, and more important while he was prime minister of Thailand.

And that is a fact.......................................

marshbags

"manipulated"?

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

[marshbags]

marshbags

"manipulated"?

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

All comments make an interesting debate and provide lots of answers.

If you think the kamoy in chief isn,t running the show along with a handful of his associates

partners in crime that,s your opinion.

I reckon your naive on this and time will tell and if not history.................................and that,s my opinion.

Your also educated unlike many of the less well off Thai,s who cannot judge what,s happening and therefor follow the bribes when voting.

No offence intended but i cannot get my head around your latest comments.

marshbags

Edited February 18, 2006 by marshbags

[marshbags]

The following was taken from Fridays Bangkok Post.

It highlights why the so called privilidged have been able to take advantage of ordinary who are truly what todays troubles are all about.

Times really are a changing in many ways.

When these children of today develop with the advantages of a normal education the likes of the Kamoy in chief and his cronies will stand on chance. " quote "

Despair over ruling outside court

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

Food vendor Somjit Vichian was unable to suppress her dismay when the Constitution Court dropped the senators' petition yesterday. Ms Somjit, 67, had closed her stall in Saraburi and taken a bus to Bangkok where she mingled with civic advocates outside the court waiting for the ruling.

''Society is unfair,'' she cried after hearing the news.

Back in 2001, she thought the high-profile trial of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on wealth concealment charges was irrelevant to her.

''I didn't know much. The trial was about rich people.

''I just ignored it,'' Ms Somjit said.

Only when her children sat her down and told her that public utilities such as the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand had been sliced up for privatisation did she grasp the gravity of the situation.

''I felt so restless and anguished that I had to pay children to read me newspapers. I absorbed the stories like a sponge and they began to make sense,'' she said.

Elderly folks in her village had said her journey to Bangkok to hear the court's ruling yesterday was pointless.

They all reckoned the titans are invincible and the outcome of the battle predictable.

Ms Somjit said she despaired over yesterday's court decision.

''I feel sorry that there's nothing in society we can depend on. It hurts that we can't do anything.

''All I can do is pay for my children's education so they will be able to survive this kind of society,'' she said.

Pachuen Karbthudong, 55, a businesswoman, said she was almost in tears when she learned of the decision. The disappointment was overwhelming.

The court seemed to be telling senators they had no business trying to keep tabs on the prime minister, when that was simply not the case.

''If we allow evil to rule the land, the country will sink ever deeper into the quagmire,'' she said.

" end quote "

This sums up everything for me and why we must hope for justice and a positive outcome for all Thai,s

marshbags

Edited February 18, 2006 by marshbags

[Heng]

For example, if I went to a court and said that I know that marshbags brings money into Thailand all the time as evidenced by how much money he spends and that I think he is doing something illegal......well.....the court would refuse to deal with it because I have not said what law I think he is breaking and what he has done to break the law.

It's not like these folks don't have legal teams themselves.

I think the main issue with those questioning the transaction is that they are wondering how a transaction of the amounts involved made it through without them getting a cut. It's contrary to the norm of all gov't + big business type transactions, where there would be trickle down. As for regular folks, considering the super-low income tax compliance in this country, IMO the short term "anger" actually stems from issues these folks have with their own self inflicted financial situations (easier to blame a third party than their own stupidity).

In short, it's mostly sour grapes.

[elkangorito]

New governments are not voted in...it's the old governments that are voted out.

Anyway, I don't like any pollie...all cheats & liars.

[Cassandra]

marshbags

"manipulated"?

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

All comments make an interesting debate and provide lots of answers.

If you think the kamoy in chief isn,t running the show along with a handful of his associates

partners in crime that,s your opinion.

I reckon your naive on this and time will tell and if not history.................................and that,s my opinion.

Your also educated unlike many of the less well off Thai,s who cannot judge what,s happening and therefor follow the bribes when voting.

No offence intended but i cannot get my head around your latest comments.

marshbags

You are quick to say that many of the less well off Thais are uneducated, and therefore by implication cannot be trusted to make the "right" political choice, ie one that you approve of.In passing,if you do not mind me mentioning, it your own post with its jumbled syntax and poor spelling does not exactly suggest you passed magnum cum laude from Harvard, but let that pass.

There are very few of us who are fans of Thaksin and most would be glad to see him go, but most equally recognise this should be done in a constitutional manner and is entirely a matter for the Thai people.Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

Finally,this week's Economist sums up the position well:

"Mr Thaksin plans to let his opponents keep waving their yellow scarves and banners until they get tired and go home.It may indeed be hard to maintain the protestors' momentum until parliament reconvenes next month.In the 1992 uprising and another in 1973,the king intervened to bring down military dictators, amid serious violence.This time is different:the protests have been peaceful and Mr Thaksin enjoys a strong mandate.Things could change if serios misdeeds are proved.But even then he might simply take his opponents at their word and call elections which he could very well win."

[haha]

yikes! I confess. you found me guilty on all accounts.

..not only am I quote, "an old coot, visa runner, and bar fly".

I am also naviete like marshbags says I am.

just to let you know, I'm also, butt-ugly, poor, and missing one of my balls.

I love rodney dangerfield, bless his soul.

I truly understand what he met when he said, quote "I don't get any respect."

at least I don't go murdering people or trashing embassies over cartoons.

doesn't that make me ok?

[marshbags]

Cassandra, the following is quoted by haha

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

quoted by marshbags ( me )

All comments make an interesting debate and provide lots of answers.

If you think the kamoy in chief isn,t running the show along with a handful of his associates

partners in crime that,s your opinion.

I reckon your naive on this and time will tell and if not history.................................and that,s my opinion.

Your also educated unlike many of the less well off Thai,s who cannot judge what,s happening and therefor follow the bribes when voting.

No offence intended but i cannot get my head around your latest comments.

marshbags

You are quick to say that many of the less well off Thais are uneducated, and therefore by implication cannot be trusted to make the "right" political choice, ie one that you approve of.In passing,if you do not mind me mentioning, it your own post with its jumbled syntax and poor spelling does not exactly suggest you passed magnum cum laude from Harvard, but let that pass.

There are very few of us who are fans of Thaksin and most would be glad to see him go, but most equally recognise this should be done in a constitutional manner and is entirely a matter for the Thai people.Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

I reckon you,ve got the quotes mixed up a bit, just like sriracha john and i did yesterday due to the tags getting joined together.

Regarding referring to us all as a motley crew, frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ect. in your last sentence just about sums up your thoughts on people actively debating.

Your irrelevant reference to grammar depends surely on where you are educated and ones ability to put points across.

We are not all professors of the English language but non the less educated to a reasonable standard of at least the basics to enable communication and it,s implications

Jumbled syntax i think is not applicable to what i,ve posted in U.K. English and the spelling apart from an e missing of therefore is more than reasonable.

I thought the idea of debate via a forum was to make your point and not pick out how it,s typed out, put across or spelt...........how pathetic can you be ?

On a serious note the point that education = trust is not correct either.

I know lots of people from different cultures who for one reason or another have a below standard education who i would trust with my life.

They also have standards the likes of Kamoy in chief and his cronies could never achieve from there passed on way of life typical of lots of Thai politicians, Puyai and there descendants.

I would hope that not one poster has implicated that uneducated means they cannot be trusted.

What we mean is being unable to comprehend the implications of voting/supporting for someone

of questionable character.

Khun Somjit Vichian in the B/kok Post article puts it far more eloquently in a way we all can understand.

What sort of a world do you think we would have without debate and as human beings we must

do this no matter wherever the situation occurs.

We all know and respect that we are guests in Thailand while staying here by the way,

You obviously do not know the majority of members are always aware of this without prejudice

and are happy to accept this always.

Let the debate continue for all who wish to put forward there points, bad spelling or grammar not

important so long as we can understand your meaning.

I won,t stoop to your level and raise these points on the article you quote by the way.

marshbags

P.S. if your sick and tired of it all ...........don,t log on, it,s so easy, Cassandra

Edited February 18, 2006 by marshbags

[chownah]

Cassandra, the following is quoted by haha

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

quoted by marshbags ( me )

All comments make an interesting debate and provide lots of answers.

If you think the kamoy in chief isn,t running the show along with a handful of his associates

partners in crime that,s your opinion.

I reckon your naive on this and time will tell and if not history.................................and that,s my opinion.

Your also educated unlike many of the less well off Thai,s who cannot judge what,s happening and therefor follow the bribes when voting.

No offence intended but i cannot get my head around your latest comments.

marshbags

You are quick to say that many of the less well off Thais are uneducated, and therefore by implication cannot be trusted to make the "right" political choice, ie one that you approve of.In passing,if you do not mind me mentioning, it your own post with its jumbled syntax and poor spelling does not exactly suggest you passed magnum cum laude from Harvard, but let that pass.

There are very few of us who are fans of Thaksin and most would be glad to see him go, but most equally recognise this should be done in a constitutional manner and is entirely a matter for the Thai people.Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

I reckon you,ve got the quotes mixed up a bit, just like sriracha john and i did yesterday due to the tags getting joined together.

Regarding referring to us all as a motley crew, frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ect. in your last sentence just about sums up your thoughts on people actively debating.

Your irrelevant reference to grammar depends surely on where you are educated and ones ability to put points across.

We are not all professors of the English language but non the less educated to a reasonable standard of at least the basics to enable communication and it,s implications

Jumbled syntax i think is not applicable to what i,ve posted in U.K. English and the spelling apart from an e missing of therefore is more than reasonable.

I thought the idea of debate via a forum was to make your point and not pick out how it,s typed out, put across or spelt...........how pathetic can you be ?

On a serious note the point that education = trust is not correct either.

I know lots of people from different cultures who for one reason or another have a below standard education who i would trust with my life.

They also have standards the likes of Kamoy in chief and his cronies could never achieve from there passed on way of life typical of lots of Thai politicians, Puyai and there descendants.

I would hope that not one poster has implicated that uneducated means they cannot be trusted.

What we mean is being unable to comprehend the implications of voting/supporting for someone

of questionable character.

Khun Somjit Vichian in the B/kok Post article puts it far more eloquently in a way we all can understand.

What sort of a world do you think we would have without debate and as human beings we must

do this no matter wherever the situation occurs.

We all know and respect that we are guests in Thailand while staying here by the way,

You obviously do not know the majority of members are always aware of this without prejudice

and are happy to accept this always.

Let the debate continue for all who wish to put forward there points, bad spelling or grammar not

important so long as we can understand your meaning.

I won,t stoop to your level and raise these points on the article you quote by the way.

marshbags

P.S. if your sick and tired of it all ...........don,t log on, it,s so easy, Cassandra

Marshbags,

PLease try to make it clearer where other peoples writing ends and your begins. Just trying to be helpful....really.

Edited February 18, 2006 by chownah

[marshbags]

Revised post to separate the quotes on good advice from chowhan. sorry for confusing anyone.

Cassandra, the following is quoted by haha

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

..........................................................................

.......ended

quoted by marshbags ( me )

All comments make an interesting debate and provide lots of answers.

If you think the kamoy in chief isn,t running the show along with a handful of his associates

partners in crime that,s your opinion.

I reckon your naive on this and time will tell and if not history...........and that,s my opinion.

Your also educated unlike many of the less well off Thai,s who cannot judge what,s happening and therefor follow the bribes when voting.

No offence intended but i cannot get my head around your latest comments.

marshbags

..........................................................................

..............ended

You are quick to say that many of the less well off Thais are uneducated, and therefore by implication cannot be trusted to make the "right" political choice, ie one that you approve of.In passing,if you do not mind me mentioning, it your own post with its jumbled syntax and poor spelling does not exactly suggest you passed magnum cum laude from Harvard, but let that pass.

There are very few of us who are fans of Thaksin and most would be glad to see him go, but most equally recognise this should be done in a constitutional manner and is entirely a matter for the Thai people.Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

quote...........................................................................

.............ended

I reckon you,ve got the quotes mixed up a bit, just like sriracha john and i did yesterday due to the tags getting joined together.

Regarding referring to us all as a motley crew, frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ect. in your last sentence just about sums up your thoughts on people actively debating.

Your irrelevant reference to grammar depends surely on where you are educated and ones ability to put points across.

We are not all professors of the English language but non the less educated to a reasonable standard of at least the basics to enable communication and it,s implications

Jumbled syntax i think is not applicable to what i,ve posted in U.K. English and the spelling apart from an e missing of therefore is more than reasonable.

I thought the idea of debate via a forum was to make your point and not pick out how it,s typed out, put across or spelt...........how pathetic can you be ?

On a serious note the point that education = trust is not correct either.

I know lots of people from different cultures who for one reason or another have a below standard education who i would trust with my life.

They also have standards the likes of Kamoy in chief and his cronies could never achieve from there passed on way of life typical of lots of Thai politicians, Puyai and there descendants.

I would hope that not one poster has implicated that uneducated means they cannot be trusted.

What we mean is being unable to comprehend the implications of voting/supporting for someone

of questionable character.

Khun Somjit Vichian in the B/kok Post article puts it far more eloquently in a way we all can understand.

What sort of a world do you think we would have without debate and as human beings we must

do this no matter wherever the situation occurs.

We all know and respect that we are guests in Thailand while staying here by the way,

You obviously do not know the majority of members are always aware of this without prejudice

and are happy to accept this always.

Let the debate continue for all who wish to put forward there points, bad spelling or grammar not

important so long as we can understand your meaning.

I won,t stoop to your level and raise these points on the article you quote by the way.

marshbags

P.S. if your sick and tired of it all ...........don,t log on, it,s so easy, Cassandra

Marshbags,......................................................................

.................................ended

PLease try to make it clearer where other peoples writing ends and your begins. Just trying to be helpful....really.

....................................from chownah.........................................................ended

Thanks chowhan, hope this is better to understand, it does get confusing, especially when you have quote, quotes to put ones reply in context.

I apologise in advance for this rather long post due to the circumstances.

marshbags

Edited February 18, 2006 by marshbags

[chownah]

Marshbags,

Thanks for doing that....and I agree that comments on grammar and spelling are innappropriate.....as long as the idea can be understood it doesn't really matter.

Chownah

[ColPyat]

Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

Excuse me, but I am not a guest in this country. I do pay my way, and not just in paying more taxes than most Thais. My years as a visa runner have been over for almost a decade. My wife might take the piss out of me that over the many years living together in Thailand i starting aging a bit, but there is not much that i can do about it. She ain't a spring chicken anymore either.

My wife is Thai, my son is Thai as well. Therefore i do reserve the right to voice my political opinion, as the head of my extended Thai family, in order to enable them a better future in their own country.

This place turned home for me a long time ago. I do not care if some snobbish expats, nationalistic citicens or whoever sees me as a "guest" who should shut up. Because my family does not, my friends do not either, and anybody else does not fall into the equasion.

I do not know from which dictatatorial society you are from, but i believe one of the major achievements of human society is the right of free speach. Like it or not, i do exercise it. You may disagree with my or anyone elses opinions. Only one advice though - some people in real life off the internet might react rather negative if you tell them to shut up because they do not fit your definition of one who should be allowed to voice his/her opinion.

[Butterfly]

Has Thailand become a Facist state like America ?

Below is a nice definition of Facism and it fits Taxin to a tee

http://blog.dankim.com/2006/02/10/fascism%...american-style/

Fascism—American Style

Posted on Friday 10 February 2006

I recently read an article that pointed me to Dr. Lawrence Britt’s essay on the Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. For those of you not familiar with the essay, I’ve posted it below as taken from rense.com.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military—Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism—The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media—Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security—Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined—Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected—The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed—Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections—Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Now let’s take a look at each of Britt’s fourteen points, and how America, in 2006, under the Bush Presidency Regime is faring.

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—I would have to say that this is definitely present. When the Bush regime believes it can dictate world policy unilaterally, what else can it be.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Also present…we just have to look at Abu Ghraib, the Attorney General’s previous approval of torture as White House Counsel, the NSA spying on US citizens without warrants, and the long history of the Bush regime’s behavior towards human rights.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The scapegoats and enemies of the state in this case are the ever-lurking fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Why else would the Bush regime be fighting a “War on Fundamentalism.” Nevermind, that the fundamentalist Christians are just as bad in many ways, and are in power in the Bush regime. Part of the reason I think Osama bin Laden has never been captured is the necessity for him as the Al Qaeda Boogeyman for the Bush regime.

Supremacy of the Military—Check, yup, the military is getting a big fat check, and the lower and middle class are getting royally screwed. Too bad that GWB didn’t see fit to equip our soldiers properly, before sending them off to get killed in a pointless and endless “War on Fundamentalism.”

Rampant Sexism—This is a bit more subtle, but if you look, you will see that abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals are being covert assault as Britt points out.

Controlled Mass Media—Also a bit more subtle than some of the other points. How many of the mainstream media actually were willing to publish the Danish editorial cartoons. How much has the media made of the repeated highly illegal and ethically questionable actions of the Bush regime over the last six years.

Obsession with National Security—The Bush regime has mastered using the “Threat Level” for political gain. They have little hesitation about using fear-mongering to further their political goals, as seen just after the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when the Bush regime raised the threat level based on out-of-date information. The “War on Fundamentalism” is framed as such an issue that many civil rights must be given up in order for it to succeed.

Religion and Government are Intertwined—Also true, as the neo-conservatives are closely allied with the Christian conservative right. Look at their positions on abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, and other issues.

Corporate Power is Protected—Also true. Look at who is benefitting from the “War on Fundamentalism” and the resulting high oil prices—Halliburton, the defense industry, and the oil industry… where do the Bush regime leaders have their roots…Halliburton, the defense industry, and the oil industry. I guess Britt’s “The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite” appears to hold quite true here as well. Also, look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other attempts to quash, previously legal, fair use of copyrighted materials.

Labor Power is Suppressed—I don’t really see any signs of this. If I am missing something obvious, please let me know.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Censoring a NASA scientist… hmm, I guess that would qualify. The lack of defense for the Danish cartoons would probably also qualify here… in a country that is founded on the right to freely express oneself… how sad.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Britt says, “Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.” This would probably cover the warrantless wiretaps, and the use of the military and local police to spy on anti-war protest groups.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—I guess this is pretty well covered too. Vice Fascist President Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton, and Halliburton got a majority of the military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. George C. Deutsch worked on GWB’s Presidental theft campaign, and he got appointed to censor NASA, even though he was hardly qualified. Another glaring example is the failure of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina due to Bush regime crony Michael Brown not having a clue about emergency management. Another good example of cronyism is Kevin Warsh, who was recently appointed by GWB to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as seen here

Fraudulent Elections—Here’s another good point in case. Although it hasn’t ever been proved, or even been questioned, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bush regime stole the elections in 2000 and 2004.

In 2000, the election was decided by a Supreme Court, with a Republican-appointed majority; in a state where: the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, worked as a campaign manager on the Bush Presidential election campaign and did not recuse herself from making decision regarding his election and stopped the hand re-count; and the governor, Jeb Bush, is the brother of the Presidential candidate in question.

In 2004, the election was decided by two states: Ohio, where the CEO of Diebold— manufacturer of many of the electronic voting machines used in the state—swore he would do everything to deliver the votes of the state of Ohio to the Bush candidacy, and the voting machines in question had no verifiable audit system and have since proven to be easily manipulated; and Florida, where problems plagued the ability of predominantly Democratic voters due to voter registration problems, and the state’s governor was still the brother of the candidate.

Also, please note, that the Bush regime stated that the exit polls in Ohio, which showed Kerry as winning the state, as not accurate—yet exit polls are generally used for that same purpose in monitoring other elections in other countries by our government.

I guess the Bush regime has brought fascism home to America. All hail King George….wait…wasn’t this country founded because of another idiot tyrant named King George. Maybe another revolution is in order.

Again, in terms of full disclosure, I did not vote for GWB in either election, so I am not guillty of supporting and abetting his fascist tactics and behavior. I am a Democrat, but I do not blindly support a party that has failed to pull itself together to confront the fascist behavior by the current government.

[chownah]

This is not a bush bashing topic....those topics are in the Bedlam forum. Go bash bush in the bedlam forum please and not here....you can, of course, bash Toxin here because Toxin is Thai related...Bush is not.....thaaaaank yoooooouuuuu verrrrrrrry muuuuuuuch.

[britmaveric]

Has Thailand become a Facist state like America ?

Below is a nice definition of Facism and it fits Taxin to a tee

http://blog.dankim.com/2006/02/10/fascism%...american-style/

Fascism—American Style

Posted on Friday 10 February 2006

I recently read an article that pointed me to Dr. Lawrence Britt’s essay on the Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. For those of you not familiar with the essay, I’ve posted it below as taken from rense.com.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military—Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism—The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media—Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security—Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined—Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected—The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed—Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections—Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Now let’s take a look at each of Britt’s fourteen points, and how America, in 2006, under the Bush Presidency Regime is faring.

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—I would have to say that this is definitely present. When the Bush regime believes it can dictate world policy unilaterally, what else can it be.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Also present…we just have to look at Abu Ghraib, the Attorney General’s previous approval of torture as White House Counsel, the NSA spying on US citizens without warrants, and the long history of the Bush regime’s behavior towards human rights.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The scapegoats and enemies of the state in this case are the ever-lurking fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Why else would the Bush regime be fighting a “War on Fundamentalism.” Nevermind, that the fundamentalist Christians are just as bad in many ways, and are in power in the Bush regime. Part of the reason I think Osama bin Laden has never been captured is the necessity for him as the Al Qaeda Boogeyman for the Bush regime.

Supremacy of the Military—Check, yup, the military is getting a big fat check, and the lower and middle class are getting royally screwed. Too bad that GWB didn’t see fit to equip our soldiers properly, before sending them off to get killed in a pointless and endless “War on Fundamentalism.”

Rampant Sexism—This is a bit more subtle, but if you look, you will see that abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals are being covert assault as Britt points out.

Controlled Mass Media—Also a bit more subtle than some of the other points. How many of the mainstream media actually were willing to publish the Danish editorial cartoons. How much has the media made of the repeated highly illegal and ethically questionable actions of the Bush regime over the last six years.

Obsession with National Security—The Bush regime has mastered using the “Threat Level” for political gain. They have little hesitation about using fear-mongering to further their political goals, as seen just after the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when the Bush regime raised the threat level based on out-of-date information. The “War on Fundamentalism” is framed as such an issue that many civil rights must be given up in order for it to succeed.

Religion and Government are Intertwined—Also true, as the neo-conservatives are closely allied with the Christian conservative right. Look at their positions on abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, and other issues.

Corporate Power is Protected—Also true. Look at who is benefitting from the “War on Fundamentalism” and the resulting high oil prices—Halliburton, the defense industry, and the oil industry… where do the Bush regime leaders have their roots…Halliburton, the defense industry, and the oil industry. I guess Britt’s “The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite” appears to hold quite true here as well. Also, look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other attempts to quash, previously legal, fair use of copyrighted materials.

Labor Power is Suppressed—I don’t really see any signs of this. If I am missing something obvious, please let me know.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Censoring a NASA scientist… hmm, I guess that would qualify. The lack of defense for the Danish cartoons would probably also qualify here… in a country that is founded on the right to freely express oneself… how sad.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Britt says, “Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.” This would probably cover the warrantless wiretaps, and the use of the military and local police to spy on anti-war protest groups.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—I guess this is pretty well covered too. Vice Fascist President Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton, and Halliburton got a majority of the military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. George C. Deutsch worked on GWB’s Presidental theft campaign, and he got appointed to censor NASA, even though he was hardly qualified. Another glaring example is the failure of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina due to Bush regime crony Michael Brown not having a clue about emergency management. Another good example of cronyism is Kevin Warsh, who was recently appointed by GWB to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as seen here

Fraudulent Elections—Here’s another good point in case. Although it hasn’t ever been proved, or even been questioned, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bush regime stole the elections in 2000 and 2004.

In 2000, the election was decided by a Supreme Court, with a Republican-appointed majority; in a state where: the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, worked as a campaign manager on the Bush Presidential election campaign and did not recuse herself from making decision regarding his election and stopped the hand re-count; and the governor, Jeb Bush, is the brother of the Presidential candidate in question.

In 2004, the election was decided by two states: Ohio, where the CEO of Diebold— manufacturer of many of the electronic voting machines used in the state—swore he would do everything to deliver the votes of the state of Ohio to the Bush candidacy, and the voting machines in question had no verifiable audit system and have since proven to be easily manipulated; and Florida, where problems plagued the ability of predominantly Democratic voters due to voter registration problems, and the state’s governor was still the brother of the candidate.

Also, please note, that the Bush regime stated that the exit polls in Ohio, which showed Kerry as winning the state, as not accurate—yet exit polls are generally used for that same purpose in monitoring other elections in other countries by our government.

I guess the Bush regime has brought fascism home to America. All hail King George….wait…wasn’t this country founded because of another idiot tyrant named King George. Maybe another revolution is in order.

Again, in terms of full disclosure, I did not vote for GWB in either election, so I am not guillty of supporting and abetting his fascist tactics and behavior. I am a Democrat, but I do not blindly support a party that has failed to pull itself together to confront the fascist behavior by the current government.

Repeating yourself again??? Butterfy- what do you think of the new Canadian govt? (thought that might be worthy topic from you)

Edited February 18, 2006 by britmaveric

[teletiger]

I was thinking that all the previous points were alive and well in Thailand.

regards

[Khun Jean]

Is it possible the reply function only allows a few lines and not complete posts within complete posts wihtin complete posts etc...

And followed by a singel or just a few lines of comment.

My finger hurts from scrolling endless pages of what i already read.

To be on Topic. I am in favor of ousting Thaksin, for the sole reason he manipilates the law for his own good several times.

[penzman]

Is it possible the reply function only allows a few lines and not complete posts within complete posts wihtin complete posts etc...

And followed by a singel or just a few lines of comment.

My finger hurts from scrolling endless pages of what i already read.

To be on Topic. I am in favor of ousting Thaksin, for the sole reason he manipilates the law for his own good several times.

A good investment. A 3 button mouse. Click on the middle one and scroll down by moving the mouse.

[Cassandra]

Of course foreigners can have an opinion but this, whether pro or con,should be exercised with discretion.We are guests in this country.Am I the only one sick and tired of this motley collection of frazzled old coots,visa runners and bar flies ranting and raving on this subject, usually in an uninformed and garbled manner?

Excuse me, but I am not a guest in this country. I do pay my way, and not just in paying more taxes than most Thais. My years as a visa runner have been over for almost a decade. My wife might take the piss out of me that over the many years living together in Thailand i starting aging a bit, but there is not much that i can do about it. She ain't a spring chicken anymore either.

My wife is Thai, my son is Thai as well. Therefore i do reserve the right to voice my political opinion, as the head of my extended Thai family, in order to enable them a better future in their own country.

This place turned home for me a long time ago. I do not care if some snobbish expats, nationalistic citicens or whoever sees me as a "guest" who should shut up. Because my family does not, my friends do not either, and anybody else does not fall into the equasion.

I do not know from which dictatatorial society you are from, but i believe one of the major achievements of human society is the right of free speach. Like it or not, i do exercise it. You may disagree with my or anyone elses opinions. Only one advice though - some people in real life off the internet might react rather negative if you tell them to shut up because they do not fit your definition of one who should be allowed to voice his/her opinion.

From what you say, you are certainly a guest in this country.Nobody is suggesting you have no right to express an opinion, merely that it be done with discretion.Ultimately the political direction of this country is a matter for the Thai people, not for you or for me.Nobody is suggesting you "shut up".

I am not sure what to make of your final sentence since it is so sloppily written.However by one interpretation -"some people in real life off the internet might react rather negative" -it seems to be threatening which could have you banned from the forum.I shall give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.

[bulmercke]

It seems that the senators claimed that he was involved in the business transaction but did not say what he did that constituted involvement but they wanted the court to investigate anyway. This is sort of like a fishing expedition...."we think he did something wrong but we don't know what it was so you go spend taxpayers money to find out based solely on our expectations". This is usually considered bad form in juristic circles. If you want a court to organize a proceeding you need to have some idea of what the infraction is that you want them to investigate. Even if you have no evidence you need to at least say what it is that has been done....evidently that was not done here.

I don't know all the specifics, but from the newspapers, I gather what pm thaksin did was he took advantage of some tax loopholes. ..which is legal.

I read, he employed some keen accountants to help him do this thus ensuring he did not do anything against the law.

the resulting turmoil and demonstrations tell me that many people don't like these loopholes.

so, if people are that much against the status quo, then, the next logical step is to change the current laws to plug these loopholes that they don't like. right?

....let's see if they do this.

One important thing you forgot to mention chownah was that he first manipilated all the relevant laws that allowed him to legally cheat the Thai people and there country.

When you put this into your assessment it makes your interpretation look a little bit off the point

of the fact that he and others colluded to achieve the outcome over a long period while in office, and more important while he was prime minister of Thailand.

And that is a fact.......................................

marshbags

"manipulated"?

as I understand it, there are like 500 people involved in the decisions made here in thailand. pm thaksin is just one man. are you suggesting that he paid off all these other people?

I guess it would be possible, but then, that would be one sorry situation.

that is, if all the elected officials were that bad. that would be hard to believe.

as for saying he legally cheated the thai people and their country. remarks like that without proof can be considered slanderous.

how would you like it if someone lied to your boss telling him that you did something you didn't do, and you lost your job because of that person's lies?

one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?

if you are so against pm thaksin, then, I suggest you work hard to convince other people not to vote for him in the next election. ..or, convince other people to put a limit to the number of times someone can be elected as the PM.

..by the way, just how many times can someone be elected pm here in thailand? in the states they are limited to 2 terms. just curious.

"one other person mentioned that he is a dictator. my response to that is - if he elected by a majority of people in his country, how can you say he is a dictator?"

In the Reichstag elections of September 1930 the Nazi party jumped from the category of a splinter party on the lunatic fringe into that of a political force to be reckoned with. Six and a half million Germans voted Nazi and made the party the second biggest in the Reichstag.

Less than two years later this popular vote was more than doubled to give the Nazis 230 seats and make it the biggest in the Reichstag. But they never polled half the electorate in a free election. Even after Hitler won the chancellorship the Nazi vote in the election of March 1933 was only 43.9 per cent. But by then figures no longer meant much.

A bit like now....if one really thinks about it!

[thaigene2]

Cassandra

Thailand is run by only 2 or 3000 VERY rich and influential, and primarily, 'ethnic minority' families. They got that way by doing guangxi deals with each other while the natives were kept at arms length in service jobs and in underfunded 'rote'-style state school systems with no chance of rising above their class station.. Since you're so learned I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at..(sorry for the hanging participle)

For the farang who've lived here a long time, and have had kids here with thai spouses, surely you cannot truly mean we don't have a say?

Like the guy you're arguing with, I too believe I have a say. I stay here because I have a wife and kids born here - but the govt still won't allow me to even 'jointly' own our family home. In my country, Thais can stay there and own as much of my country as they like - in their own name. My country (and many other Western nations) will even waive the usually strict immigration procedures if they're willing to drop enough cash there.

As for you defense about Thaksin, I'll give you this much. He doesn't have a monoploy on corruption and cronyism in Thailand. As mentioned, this country has been run for decades (or much longer) by a small group of people pretty much for themselves..nothing has changed. Just factions fighting each other over the spoils..

It's good to debate these things..there are few other places where you can actually do that here!

[ColPyat]

From what you say, you are certainly a guest in this country.Nobody is suggesting you have no right to express an opinion, merely that it be done with discretion.Ultimately the political direction of this country is a matter for the Thai people, not for you or for me.Nobody is suggesting you "shut up".

I am not sure what to make of your final sentence since it is so sloppily written.However by one interpretation -"some people in real life off the internet might react rather negative" -it seems to be threatening which could have you banned from the forum.I shall give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.

And as a legal guardian of a Thai national i do have the right to voice my opinion on his behalf until he comes of age. Which also makes me a bit more than a "guest".

You are free to interpret my post in any way you want. Isn't language beautyful? it can be so ambiguous...

Actually, that is one of the particular joys of the Thai language, endless subtleties that can be expressed in one innocent sentence.

Anyhow, back to topic. Whatever you think of foreigners expressing their political opinions, i am terribly worried about present political situation. Both vocal fractions, thaksin and sondhi crowd, are steering the country into a very dangerous situation. I do not have the option to simply leave as some guest (barflys as well as snotty expats) might have, as i have numerous responsibilities here. Many people here do depend on me, and one of my responsibilities is to help educating them on politics, and to guard them against the vested interests trying to exploit them.