OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains? I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. His displays of musteline traits are not uncommon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Sometimes elections do not work. Sometimes countries are not ready for elections. Look at China and India. India has a democracy and the country is extremely corrupt and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. China is doing much better without a democracy. People must be ready for a democracy to work. Some countries are just not ready. And this has mainly to do with education. Are you saying that when you are elected you can do whatever you want? What if an elected leader is corrupt as hell? What if he buys his way around any legal system? Who should stop these kind of elected leaders? Or should we just watch and see and accept what he is doing because he is elected? Despite all of its faults, India and its people would not give up their electoral system in favour of the Chinese system. The Indians have an ability to select their system, The Chinese do not. The Chinese have never been given the opportunity to decide on the manner in which they wish to be governed. Your statement is incredibly condescending and is an argument in favour of totalitarianism. You assume that the Thai leadership that came to power outside of elections was not corrupt. Even the most resolute of Thaksin opponents in TVF would have a difficult time acepting a Thai military dictatorship as the best form of government. Whatever the faults of the Thai electoral process are, it does allow for dissent and some checks and balances. Look at the reconciliation bill. At least those opposed have an opportunity to oppose it and to make their arguments. Some are valid, some are not. Under the military option, there is no opportunity for argument unless one takes to the streets. Your position is indefensible as it argues against the emancipation of people. Who are you to decide who should be allowed to vote? It wasn't too long ago that women were not allowed to vote in the west, and in the England , only tax payers had the right to vote. The arguments used to support those positions were the same as yours. What is wrong with you man. Don't jump to so many conclusions/assumptions. And DON"T EVER AGAIN accuse me of being a condescending person. You don't know me good enough to make such comments. You cannot conclude that from my 4 sentence post. Don't make it personal! Have you lived in China for the past 10 years? Do you know what the Chinese think about their system and leaders? Is your family Chinese? I can tell you that the most of the Chinese population is happy with their leaders. I didn't say India has to give up its democracy. I didn't say people have no right to vote. I didn't say I favor totalitarianism. Every system has his pros and cons but some countries are not ready for a democracy to work. China would erupt in a cival war now if you would introduce elections. Since when is there an opportunity to oppose the " reconciliation bill"??? Last night the house speaker wanted to start a vote in the middle of a debate.... That is red democracy for you. PT tables a bill, the oposition can make a few comments and then suddenly.... let's vote. Edited May 31, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains? I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. much of what he states is just his own opinion wrapped around a couple of public events in the man's life. It is judgment on his part from a distance, not from any actual knowledge. I don't know any more than he does and don't care to make blanket judgments about other people. Especially when such judgments serve no purpose nor carry any weight. My original point is that most children in any situation involving their parents would most likely take positions supportive of their parents. It seems stupid to ridicule this particular son just because he is doing what every poster here would normally expect of his/her own son. In addition, what he states is completely in line with one side of the argument in this debate. The boy is not saying something outlandish. As for "forgiveness" vs "justice" if I can characterize Thailand's current reconciliation debate as such, there are arguments to be made on both sides. Looking at Thailand's history, the country has often chosen the "forgiveness" (and forget, too) option in order to move on. I am not sure that I agree with that, but it is not my choice to make, either. I do currently think that the "forgiveness" path is the most likely possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains? I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. A live video is pretty close to meeting someone, so perhaps this might help. As far as this group is concerned, they seemed quite impressed... especially the way they touched his white face and giggled.... [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dkMltgNcaQ&feature=related[/media] Sorry, didn't find any videos where he actually says something... other than the "kahp, kahp" he says here, so unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything of substance out there that would reflect he has any substance. Perhaps someone else has. . Edited May 31, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 - deleted for quote limits - I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election. Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections. I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation... It is amazing how often the "elections were scheduled soon" disinformation gets thrown out there in hopes of sticking. , But we all agree that "it was a coup between elections". I see that the "coup-ist" are hard at it again on TVF in order to justify their version of democracy's "checks & balances" Keep up the denial, boys & girls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains? I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. much of what he states is just his own opinion wrapped around a couple of public events in the man's life. Which part is opinion? 1) it was a filial obligation statement Opinion, but using different words, you are saying the exact same thing. 2) a young man of no notable achievement Fact. 3) (committed) a few serious misdemeanors Fact. 4) has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand Fact. 5) lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 But we all agree that "it was a coup between elections". I see that the "coup-ist" are hard at it again on TVF in order to justify their version of democracy's "checks & balances" Keep up the denial, boys & girls... Try to keep up Tom. That post was a gentle dig/reminder of a rather silly statement made by your partner in denial and history rewriting, PPD. He is also adept at criticising actions of the Democrat government, and then falling deafeningly silent when asked to propose an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I see that the "coup-ist" are hard at it again on TVF in order to justify their version of democracy's "checks & balances" Keep up the denial, boys & girls... You must have missed the memo Tom. This months catchphrase with which to label people is not "coup-ist". That's so April 2012. This month it's "frothers". Pleased to be of service. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts. (Sorry for copying rubl but I believe the same) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm not the one wearing a yellow shirt, remember. My dear non-yellow chap, I would really appreciate when you read posts a bit more carefully. I didn't suggest you were or would be wearing a yellow shirt. Of course there's the distinct possibility that your last remark is just a sneaky way of suggesting my "your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts" implies that the yellow-shirts suffer from this misperception. As I didn't even mention a colour for you, nor even vaguely indicated that you might be a specific colour supporter I do start to take offence. If it wasn't agaist forum rules I might even go so far as to call you a bloody fool and conniving lying bastard. That's out of the question of course, so let me just say that the way you always seem to try to bend and twist till somehow it may look to some you are right only makes you a misguided person who should seek professional help. Now, don't worry, just make that appointment tomorrow Your rapier wit is enhanced by its succinctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I see that the "coup-ist" are hard at it again on TVF in order to justify their version of democracy's "checks & balances" Keep up the denial, boys & girls... You must have missed the memo Tom. This months catchphrase with which to label people is not "coup-ist". That's so April 2012. This month it's "frothers". Pleased to be of service. nostalgic this week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) -- deleted -- I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. much of what he states is just his own opinion wrapped around a couple of public events in the man's life. Which part is opinion? 1) it was a filial obligation statement Opinion, but using different words, you are saying the exact same thing. 2) a young man of no notable achievement Fact. 3) (committed) a few serious misdemeanors Fact. 4) has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand Fact. 5) lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains Fact. his legal issues are part of the public record, Neither you, ozmick nor I have met the man and can say anything about his character - the rest from ozmick is not fact, but a judgmental OT slur. (added) and as such, there is no reason for me to "agree" with ozmick's statement. Edited May 31, 2012 by tlansford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains? I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that". Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion. A live video is pretty close to meeting someone, so perhaps this might help. As far as this group is concerned, they seemed quite impressed... especially the way they touched his white face and giggled.... [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dkMltgNcaQ&feature=related[/media] Sorry, didn't find any videos where he actually says something... other than the "kahp, kahp" he says here, so unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything of substance out there that would reflect he has any substance. Perhaps someone else has. . Is that the Thai version of the 'Rose Bowl'? And is that Buddy Holly singing 'Rave On'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 his legal issues are part of the public record, Neither you, ozmick nor I have met the man and can say anything about his character - the rest from ozmick is not fact, but a judgmental OT slur. (added) and as such, there is no reason for me to "agree" with ozmick's statement. When somebody makes a public statement, the value of that statement is affected by what is publicly known about him. My statement was NOT judgmental, NOT a slur ( I actually glossed over his rather public "indiscretions" at least one of which might see lesser mortals incarcerated), and I will be simply thrilled if you could explain how it is Off Topic of Thaksin's Son Praises Sonthi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volk666 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 At the time of the coup new EC commissioners hadn't received royal endorsement yet and so had no official power to do anything. Regarding the election date the selected chairman proposed November 19 or 26: "In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/15/headlines/headlines_30013678.php Sonthi B. made his move just in time, the officially announced date of the new elections could have come in a few days, once the EC got royal endorsement and had a meeting no the matter. Or it could have dragged for weeks, as is not unusual in Thailand, plus the demands to replace the EC stuff on the ground could have forced the EC to ask for even more time and push the date deep into December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections. I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation... I'm afraid you're the one with the misinformation..... Chronology - Elections - (Originally scheduled for Oct.15th 2006) 30 days needed to replace EC: Suchon The Nation Published on July 27th 2006 The Senate would need at least 30 days to appoint election commissioners from nominees submitted by the Supreme Court, but it should not take more than 60 days because of the urgency, Senate Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua said yesterday........... ...............Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said no political parties would be involved in the EC selection process as the House of Representatives was not sitting............... .............. Outgoing Bangkok Senator Seree Suwanpanont believes the new EC members would be on board in time to conduct the October 15 general election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/27/politics/politics_30009700.php ELECTION COMMISSION Judges dominate nominees The Nation Published on August 3, 2006 Qualifications of 30 of 42 candidates verified already; vote on top 10 next Thursday A plenary meeting of 86 Supreme Court judges is scheduled for Thursday. The judges will vote on 10 nominees whose names will be submitted to the Senate. The Upper House will appoint five as election commissioners, subject to royal endorsement. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Judges-dominate-nominees-30010263.html Divide sharpens as poll run-up officially begins. The Nation Published on August 24th 2006 While the Royal Decree endorsing the next election comes into force today, giving all political parties the green light to kick off their campaigns, the ongoing political crisis seems likely to jeopardise the plan for the poll to be held on October 15. Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra insists he will lead his Thai Rak Thai Party into the election, but has not decided if he will seek to retain his prime ministerial position after the election. Anti-Thaksin groups believe he will return to the top post if Thai Rak Thai scores a landslide victory, a situation they cannot accept at all. They believe the premier will exploit the election results to claim legitimacy for holding onto power for a third term, despite having failed - in their eyes - to clear himself of allegations of corruption and abuse of power. So, these groups are doing their best to ensure the election does not take place until Thaksin, bowing to pressure, announces that he will permanently exit the Thai political stage. http://http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Divide-sharpens-as-poll-run-up-officially-begins-30011834.html Senate to pick EC members in one day The Nation Published on September 8 2006 The Senate will today pick five election commissioners to manage the next general election http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Senate-to-pick-EC-members-in-one-day-30013089.html NEW ELECTION COMMISSION. Anti-Thaksin 3 lose out. The Nation Published on September 9th 2006 The five new EC members whose appointments require royal endorsement are Apichat Sukhakkanon Somchai Jungprasert Sumet Oupanisakorn Sodsri Satayathum and Prapan Naikowit The first four are judges while Prapan is a state attorney. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/-Anti-Thaksin-3-lose-out-30013205.html New EC 'unlikely to remove provincial officials before poll' The Nation Published on September 15th 2006 The five new election commissioners yesterday announced a series of goals that they wanted to achieve, but reorganising their provincial colleagues was not among them. The newly selected chairman of the Election Commission, Apichat Sukhaggananda, also said the EC is likely to postpone the date for the upcoming election by one month. The election had originally been scheduled for October 15. Apichat was yesterday unanimously voted EC chairman by his fellow commissioners. His appointment and those of the other commissioners require royal endorsement. In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/15/headlines/headlines_30013678.php Hopefully this chronology (by no means exhaustive, I could have included more sources, but easier to stick with one to aid understanding of the context of actions spoken about and taken) will help dispel some of the misconception out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gand Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 "Thaksin's Son Praises Sonthi For 'Unlocking Nation'" more like Thaksin's Son Praises Sonthi For 'Unlocking TS' and unleashing civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections. I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation... I'm afraid you're the one with the misinformation..... Chronology - Elections - (Originally scheduled for Oct.15th 2006) 30 days needed to replace EC: Suchon The Nation Published on July 27th 2006 The Senate would need at least 30 days to appoint election commissioners from nominees submitted by the Supreme Court, but it should not take more than 60 days because of the urgency, Senate Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua said yesterday........... ...............Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said no political parties would be involved in the EC selection process as the House of Representatives was not sitting............... .............. Outgoing Bangkok Senator Seree Suwanpanont believes the new EC members would be on board in time to conduct the October 15 general election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/27/politics/politics_30009700.php ELECTION COMMISSION Judges dominate nominees The Nation Published on August 3, 2006 Qualifications of 30 of 42 candidates verified already; vote on top 10 next Thursday A plenary meeting of 86 Supreme Court judges is scheduled for Thursday. The judges will vote on 10 nominees whose names will be submitted to the Senate. The Upper House will appoint five as election commissioners, subject to royal endorsement. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Judges-dominate-nominees-30010263.html Divide sharpens as poll run-up officially begins. The Nation Published on August 24th 2006 While the Royal Decree endorsing the next election comes into force today, giving all political parties the green light to kick off their campaigns, the ongoing political crisis seems likely to jeopardise the plan for the poll to be held on October 15. Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra insists he will lead his Thai Rak Thai Party into the election, but has not decided if he will seek to retain his prime ministerial position after the election. Anti-Thaksin groups believe he will return to the top post if Thai Rak Thai scores a landslide victory, a situation they cannot accept at all. They believe the premier will exploit the election results to claim legitimacy for holding onto power for a third term, despite having failed - in their eyes - to clear himself of allegations of corruption and abuse of power. So, these groups are doing their best to ensure the election does not take place until Thaksin, bowing to pressure, announces that he will permanently exit the Thai political stage. http://http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Divide-sharpens-as-poll-run-up-officially-begins-30011834.html Senate to pick EC members in one day The Nation Published on September 8 2006 The Senate will today pick five election commissioners to manage the next general election http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Senate-to-pick-EC-members-in-one-day-30013089.html NEW ELECTION COMMISSION. Anti-Thaksin 3 lose out. The Nation Published on September 9th 2006 The five new EC members whose appointments require royal endorsement are Apichat Sukhakkanon Somchai Jungprasert Sumet Oupanisakorn Sodsri Satayathum and Prapan Naikowit The first four are judges while Prapan is a state attorney. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/-Anti-Thaksin-3-lose-out-30013205.html New EC 'unlikely to remove provincial officials before poll' The Nation Published on September 15th 2006 The five new election commissioners yesterday announced a series of goals that they wanted to achieve, but reorganising their provincial colleagues was not among them. The newly selected chairman of the Election Commission, Apichat Sukhaggananda, also said the EC is likely to postpone the date for the upcoming election by one month. The election had originally been scheduled for October 15. Apichat was yesterday unanimously voted EC chairman by his fellow commissioners. His appointment and those of the other commissioners require royal endorsement. In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/15/headlines/headlines_30013678.php Hopefully this chronology (by no means exhaustive, I could have included more sources, but easier to stick with one to aid understanding of the context of actions spoken about and taken) will help dispel some of the misconception out there. Do you actually read what you cut and paste? Last entry, 4 days before the coup, and EC has not yet received royal endorsement, and no firm date has been set for election, the earliest possible date being 2 months after the date of the coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 But we all agree that "it was a coup between elections". I see that the "coup-ist" are hard at it again on TVF in order to justify their version of democracy's "checks & balances" Keep up the denial, boys & girls... Try to keep up Tom. That post was a gentle dig/reminder of a rather silly statement made by your partner in denial and history rewriting, PPD. He is also adept at criticising actions of the Democrat government, and then falling deafeningly silent when asked to propose an alternative. You may wish to read my post 137 for further information about history rewriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections. I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation... I'm afraid you're the one with the misinformation..... Chronology - Elections - (Originally scheduled for Oct.15th 2006) 30 days needed to replace EC: Suchon The Nation Published on July 27th 2006 The Senate would need at least 30 days to appoint election commissioners from nominees submitted by the Supreme Court, but it should not take more than 60 days because of the urgency, Senate Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua said yesterday........... ...............Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said no political parties would be involved in the EC selection process as the House of Representatives was not sitting............... .............. Outgoing Bangkok Senator Seree Suwanpanont believes the new EC members would be on board in time to conduct the October 15 general election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/27/politics/politics_30009700.php ELECTION COMMISSION Judges dominate nominees The Nation Published on August 3, 2006 Qualifications of 30 of 42 candidates verified already; vote on top 10 next Thursday A plenary meeting of 86 Supreme Court judges is scheduled for Thursday. The judges will vote on 10 nominees whose names will be submitted to the Senate. The Upper House will appoint five as election commissioners, subject to royal endorsement. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Judges-dominate-nominees-30010263.html Divide sharpens as poll run-up officially begins. The Nation Published on August 24th 2006 While the Royal Decree endorsing the next election comes into force today, giving all political parties the green light to kick off their campaigns, the ongoing political crisis seems likely to jeopardise the plan for the poll to be held on October 15. Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra insists he will lead his Thai Rak Thai Party into the election, but has not decided if he will seek to retain his prime ministerial position after the election. Anti-Thaksin groups believe he will return to the top post if Thai Rak Thai scores a landslide victory, a situation they cannot accept at all. They believe the premier will exploit the election results to claim legitimacy for holding onto power for a third term, despite having failed - in their eyes - to clear himself of allegations of corruption and abuse of power. So, these groups are doing their best to ensure the election does not take place until Thaksin, bowing to pressure, announces that he will permanently exit the Thai political stage. http://http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Divide-sharpens-as-poll-run-up-officially-begins-30011834.html Senate to pick EC members in one day The Nation Published on September 8 2006 The Senate will today pick five election commissioners to manage the next general election http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Senate-to-pick-EC-members-in-one-day-30013089.html NEW ELECTION COMMISSION. Anti-Thaksin 3 lose out. The Nation Published on September 9th 2006 The five new EC members whose appointments require royal endorsement are Apichat Sukhakkanon Somchai Jungprasert Sumet Oupanisakorn Sodsri Satayathum and Prapan Naikowit The first four are judges while Prapan is a state attorney. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/-Anti-Thaksin-3-lose-out-30013205.html New EC 'unlikely to remove provincial officials before poll' The Nation Published on September 15th 2006 The five new election commissioners yesterday announced a series of goals that they wanted to achieve, but reorganising their provincial colleagues was not among them. The newly selected chairman of the Election Commission, Apichat Sukhaggananda, also said the EC is likely to postpone the date for the upcoming election by one month. The election had originally been scheduled for October 15. Apichat was yesterday unanimously voted EC chairman by his fellow commissioners. His appointment and those of the other commissioners require royal endorsement. In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/15/headlines/headlines_30013678.php Hopefully this chronology (by no means exhaustive, I could have included more sources, but easier to stick with one to aid understanding of the context of actions spoken about and taken) will help dispel some of the misconception out there. Do you actually read what you cut and paste? Last entry, 4 days before the coup, and EC has not yet received royal endorsement, and no firm date has been set for election, the earliest possible date being 2 months after the date of the coup. Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. So the election had been set, but there was very little chance of it being held on that date. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. So the election had been set, but there was very little chance of it being held on that date. Next. So Thaksin was still head of a caretaker government campaigning for the next election and a coup removed him. Which is very different to Volks version of events and is in fact backed by links. In fact it's very different from the usual BS of Thaksin had resigned and there was no upcoming election which is generally bandied about by those of you who supported the coup. Next. is your equivalent of ignoring facts that do not suit your viewpoint. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections. I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation... I'm afraid you're the one with the misinformation..... Chronology - Elections - (Originally scheduled for Oct.15th 2006) 30 days needed to replace EC: Suchon The Nation Published on July 27th 2006 The Senate would need at least 30 days to appoint election commissioners from nominees submitted by the Supreme Court, but it should not take more than 60 days because of the urgency, Senate Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua said yesterday........... ...............Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said no political parties would be involved in the EC selection process as the House of Representatives was not sitting............... .............. Outgoing Bangkok Senator Seree Suwanpanont believes the new EC members would be on board in time to conduct the October 15 general election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/27/politics/politics_30009700.php ELECTION COMMISSION Judges dominate nominees The Nation Published on August 3, 2006 Qualifications of 30 of 42 candidates verified already; vote on top 10 next Thursday A plenary meeting of 86 Supreme Court judges is scheduled for Thursday. The judges will vote on 10 nominees whose names will be submitted to the Senate. The Upper House will appoint five as election commissioners, subject to royal endorsement. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Judges-dominate-nominees-30010263.html Divide sharpens as poll run-up officially begins. The Nation Published on August 24th 2006 While the Royal Decree endorsing the next election comes into force today, giving all political parties the green light to kick off their campaigns, the ongoing political crisis seems likely to jeopardise the plan for the poll to be held on October 15. Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra insists he will lead his Thai Rak Thai Party into the election, but has not decided if he will seek to retain his prime ministerial position after the election. Anti-Thaksin groups believe he will return to the top post if Thai Rak Thai scores a landslide victory, a situation they cannot accept at all. They believe the premier will exploit the election results to claim legitimacy for holding onto power for a third term, despite having failed - in their eyes - to clear himself of allegations of corruption and abuse of power. So, these groups are doing their best to ensure the election does not take place until Thaksin, bowing to pressure, announces that he will permanently exit the Thai political stage. http://http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Divide-sharpens-as-poll-run-up-officially-begins-30011834.html Senate to pick EC members in one day The Nation Published on September 8 2006 The Senate will today pick five election commissioners to manage the next general election http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Senate-to-pick-EC-members-in-one-day-30013089.html NEW ELECTION COMMISSION. Anti-Thaksin 3 lose out. The Nation Published on September 9th 2006 The five new EC members whose appointments require royal endorsement are Apichat Sukhakkanon Somchai Jungprasert Sumet Oupanisakorn Sodsri Satayathum and Prapan Naikowit The first four are judges while Prapan is a state attorney. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/-Anti-Thaksin-3-lose-out-30013205.html New EC 'unlikely to remove provincial officials before poll' The Nation Published on September 15th 2006 The five new election commissioners yesterday announced a series of goals that they wanted to achieve, but reorganising their provincial colleagues was not among them. The newly selected chairman of the Election Commission, Apichat Sukhaggananda, also said the EC is likely to postpone the date for the upcoming election by one month. The election had originally been scheduled for October 15. Apichat was yesterday unanimously voted EC chairman by his fellow commissioners. His appointment and those of the other commissioners require royal endorsement. In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/15/headlines/headlines_30013678.php Hopefully this chronology (by no means exhaustive, I could have included more sources, but easier to stick with one to aid understanding of the context of actions spoken about and taken) will help dispel some of the misconception out there. Thanks - need to file that one ... repetition is the key to learning. But every other month there seems to be a need for instruction on TVF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 At the time of the coup new EC commissioners hadn't received royal endorsement yet and so had no official power to do anything. Regarding the election date the selected chairman proposed November 19 or 26: "In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said." http://www.nationmul...es_30013678.php Sonthi B. made his move just in time, the officially announced date of the new elections could have come in a few days, once the EC got royal endorsement and had a meeting no the matter. Or it could have dragged for weeks, as is not unusual in Thailand, plus the demands to replace the EC stuff on the ground could have forced the EC to ask for even more time and push the date deep into December. So you've conveniently forget that you accused me of being misinformed when you said Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections You're not only wrong on all of the above you're also wrong in stating that they didn't meet before the coup. They did on Thursday, September the 14th which is where that quote came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. Are you being deliberately being obtuse? There WAS an election planned for Oct15th but no way were the EC going to be ready for it, and it WAS going to be delayed. So <deleted> does it matter if it was previously royally endorsed WHEN IT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THEN? In fact. a later date had not yet been set, so an election would have happened some time between then and xmas if other problems hadn't arisen. And one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. Royal endorsement is not magic. An election was planned, and endorsed, but the EC was not prepared for that date. The EC were proposing a later date, somewhere between that statement and xmas depending on what other problems arose. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately or inadvertantly obtuse, you often are both when it suits your argument. New version of a double post. Edited May 31, 2012 by OzMick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. Royal endorsement is not magic. An election was planned, and endorsed, but the EC was not prepared for that date. The EC were proposing a later date, somewhere between that statement and xmas depending on what other problems arose. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately or inadvertantly obtuse, you often are both when it suits your argument. New version of a double post. As plain as day actually. There was an election planned for oct 15th. The new EC met to discuss a new date. The Chairperson of the new EC had suggested a date of November 19th or 26th which implies somewhat that they would be ready for it. The date itself doesn't matter, the real fact is that there was to be an election held. The very action of a Coup took away the democratic right of every eligible Thai to vote for their choice of MP and Party. The fact that the Junta were so incompetent in government that they held an election a year later(Sonthi said two weeks) is neither here nor there. They still rode roughshod over democracy. How hard is that to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volk666 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 <deleted>, the new EC Chairman clearly said that the date of the new elections hasn't been decided yet, thinking about November 19 or 26. In comments to the press, he backed away from the election's originally scheduled date. "In my view, the election should be either November 19 or 26. However, we will discuss the new date again," he said. Do you guys actually read what you post? What part of "backed away from originally scheduled date" do you not understand? What part of "should be either November 19 or 26" do you not understand? What part of "we will discuss the new date again" do you not understand? There was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes did you read the royally endorsed date of October 15th, and then the Nation piece wrt why the Thaksin opposition would wish to delay the election further. Volk and now you are telling me that no official date for an election had been made? What part of royally endorsed do you not understand. There was going to be an election on October 15th. For various reasons not all connected to anti thaksin supporters the date would have been put back but happen it would. You need to read the whole of the links if you wish to understand. Obviously it doesn't suit your viewpoint but those are the facts. Royal endorsement is not magic. An election was planned, and endorsed, but the EC was not prepared for that date. The EC were proposing a later date, somewhere between that statement and xmas depending on what other problems arose. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately or inadvertantly obtuse, you often are both when it suits your argument. New version of a double post. As plain as day actually. There was an election planned for oct 15th. The new EC met to discuss a new date. The Chairperson of the new EC had suggested a date of November 19th or 26th which implies somewhat that they would be ready for it. The date itself doesn't matter, the real fact is that there was to be an election held. The very action of a Coup took away the democratic right of every eligible Thai to vote for their choice of MP and Party. The fact that the Junta were so incompetent in government that they held an election a year later(Sonthi said two weeks) is neither here nor there. They still rode roughshod over democracy. How hard is that to understand? " How hard is that to understand? " Phiphidon, looks like it is not hard, ... it seems to be impossible. 'til next time... parachute opening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volk666 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The date itself doesn't matter, the real fact is that there was to be an election held. The very action of a Coup took away the democratic right of every eligible Thai to vote for their choice of MP and Party. That's not what you guys were singing earlier in this thread: "..there was that scheduled election.." - there wasn't. "..vote Thaksin and his party out at the Polls in the October Election.." - definitely not in October. "..good old fashioned election that had been announced.." - had NOT been announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now