Pheu Thai Party: Survey Shows The Public Believes Reconciliation Is Possible

[tlansford]

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

You are an extreme red sympathiser in my eyes if you can not accept that Abhisit was the legitimate leader of Thailand, albeit via some admitted murky and dubious practices - but murky and dubious practices that also to a degree played a hand in Somchai's rise to the top, as well as a good number, if not all, of the other leaders of coalition governments in Thailand.

Yes in the case of Abhisit the military is alleged to have been involved, and i know and appreciate how unpalletable that is for many, but in my view, one unelected outside influence being involved in a supposed democratic government is pretty much as bad as another - there's really not a lot of difference with any of them.

It is interesting that you equate my lack of appreciation for Abhisit and the undemocratic tactics he used to come to power with being a red sympathizer.

[ozzieman05]

Thai (uni educated wife) says it is known by her Uni friends, that Thaskin needs to keep Issan area uneducated, so he can control them with his promises

His greatest enemy is not the Democrates but Farang who marry Issan girls and teach them about the correct ways of law

This mean the voters of tomorrow will be western influenced

The only way to stop this is to stop Farang living in Thailand and influencing his voters of tomorrow

Conclusion all those who seem to back Thaskin who are Farang are in self extinction mode

Thaskin wants you out of thailand, you are a thorn in his future plans

[gemini81]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

'not respecting democracy'

That is exactly what Abhisit failed to do, respect democracy, in his striving to gain power. As someone (born and) educated in the west, this was the key point which revealed his real character and lack of integrity. He knows first hand how western democracies function. He was born and raised in one, yet he subverted the democratic system to gain power. What he proved is that he is willing to do anything to gain power and sell himself to anyone whom he feels will help him get there.

Regardless of any other good intentions he may have, that is the core of the person he has shown himself to be.

Please make a note : the above has nothing to do with the UDD. OK? This is just how I view Abhisit the politician and why I have no respect for him. His failings stand alone.

I also do not respect Thaksin. His lack of integrity was made perfectly clear when he sold Shin corp without paying taxes. He owed and owes his country for his entire fortune, yet felt no obligation to even pay back a modest amount of tax.

As for the UDD - while various leaders may have their own agendas, I find a movement that gives a political voice to a large number of normal citizens a good development. The UDD does do that. To be honest, while I have less sympathy for their ultra-national agenda (OK, no sympathy, really), it must be said that the PAD does, to a lesser degree, serve a similar function. And for both groups, it is clear that the majority of their members genuinely support their own group's agenda / platform. For me, that is a reflection of (at least some) intellectual honesty on the part of social-political movements. The comparison of the red/yellow groups cannot be carried too far, however, since the success of the yellow shirts manifested itself in a military and then judicial coup, and the success of the red shirt movement manifested itself in the form of a general election victory.

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

Edited April 9, 2012 by gemini81

[bigbamboo]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

'not respecting democracy'

That is exactly what Abhisit failed to do, respect democracy, in his striving to gain power. As someone (born and) educated in the west, this was the key point which revealed his real character and lack of integrity. He knows first hand how western democracies function. He was born and raised in one, yet he subverted the democratic system to gain power. What he proved is that he is willing to do anything to gain power and sell himself to anyone whom he feels will help him get there.

Regardless of any other good intentions he may have, that is the core of the person he has shown himself to be.

Please make a note : the above has nothing to do with the UDD. OK? This is just how I view Abhisit the politician and why I have no respect for him. His failings stand alone.

I also do not respect Thaksin. His lack of integrity was made perfectly clear when he sold Shin corp without paying taxes. He owed and owes his country for his entire fortune, yet felt no obligation to even pay back a modest amount of tax.

As for the UDD - while various leaders may have their own agendas, I find a movement that gives a political voice to a large number of normal citizens a good development. The UDD does do that. To be honest, while I have less sympathy for their ultra-national agenda (OK, no sympathy, really), it must be said that the PAD does, to a lesser degree, serve a similar function. And for both groups, it is clear that the majority of their members genuinely support their own group's agenda / platform. For me, that is a reflection of (at least some) intellectual honesty on the part of social-political movements. The comparison of the red/yellow groups cannot be carried too far, however, since the success of the yellow shirts manifested itself in a military and then judicial coup, and the success of the red shirt movement manifested itself in the form of a general election victory.

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

To be fair (as I always am!) I wouldn't differ too much from what Tiansford says here. I believe Abhisit to be essentially a decent man but maybe too precious for the dirty world of Thai politics and always blighted by never having won an election.

Edited April 9, 2012 by bigbamboo

[scorecard]

Phua Thai sponsored Poll.

Do you support Reconcilliation?

1. Yes.

Any explantion on the poll document of what 'reconciliation' means in reality? No!

[tlansford]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

'not respecting democracy'

That is exactly what Abhisit failed to do, respect democracy, in his striving to gain power. As someone (born and) educated in the west, this was the key point which revealed his real character and lack of integrity. He knows first hand how western democracies function. He was born and raised in one, yet he subverted the democratic system to gain power. What he proved is that he is willing to do anything to gain power and sell himself to anyone whom he feels will help him get there.

Regardless of any other good intentions he may have, that is the core of the person he has shown himself to be.

Please make a note : the above has nothing to do with the UDD. OK? This is just how I view Abhisit the politician and why I have no respect for him. His failings stand alone.

I also do not respect Thaksin. His lack of integrity was made perfectly clear when he sold Shin corp without paying taxes. He owed and owes his country for his entire fortune, yet felt no obligation to even pay back a modest amount of tax.

As for the UDD - while various leaders may have their own agendas, I find a movement that gives a political voice to a large number of normal citizens a good development. The UDD does do that. To be honest, while I have less sympathy for their ultra-national agenda (OK, no sympathy, really), it must be said that the PAD does, to a lesser degree, serve a similar function. And for both groups, it is clear that the majority of their members genuinely support their own group's agenda / platform. For me, that is a reflection of (at least some) intellectual honesty on the part of social-political movements. The comparison of the red/yellow groups cannot be carried too far, however, since the success of the yellow shirts manifested itself in a military and then judicial coup, and the success of the red shirt movement manifested itself in the form of a general election victory.

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

edit, nevermind.

Edited April 10, 2012 by tlansford

[Buchholz]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

'not respecting democracy'

That is exactly what Abhisit failed to do, respect democracy, in his striving to gain power. As someone (born and) educated in the west, this was the key point which revealed his real character and lack of integrity. He knows first hand how western democracies function. He was born and raised in one, yet he subverted the democratic system to gain power. What he proved is that he is willing to do anything to gain power and sell himself to anyone whom he feels will help him get there.

Regardless of any other good intentions he may have, that is the core of the person he has shown himself to be.

Please make a note : the above has nothing to do with the UDD. OK? This is just how I view Abhisit the politician and why I have no respect for him. His failings stand alone.

I also do not respect Thaksin. His lack of integrity was made perfectly clear when he sold Shin corp without paying taxes. He owed and owes his country for his entire fortune, yet felt no obligation to even pay back a modest amount of tax.

As for the UDD - while various leaders may have their own agendas, I find a movement that gives a political voice to a large number of normal citizens a good development. The UDD does do that. To be honest, while I have less sympathy for their ultra-national agenda (OK, no sympathy, really), it must be said that the PAD does, to a lesser degree, serve a similar function. And for both groups, it is clear that the majority of their members genuinely support their own group's agenda / platform. For me, that is a reflection of (at least some) intellectual honesty on the part of social-political movements. The comparison of the red/yellow groups cannot be carried too far, however, since the success of the yellow shirts manifested itself in a military and then judicial coup, and the success of the red shirt movement manifested itself in the form of a general election victory.

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

+1

[animatic]

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

+1

Edited April 10, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

+1

just trying to make sure I see posts from someone on my ignore list?

How very helpful of you.

But adding a +1 to a +1 of a twin with nothing to say is still = 0

[phiphidon]

Making endless posts defending the neo feudalism of the red shirts all day more than qualifies one as a red shirt sympathizer and spouse/boyfriend of a country bumpkin girl from the rural areas of isarn.

+1

just trying to make sure I see posts from someone on my ignore list?

How very helpful of you.

But adding a +1 to a +1 of a twin with nothing to say is still = 0

I have noticed that whenever a person perceived as a red shirt symapthizer posts generally they do so in a normal manner. But the replies! The bile and insults that are posted on this forum masquerading as political debate is unbelievable at times. Why can they not write without insulting, I know a lot of it is due to them egging each other on to outdo each other but please.

[tlansford]

- quote limit reached -

+1

just trying to make sure I see posts from someone on my ignore list?

How very helpful of you.

But adding a +1 to a +1 of a twin with nothing to say is still = 0

I have noticed that whenever a person perceived as a red shirt symapthizer posts generally they do so in a normal manner. But the replies! The bile and insults that are posted on this forum masquerading as political debate is unbelievable at times. Why can they not write without insulting, I know a lot of it is due to them egging each other on to outdo each other but please.

So if there were the smallest indication of a desire to debate or discuss, that would be different. Eg: Rixalex, have different opinions, but can have an exchange.

But when someone jumps in the middle with insults and baseless, uninformed statements, it's, ... well, just that, ignorant insults.

[rubl]

I have noticed that whenever a person perceived as a red shirt symapthizer posts generally they do so in a normal manner. But the replies! The bile and insults that are posted on this forum masquerading as political debate is unbelievable at times. Why can they not write without insulting, I know a lot of it is due to them egging each other on to outdo each other but please.

Post what we like or have your post described as 'bile and insults'. Plus a bit of drivel from theNation thrown in for good measure.

Yeah, for someone's idea of democracy. Typical example of the English fair play idea?

[rixalex]

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

You are an extreme red sympathiser in my eyes if you can not accept that Abhisit was the legitimate leader of Thailand, albeit via some admitted murky and dubious practices - but murky and dubious practices that also to a degree played a hand in Somchai's rise to the top, as well as a good number, if not all, of the other leaders of coalition governments in Thailand.

Yes in the case of Abhisit the military is alleged to have been involved, and i know and appreciate how unpalletable that is for many, but in my view, one unelected outside influence being involved in a supposed democratic government is pretty much as bad as another - there's really not a lot of difference with any of them.

It is interesting that you equate my lack of appreciation for Abhisit and the undemocratic tactics he used to come to power with being a red sympathizer.

It is not your lack of appreciation for Abhisit and the undemocratic tactics he used to come to power that identifies you as being an extreme red sympathizer, it is the state of denial you appear to be stuck in, in believing that other coalition governments were somehow much different. They weren't. Coalition governments that Thaksin has played a hand in, either directly or indirectly, also employed undemocratic tactics, also also owed a lot to secret back room deals, to agreements of exchanges of power, to sweeteners and to coercion, amongst other murky and dubious tactics. Perhaps in your mind, the fact that the military weren't involved in any of this anti-democratic action makes it that much better. Fair enough, but for me, it does not.

This is what they refer to as horsetrading, and i hate it, whether it be at the benefit of Abhisit or whether it be at the benefit of Thaksin. As much as i hate it though, i'm not naive and i do reluctantly accept it as being a necessary evil in terms of avoiding a potential stalemate in which none of the varying political factions ever agree to work together. It seems you share my hatred for this practice too, except that you apply your hatred selectively, and use this selectivity to declare certain coalition governments as being legitimate, others as not.

Which all brings us back to my comment that started this discussion. Red shirts respect democracy when it suits them. Of course they are far from being the only group in Thailand with this trait, but what makes them stand out is the violent lengths they have been prepared to go to in trying to force everyone else to accept their selective version of what democracy is.

[tlansford]

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

You are an extreme red sympathiser in my eyes if you can not accept that Abhisit was the legitimate leader of Thailand, albeit via some admitted murky and dubious practices - but murky and dubious practices that also to a degree played a hand in Somchai's rise to the top, as well as a good number, if not all, of the other leaders of coalition governments in Thailand.

Yes in the case of Abhisit the military is alleged to have been involved, and i know and appreciate how unpalletable that is for many, but in my view, one unelected outside influence being involved in a supposed democratic government is pretty much as bad as another - there's really not a lot of difference with any of them.

It is interesting that you equate my lack of appreciation for Abhisit and the undemocratic tactics he used to come to power with being a red sympathizer.

It is not your lack of appreciation for Abhisit and the undemocratic tactics he used to come to power that identifies you as being an extreme red sympathizer, it is the state of denial you appear to be stuck in, in believing that other coalition governments were somehow much different. They weren't. Coalition governments that Thaksin has played a hand in, either directly or indirectly, also employed undemocratic tactics, also also owed a lot to secret back room deals, to agreements of exchanges of power, to sweeteners and to coercion, amongst other murky and dubious tactics. Perhaps in your mind, the fact that the military weren't involved in any of this anti-democratic action makes it that much better. Fair enough, but for me, it does not.

This is what they refer to as horsetrading, and i hate it, whether it be at the benefit of Abhisit or whether it be at the benefit of Thaksin. As much as i hate it though, i'm not naive and i do reluctantly accept it as being a necessary evil in terms of avoiding a potential stalemate in which none of the varying political factions ever agree to work together. It seems you share my hatred for this practice too, except that you apply your hatred selectively, and use this selectivity to declare certain coalition governments as being legitimate, others as not.

Which all brings us back to my comment that started this discussion. Red shirts respect democracy when it suits them. Of course they are far from being the only group in Thailand with this trait, but what makes them stand out is the violent lengths they have been prepared to go to in trying to force everyone else to accept their selective version of what democracy is.

The TRT was removed by a military coup.

The PPP was removed by a judicial coup.

The Dems were removed by an election.

With all due respect, I do not see what is "selective application" on my part.

[rixalex]

The TRT was removed by a military coup.

The PPP was removed by a judicial coup.

The Dems were removed by an election.

With all due respect, I do not see what is "selective application" on my part.

What is selective is your arguing that Abhisit was not legitimate, on the basis of "undemocratic tactics", whereas other leaders of coalitions, such as Somchai, who also owed his position to "undemocratic tactics", you consider legitimate.

Quite what TRT, PPP and Dems removal, has to do with my point about your selective acceptance of coalition governments, i don't know.