Red Shirts Want An End To Military Coups: Thida

[phiphidon]

What the red shirts attempted whilst Abhisit was in power was to cut short his term by force, by violence, by intimidation. It wasn't democratic. In many ways it was much like a coup attempt. If they had respect for democracy, they would have said, "ok, we don't like the way that Abhisit came to power, but we will respect the democratic principles we preach, and will demonstrate this not by taking to the streets with arms and burning things down, but by trying to get him removed within the law and via the courts, and if this fails, we will simply campaign hard and make sure he is not re-elected at the next election".

It must be pointed out that it was the government who 'took to the streets with arms'and only then did the red shirts start to burn things down.

And the Red Shirts was armed just for fun?

Do you think those guns are ones that the red shirts brought along to the demonstration?

[OzMick]

and I would like to wake up to a hummer every day but I cannot see either becoming a reality any time soon

That should be relatively easy here if you set your mind to it, what's stopping you?

And if the military is so evil why did they let Samak, Somchai (Thaksins brother in law) and Yingluck (Thaksins sister) be PM?

I'm not claiming anyone's "evil" here, but IMO it was because it's pretty clear there would be significant public unrest if there's another such intervention so soon after the last one, possibly full-scale civil war, and no one wants that.

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

[rubl]

What the red shirts attempted whilst Abhisit was in power was to cut short his term by force, by violence, by intimidation. It wasn't democratic. In many ways it was much like a coup attempt. If they had respect for democracy, they would have said, "ok, we don't like the way that Abhisit came to power, but we will respect the democratic principles we preach, and will demonstrate this not by taking to the streets with arms and burning things down, but by trying to get him removed within the law and via the courts, and if this fails, we will simply campaign hard and make sure he is not re-elected at the next election".

It must be pointed out that it was the government who 'took to the streets with arms'and only then did the red shirts start to burn things down.

And the Red Shirts was armed just for fun?

Do you think those guns are ones that the red shirts brought along to the demonstration?

I'm really surprised I had to say this. Peaceful red-shirt supporters had no guns, most UDD leaders probably had no gun (they'd rely on their guards). Now those red-shirt guards and the militant elements mingling, that's a completely different kettle of fish. Same with the grenades lobbed on somehow anyone non-red-shirt, a last ones on Army and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May, 2010.

Of course this has no relation with Ms. Thida saying 'red-shirts want an end to coups'. That statement manages to project the idea that coups are something regular in Thailand, like the yearly floods

[phiphidon]

And the Red Shirts was armed just for fun?

Do you think those guns are ones that the red shirts brought along to the demonstration?

I'm really surprised I had to say this. Peaceful red-shirt supporters had no guns, most UDD leaders probably had no gun (they'd rely on their guards). Now those red-shirt guards and the militant elements mingling, that's a completely different kettle of fish. Same with the grenades lobbed on somehow anyone non-red-shirt, a last ones on Army and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May, 2010.

Of course this has no relation with Ms. Thida saying 'red-shirts want an end to coups'. That statement manages to project the idea that coups are something regular in Thailand, like the yearly floods

I was trying to point out that the picture he was using to illustrate that the red shirts were armed was one of the guns "liberated" from the army when they abandoned their APC's etc. If he or anyone else cares to they would find that the photo is one of a series published in the Boston Globe if I recall correctly. Other photos show the red shirts giving these guns back to the army and even signing paperwork for them. Of course, more often than not pictures are cherry picked from this collection and presented as something they are not.

The fact that skywalker69 has not come back indicates that he knew this to be the case or he has mistakenly copied other peoples attempts to do so.

[rubl]

I'm really surprised I had to say this. Peaceful red-shirt supporters had no guns, most UDD leaders probably had no gun (they'd rely on their guards). Now those red-shirt guards and the militant elements mingling, that's a completely different kettle of fish. Same with the grenades lobbed on somehow anyone non-red-shirt, a last ones on Army and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May, 2010.

Of course this has no relation with Ms. Thida saying 'red-shirts want an end to coups'. That statement manages to project the idea that coups are something regular in Thailand, like the yearly floods

I was trying to point out that the picture he was using to illustrate that the red shirts were armed was one of the guns "liberated" from the army when they abandoned their APC's etc. If he or anyone else cares to they would find that the photo is one of a series published in the Boston Globe if I recall correctly. Other photos show the red shirts giving these guns back to the army and even signing paperwork for them. Of course, more often than not pictures are cherry picked from this collection and presented as something they are not.

The fact that skywalker69 has not come back indicates that he knew this to be the case or he has mistakenly copied other peoples attempts to do so.

I agree abuot the 'cherry picking', it does happen as you know

I've never seen a final audit on number of weapons 'liberated' and number returned. So, insufficient data on that'

Returning to the OP no idea what the lady said in Thai, but hopefully it was closer to 'no more coups' than 'end to coups'. Subtle difference maybe, but as far as I understand things, much more correct.

From your local Dutch uncle

[rubl]

What was the insult by the way?

Probably telling the truth as you see it. Nowadays even just expressing one's opinion seems to be insulting. Go figure

[Scott]

A large number of posts have been deleted. 'Paid to post' comments aren't permitted. They have been deleted along with all the replies. Some inflammatory posts have also been removed.

Please keep it civil and on-topic.

[phiphidon]

*(Deleted quote edited out)*

As usual in your anxiousness to vent your spleen you miss a couple of subtle yet important points:

1. Read the cable in its entirety. Take note that the US Ambassador recommends that Thaksin steps down - i.e he is in a position to step down from, that coupled with honorifics used states that he is still PM of a caretaker government awaiting the next election campaign, as I say read the the cable, all of it. Chaun Leekpai should be referred to as the retired PM, Chaun Leekpai, not the PM Chaun Leekpai, thats just a ridiculous counter argument.

2. I googled using the quote from the link supplied "I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward......." and found the same article written the same except with this important part removed, "He made it clear that he was not formally resigning, but just taking a leave of office." It was written by the same thai reporter who wrote the second article which was distributed by AP. Where the article appears is of no relevance.

3. You make no reference to the Associated Press article referring to Prime Minister Thaksin probably because it doesn't fit your "argument".

My posts are not aimed at oneupmanship - they are to correct obvious untruths. If you have a convincing argument please let me know.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott
Deleted quote edited out

[rubl]

removed quotes of GentlemanJim ...

As usual in your anxiousness to vent your spleen you miss a couple of subtle yet important points:

1. Read the cable in its entirety. Take note that the US Ambassador recommends that Thaksin steps down - i.e he is in a position to step down from, that coupled with honorifics used states that he is still PM of a caretaker government awaiting the next election campaign, as I say read the the cable, all of it. Chaun Leekpai should be referred to as the retired PM, Chaun Leekpai, not the PM Chaun Leekpai, thats just a ridiculous counter argument.

2. I googled using the quote from the link supplied "I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward......." and found the same article written the same except with this important part removed, "He made it clear that he was not formally resigning, but just taking a leave of office." It was written by the same thai reporter who wrote the second article which was distributed by AP. Where the article appears is of no relevance.

3. You make no reference to the Associated Press article referring to Prime Minister Thaksin probably because it doesn't fit your "argument".

My posts are not aimed at oneupmanship - they are to correct obvious untruths. If you have a convincing argument please let me know.

ad.1.: The 'US Ambassador recommends Thaksin step down' may be his words, but seems more like 'Thaksin should stay away'. As some like to tell, what do farang know about Thai specials'. K. Thaksin handed over his dubious control and went on holiday. BTW typo, but it's k. Chuan Leekpai.

ad.2. Again he handed over control to a deputy and went on holiday. Normal procedure in such a situation, I'm sure

ad.3. Cherry picking by many posters here comes to mind again.

My posts are not aimed at one-up-manship, just to indicate that there seem to be various truths, some even believable. As for convincing arguments, well what can I say, but 'phiphidon told me'

[GentlemanJim]

*Deleted quote edited out*

answer this.

Why did Thaksin resign and step down from his role as Prime Minister? Simple question, just give a one sentence reply. Thank you.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott
Deleted quote edited out

[philw]

tianford #139. your answer to hello dolly, it is you that doe's not fit in the neutral space, if so you would not persistently back up MOST of the red shirt actions of late and present. Answering the comment you made (without thinking normal) It was even foreigners plus residents, volunteers and some army that helped to clear Bkk. NOT YOU or any bus loads of fleeing reds, or big Thaksin dollars, you missed the point by giving the army a swipe, and commenting about body bags not knowing who were in them. Don't believe all you are told, better get out amongst them, look for yourself. then comment. I do live amongst them every day, most of them are red sheep, lost and have no future, the ones you favour are the hard nutters, the stirrers and the fanatics that are chasing a leader who doesn't now want to know them, not now they are IN.....power...the family.

bash when needed - the point is beyond most of the red-haters on this forum.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

But par for the course here on TVF.

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

Spot on and well stated.

When will some on here realise that you do not have to be a Thaksin lover to deplore unnecessary and unaccountable state violence.

Phil Williams.

Chiangmai

[rubl]

As usual in your anxiousness to vent your spleen you miss a couple of subtle yet important points:

1. Read the cable in its entirety. Take note that the US Ambassador recommends that Thaksin steps down - i.e he is in a position to step down from, that coupled with honorifics used states that he is still PM of a caretaker government awaiting the next election campaign, as I say read the the cable, all of it. Chaun Leekpai should be referred to as the retired PM, Chaun Leekpai, not the PM Chaun Leekpai, thats just a ridiculous counter argument.

2. I googled using the quote from the link supplied "I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward......." and found the same article written the same except with this important part removed, "He made it clear that he was not formally resigning, but just taking a leave of office." It was written by the same thai reporter who wrote the second article which was distributed by AP. Where the article appears is of no relevance.

3. You make no reference to the Associated Press article referring to Prime Minister Thaksin probably because it doesn't fit your "argument".

My posts are not aimed at oneupmanship - they are to correct obvious untruths. If you have a convincing argument please let me know.

phiphidon

answer this.

Why did Thaksin resign and step down from his role as Prime Minister? Simple question, just give a one sentence reply. Thank you.

Possibly a higher power requested it ??

With philw skirting forum rules here, a reply may still permissable

2006-04-27: "TRT Party to accept court's ruling on April 2 general election "

2006-04-29 Here come the judges

2006-04-29 TRT may be courting disaster

2006-04-30 Thaksin return to office possible: close aide

2006-04-30 Thaksin can return as prime minister: Chidchai

2006-04-30 King halts Thailand's troubles

2006-05-01 Thai Rak Thai MPs not accept any ruling against election: Somsak

2007, June "Thaksin Overthrown: The 'well-intentioned' Coup of September 19, 2006"

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.htm

[philw]

As usual in your anxiousness to vent your spleen you miss a couple of subtle yet important points:

1. Read the cable in its entirety. Take note that the US Ambassador recommends that Thaksin steps down - i.e he is in a position to step down from, that coupled with honorifics used states that he is still PM of a caretaker government awaiting the next election campaign, as I say read the the cable, all of it. Chaun Leekpai should be referred to as the retired PM, Chaun Leekpai, not the PM Chaun Leekpai, thats just a ridiculous counter argument.

2. I googled using the quote from the link supplied "I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward......." and found the same article written the same except with this important part removed, "He made it clear that he was not formally resigning, but just taking a leave of office." It was written by the same thai reporter who wrote the second article which was distributed by AP. Where the article appears is of no relevance.

3. You make no reference to the Associated Press article referring to Prime Minister Thaksin probably because it doesn't fit your "argument".

My posts are not aimed at oneupmanship - they are to correct obvious untruths. If you have a convincing argument please let me know.

phiphidon

answer this.

Why did Thaksin resign and step down from his role as Prime Minister? Simple question, just give a one sentence reply. Thank you.

Possibly a higher power requested it ??

With philw skirting forum rules here, a reply may still permissable

2006-04-27: "TRT Party to accept court's ruling on April 2 general election "

2006-04-29 Here come the judges

2006-04-29 TRT may be courting disaster

2006-04-30 Thaksin return to office possible: close aide

2006-04-30 Thaksin can return as prime minister: Chidchai

2006-04-30 King halts Thailand's troubles

2006-05-01 Thai Rak Thai MPs not accept any ruling against election: Somsak

2007, June "Thaksin Overthrown: The 'well-intentioned' Coup of September 19, 2006"

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.htm

Interesting reads, sincerely thank you.

The only skirts i like to skirt are skirts, if you see what i mean.

Regarding the overall picture, I think we are at Act 2, scene IV or thereabouts.

Several acts to come and, like all good drama, an unexpected finale.

Let's see, and cope with what happens.

Somewhat whistily ( who him ??? E.L Whisty ) i think this forum would be a better place without the ill thought negativity and constant pettiness.

Maybe TV will have a similar fate as Thaksin.

There's food for thought...........

[rubl]

With philw skirting forum rules here, a reply may still permissable

2006-04-27: "TRT Party to accept court's ruling on April 2 general election "

2006-04-29 Here come the judges

2006-04-29 TRT may be courting disaster

2006-04-30 Thaksin return to office possible: close aide

2006-04-30 Thaksin can return as prime minister: Chidchai

2006-04-30 King halts Thailand's troubles

2006-05-01 Thai Rak Thai MPs not accept any ruling against election: Somsak

2007, June "Thaksin Overthrown: The 'well-intentioned' Coup of September 19, 2006"

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.htm

Interesting reads, sincerely thank you.

The only skirts i like to skirt are skirts, if you see what i mean.

Regarding the overall picture, I think we are at Act 2, scene IV or thereabouts.

Several acts to come and, like all good drama, an unexpected finale.

Let's see, and cope with what happens.

Somewhat whistily ( who him ??? E.L Whisty ) i think this forum would be a better place without the ill thought negativity and constant pettiness.

Maybe TV will have a similar fate as Thaksin.

There's food for thought...........

You're welcome. When I posts links I try to include what I think are relevant ones independent of whether I completely agree or not.

We seem to be maybe halfway the play, but it's unfortunate that because of this play people suffer. Nothing new under the sun though.

As for the fate of TV, compared with a few other forums I stumble over while searching, TV can almost be called boring. You might have implied that the truth may catch up with TV and Thaksin, or maybe just that internet censorship is increasing ?

[hellodolly]

I'm really surprised I had to say this. Peaceful red-shirt supporters had no guns, most UDD leaders probably had no gun (they'd rely on their guards). Now those red-shirt guards and the militant elements mingling, that's a completely different kettle of fish. Same with the grenades lobbed on somehow anyone non-red-shirt, a last ones on Army and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May, 2010.

Of course this has no relation with Ms. Thida saying 'red-shirts want an end to coups'. That statement manages to project the idea that coups are something regular in Thailand, like the yearly floods

I was trying to point out that the picture he was using to illustrate that the red shirts were armed was one of the guns "liberated" from the army when they abandoned their APC's etc. If he or anyone else cares to they would find that the photo is one of a series published in the Boston Globe if I recall correctly. Other photos show the red shirts giving these guns back to the army and even signing paperwork for them. Of course, more often than not pictures are cherry picked from this collection and presented as something they are not.

The fact that skywalker69 has not come back indicates that he knew this to be the case or he has mistakenly copied other peoples attempts to do so.

I agree abuot the 'cherry picking', it does happen as you know

I've never seen a final audit on number of weapons 'liberated' and number returned. So, insufficient data on that'

Returning to the OP no idea what the lady said in Thai, but hopefully it was closer to 'no more coups' than 'end to coups'. Subtle difference maybe, but as far as I understand things, much more correct.

From your local Dutch uncle

If I recall phiphidon is rite about the red shirts returning the guns and ammo they had taken on April 10. It shows that he does know some thing of the truth but only posts it when it makes the red shirts look good.

There was no mention of them surrendering their guns or rocket launchers until after Thaksin cut of their paychecks and they surrendered.

Come to think of it I can't recall the number of guns and rocket launchers that they did surrender. For sure some of them managed to escape with their weapons but we will never know how many and what it was they were using.

[philw]

With philw skirting forum rules here, a reply may still permissable

2006-04-27: "TRT Party to accept court's ruling on April 2 general election "

2006-04-29 Here come the judges

2006-04-29 TRT may be courting disaster

2006-04-30 Thaksin return to office possible: close aide

2006-04-30 Thaksin can return as prime minister: Chidchai

2006-04-30 King halts Thailand's troubles

2006-05-01 Thai Rak Thai MPs not accept any ruling against election: Somsak

2007, June "Thaksin Overthrown: The 'well-intentioned' Coup of September 19, 2006"

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.htm

Interesting reads, sincerely thank you.

The only skirts i like to skirt are skirts, if you see what i mean.

Regarding the overall picture, I think we are at Act 2, scene IV or thereabouts.

Several acts to come and, like all good drama, an unexpected finale.

Let's see, and cope with what happens.

Somewhat whistily ( who him ??? E.L Whisty ) i think this forum would be a better place without the ill thought negativity and constant pettiness.

Maybe TV will have a similar fate as Thaksin.

There's food for thought...........

You're welcome. When I posts links I try to include what I think are relevant ones independent of whether I completely agree or not.

We seem to be maybe halfway the play, but it's unfortunate that because of this play people suffer. Nothing new under the sun though.

As for the fate of TV, compared with a few other forums I stumble over while searching, TV can almost be called boring. You might have implied that the truth may catch up with TV and Thaksin, or maybe just that internet censorship is increasing ?

I have no respect for Thaksin and am sad for the tragedy slowly enveloping Thailand but I have confidence in the Thai people.

Best we can say is construct instead of destruct.

Regarding TV, I think you know my views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUrnTTJQQYg&feature=related

Go through to the end , it is pertinent and funny.

[Siam Simon]

and I would like to wake up to a hummer every day but I cannot see either becoming a reality any time soon

That should be relatively easy here if you set your mind to it, what's stopping you?

And if the military is so evil why did they let Samak, Somchai (Thaksins brother in law) and Yingluck (Thaksins sister) be PM?

I'm not claiming anyone's "evil" here, but IMO it was because it's pretty clear there would be significant public unrest if there's another such intervention so soon after the last one, possibly full-scale civil war, and no one wants that.

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

And yet the last Dem-led government wasn't disbanded for it's blatant use of a banned politician in the formation of it's coalition. Obviously it's a concept of electoral law that the Dems can't grasp too. IMHO it was only the fear of the repercussions (another election and another government formed by the party with the most MP's) that stopped that last Dem-led government from being disbanded.

[Buchholz]

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

see ya back here tomorrow for more

[Siam Simon]

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

see ya back here tomorrow for more

Ha ha .Too true. I made a decision to stop posting on these threads last year (I even pm'd posters from various sides of the political debate who I respect, explaining why. I doubt you're terribly upset that you didn't get a pm ).I managed to even avoid reading News Clippings for a while, but when I thought I had my addiction beat, I couldn't help having a little peek..... .

[Buchholz]

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

see ya back here tomorrow for more

Ha ha .Too true. I made a decision to stop posting on these threads last year (I even pm'd posters from various sides of the political debate who I respect, explaining why. I doubt you're terribly upset that you didn't get a pm ).I managed to even avoid reading News Clippings for a while, but when I thought I had my addiction beat, I couldn't help having a little peek..... .

I hadn't noticed that you were avoiding.

Anyway, it's just an empty gripe of his. He's just as guilty as anyone of what he accuses others of.

Still, even though it's feigned, it does get a thumbs-up for pegging out the needle on the

.

[ianf]

tianford #139. your answer to hello dolly, it is you that doe's not fit in the neutral space, if so you would not persistently back up MOST of the red shirt actions of late and present. Answering the comment you made (without thinking normal) It was even foreigners plus residents, volunteers and some army that helped to clear Bkk. NOT YOU or any bus loads of fleeing reds, or big Thaksin dollars, you missed the point by giving the army a swipe, and commenting about body bags not knowing who were in them. Don't believe all you are told, better get out amongst them, look for yourself. then comment. I do live amongst them every day, most of them are red sheep, lost and have no future, the ones you favour are the hard nutters, the stirrers and the fanatics that are chasing a leader who doesn't now want to know them, not now they are IN.....power...the family.

bash when needed - the point is beyond most of the red-haters on this forum.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

But par for the course here on TVF.

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

Well if you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen!

[Scott]

A number of posts have been edited to reflect deleted quotes. A few seriously off-topic posts were removed.

Edit:

And now an inflammatory, baiting post has been removed.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott

[ianf]

What the red shirts attempted whilst Abhisit was in power was to cut short his term by force, by violence, by intimidation. It wasn't democratic. In many ways it was much like a coup attempt. If they had respect for democracy, they would have said, "ok, we don't like the way that Abhisit came to power, but we will respect the democratic principles we preach, and will demonstrate this not by taking to the streets with arms and burning things down, but by trying to get him removed within the law and via the courts, and if this fails, we will simply campaign hard and make sure he is not re-elected at the next election".

It must be pointed out that it was the government who 'took to the streets with arms'and only then did the red shirts start to burn things down.

And the Red Shirts was armed just for fun?

Do you think those guns are ones that the red shirts brought along to the demonstration?

How Creck can think that it was Abhisit who bought the arms to the party beats me. Leaves me speechless. The overwhelming evidence - backed by the speeches made by the red shirts themselves - is that the red leaders had every intention of starting a near-civil war. This was part of a carefully thought-out tactic planned by Thaksin and his mobsters in which they planned to turn the tables on the Abhisit Government and eventually blaming him and the security forces for all the deaths, burning, pillaging and mayhem. People who carry these belief systems are acting, involuntarily perhaps, as a mouthpiece for an anti-democratic, lying, thieving despot and giving him the succour that his warped personality demands.

[OzMick]

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

And yet the last Dem-led government wasn't disbanded for it's blatant use of a banned politician in the formation of it's coalition. Obviously it's a concept of electoral law that the Dems can't grasp too. IMHO it was only the fear of the repercussions (another election and another government formed by the party with the most MP's) that stopped that last Dem-led government from being disbanded.

As usual, you use flawed logic for a cheap shot. If a coalition partner has active involvement of a banned leader, surely it would be THAT party that would be disbanded. Do you recall any posters saying "Newin thinks, Democrats act" ?

[pastitche]

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

And yet the last Dem-led government wasn't disbanded for it's blatant use of a banned politician in the formation of it's coalition. Obviously it's a concept of electoral law that the Dems can't grasp too. IMHO it was only the fear of the repercussions (another election and another government formed by the party with the most MP's) that stopped that last Dem-led government from being disbanded.

As usual, you use flawed logic for a cheap shot. If a coalition partner has active involvement of a banned leader, surely it would be THAT party that would be disbanded. Do you recall any posters saying "Newin thinks, Democrats act" ?

I suspect you have never considered how easy it would be to show in court that "Thaksin thinks, PTP acts" is ambiguous enought to mean exactly the opposite from your interpretation (although I have no doubt that yours is what was the intended message for the masses); there is no overt connection between the two statements.

Consider this - "Abhisit thinks, Yingluck acts".....

See what I mean?

[ginjag]

Agree Yingluck acts.  as in acting out not for real, because what has she acted on. ???   I'm not saying she has not done anything, far from it, but what her party HAVEN'T done and should have done is another story. Do they understand what promises are ????  On topic, the reds are afraid of a bigger bloody nose if they go too far, hence the fear.  They near got off scott free last time.

[pastitche]

Agree Yingluck acts. as in acting out not for real, because what has she acted on. ??? I'm not saying she has not done anything, far from it, but what her party HAVEN'T done and should have done is another story. Do they understand what promises are ???? On topic, the reds are afraid of a bigger bloody nose if they go too far, hence the fear. They near got off scott free last time.

Ginjag read my post again. I was making a point to Ozmick that the phrase "Thaksin thinks, PTP acts" would collapse in court if used as a reason to ban PTP for his involvement in the party. "Abhisit thinks, Yingluck acts" was used as an illustration of how the meaning could be changed.

[Siam Simon]

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

And yet the last Dem-led government wasn't disbanded for it's blatant use of a banned politician in the formation of it's coalition. Obviously it's a concept of electoral law that the Dems can't grasp too. IMHO it was only the fear of the repercussions (another election and another government formed by the party with the most MP's) that stopped that last Dem-led government from being disbanded.

As usual, you use flawed logic for a cheap shot. If a coalition partner has active involvement of a banned leader, surely it would be THAT party that would be disbanded. Do you recall any posters saying "Newin thinks, Democrats act" ?

No cheap shot, Mick, just logic. And, following on from your own logic, the Dem-led coalition would have collapsed due to the banning of Bhum Jai Thai. Maybe the"Friends of Newin" could have re-formed under another name. But what is your definition of active involvement of a banned politician? Does being almost joined at the hip with the Deputy PM, as Newin was to Suthep, count? (endless media reports of Newin in meetings with Suthep and army top brass during the last government, plus the highly illegal Blue Shirt collaberation at the Pattaya ASEAN).

[Buchholz]

Clearly the Banned From Politics needs to be reworked as obviously it involves members of several parties (although obviously the rule is much more frequently violated and to a greater degree by the TRT'ers) breaking it.

The law needs to be strengthened because as it stands now, it's ignored.

Perhaps Pheu Thai Party will introduce legislation during its constitutional amendment procedures to toughen the penalties and make the guidelines firmer.

*as the rustle of pigs preening their wing feathers is heard*

.

[phiphidon]

What was the insult by the way?

Probably telling the truth as you see it. Nowadays even just expressing one's opinion seems to be insulting. Go figure

Accusing people of being paid to post - if you don't think thats insulting rubl me you have a warped sense of values.