'Crisis Looms If Yingluck Won't Act'

[Moruya]

And they call themselves democrats? Go to the US and try to close a session of congress because you don't like the laws they are debating.

But the point is that nobody was being allowed to debate the laws. As far as I am concerned, in order to protect the democratic process, the opposition had no choice but to disrupt parliament. The speaker had basically decided he was bored with the whole thing and that his own party should not have to debate anymore and tried to close the house down. Considering the content of the bills that was a very unwise thing to do. I sometimes wonder where people like yourselves are getting your information from. Do you actually read any Thai newspapers, or is it just snippets of 'News from abroad' in 'The Enquirer'? The real story of what has happened in the house of Parliament is well reported and readily available, so why don't you check it out before making ill informed posts.

When it comes to ungentlemanly, thugish, immature behaviour by politicians, few can compete with British Politicians when the House is in full swing on a contentious debate. We have a parliamentary process which resembles nothing more than a kindergarten when it gets going. The Thai opposition were entirely correct to cause the disruption that they did, however shocking it was for the normally placid Thais. Anyone on here of foreign nationality that reads the contents of the reconciliation bill and sees it as anything other than what it is, a bill to pardon criminals who hold political appointments, needs their heads testing. We should be grateful that a 'breather' has been obtained by a group of politicians that were driven to the point of severe protest by a Government that consider that because they have a mandate they can change the law to suit themselves personally whilst doing nothing at all for their people.

And your thoughts on the charter change bill required to form a CDA? Was the dems decision to brand that as a threat to overthrow the head of state a normal reaction to defending democracy in parliament?

They are trying to dispose of the CDA and replace it with a parliamentary vote, right?

[phiphidon]

Let me help the MP to make his statement much more realistic and yet not any less undesirable.

He said if the charter amendment bill was passed, Thai democracy would turn into dictatorial rule similar to that of Germany's Adolf Hitler Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos.

No, still not relevant other than a "normal" Dem MP reaction to the charter ammendment bill.

You do realise that this bill is to amend the constitution so that a Constitution Drafting Assembley can be formed. How do you (and obviously the dem mp) feel that this act would bring about the result that

"Thai democracy would turn into dictatorial rule similar to that of Germany's Adolf Hitler Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos."

So much so that your party would complain to the CC that it would overthow the Head of State - do you really think this is a rational response?

Perhaps the Dem MP is knowledgable about how Marcos, while in power, subjugated the Philippines with his own version of the CDA in order to change to a new constitution in order to get things his own way and change the form of government. If he's not, I am.

Marcos offered the Constitutional Convention of 1971 as a way of allaying the violent contradictions in Philippine society. But Marcos really intended to bribe and capture it; to use it to legitimize a fascist dictatorship and prolong his rule.

The progressive sectors and the opposition, however, exposed and opposed Marcos’s schemes to bribe and influence the 1971 convention. Marcos then resorted to terrorist tactics. To lay the basis for his power grab, Marcos engineered a series of bombing incidents and blamed them on the communists.

Marcos declared martial law in 1972. He imposed his own Marcos constitution in 1973 and jailed all those who opposed it and refused to sign.

Through the 1973 constitution, expanded supreme executive, legislative and judicial authority was grabbed by Marcos. He did away with the democratic rights, institutions, and processes created by the 1935 constitution. He held rigged voting exercises, calling them citizens’ assemblies, referenda, plebiscites and elections.

http://www2.pslweb.o...ws_iv_ctrl=1041

And you see all this as a consequence of the charter change bill, oh well.

[phiphidon]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

No - that was Thaksin.

Keep up!!!

To keep things real, it was actually Suthep who authorised the use of live rounds as head of CRES.........

[phiphidon]

And they call themselves democrats? Go to the US and try to close a session of congress because you don't like the laws they are debating.

But the point is that nobody was being allowed to debate the laws. As far as I am concerned, in order to protect the democratic process, the opposition had no choice but to disrupt parliament. The speaker had basically decided he was bored with the whole thing and that his own party should not have to debate anymore and tried to close the house down. Considering the content of the bills that was a very unwise thing to do. I sometimes wonder where people like yourselves are getting your information from. Do you actually read any Thai newspapers, or is it just snippets of 'News from abroad' in 'The Enquirer'? The real story of what has happened in the house of Parliament is well reported and readily available, so why don't you check it out before making ill informed posts.

When it comes to ungentlemanly, thugish, immature behaviour by politicians, few can compete with British Politicians when the House is in full swing on a contentious debate. We have a parliamentary process which resembles nothing more than a kindergarten when it gets going. The Thai opposition were entirely correct to cause the disruption that they did, however shocking it was for the normally placid Thais. Anyone on here of foreign nationality that reads the contents of the reconciliation bill and sees it as anything other than what it is, a bill to pardon criminals who hold political appointments, needs their heads testing. We should be grateful that a 'breather' has been obtained by a group of politicians that were driven to the point of severe protest by a Government that consider that because they have a mandate they can change the law to suit themselves personally whilst doing nothing at all for their people.

And your thoughts on the charter change bill required to form a CDA? Was the dems decision to brand that as a threat to overthrow the head of state a normal reaction to defending democracy in parliament?

They are trying to dispose of the CDA and replace it with a parliamentary vote, right?

Wrong, very, very wrong

Edited June 11, 2012 by phiphidon

[Thaddeus]

They are trying to dispose of the CDA and replace it with a parliamentary vote, right?

Wrong, very, very wrong

I sincerely hope that you are right about that Don.

But part of me also thinks that we should never have to find out if you are right or not.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Thaddeus

[carra]

"At least then she doesn't need the help of soldiers to get into parliament"

Sorry Rubl just had to laugh out loud, as the yoof say, at the above statement, - should the rest of the sentence read

Unlike another party leader we can think of................................

Two days ago PM Yingluck had some soldiers for her protection when at parliament house. Please tell me when another party leader PM had an escort of soldiers in a similar way at the same location. Just to make it easier for you I do not require that at the time red-shirts were camping outside

Looking forward to having my memory refreshed

I'm looking forward to you having your sense of humour restored, but having said nasty things about your nice gentleman I won't hold my breath.

i think he forgets abhsist living in an army barracks while his army was on the streets shooting people.

i guess the current PM needs this protection from the yellow shirts, speaks volumes about both sides really, I repeat again, both sides are as bad as each other.

[Thaddeus]

"At least then she doesn't need the help of soldiers to get into parliament"

Sorry Rubl just had to laugh out loud, as the yoof say, at the above statement, - should the rest of the sentence read

Unlike another party leader we can think of................................

Two days ago PM Yingluck had some soldiers for her protection when at parliament house. Please tell me when another party leader PM had an escort of soldiers in a similar way at the same location. Just to make it easier for you I do not require that at the time red-shirts were camping outside

Looking forward to having my memory refreshed

I'm looking forward to you having your sense of humour restored, but having said nasty things about your nice gentleman I won't hold my breath.

i think he forgets abhsist living in an army barracks while his army was on the streets shooting people.

The whole point being, right now, there is no one on the streets shooting people.

[Buchholz]

i guess the current PM needs this protection from the yellow shirts, speaks volumes about both sides really, I repeat again, both sides are as bad as each other.

And to repeat again, no, they are not.

.

[OzMick]

i think he forgets abhsist living in an army barracks while his army was on the streets shooting people.

i guess the current PM needs this protection from the yellow shirts, speaks volumes about both sides really, I repeat again, both sides are as bad as each other.

I guess you don't see the irony in this. Abhisit is forced to move into RTA barracks because so-called "peaceful protesters" are rampaging in Bankok, people are actually dying at the hands of protesters.

2 years later, Yingluk is walking around with a military bodyguard before as much as a punch has been thrown, and the protesters outside parliament are ostensibly there to support her government.

[GentlemanJim]

And they call themselves democrats? Go to the US and try to close a session of congress because you don't like the laws they are debating.

But the point is that nobody was being allowed to debate the laws. As far as I am concerned, in order to protect the democratic process, the opposition had no choice but to disrupt parliament. The speaker had basically decided he was bored with the whole thing and that his own party should not have to debate anymore and tried to close the house down. Considering the content of the bills that was a very unwise thing to do. I sometimes wonder where people like yourselves are getting your information from. Do you actually read any Thai newspapers, or is it just snippets of 'News from abroad' in 'The Enquirer'? The real story of what has happened in the house of Parliament is well reported and readily available, so why don't you check it out before making ill informed posts.

When it comes to ungentlemanly, thugish, immature behaviour by politicians, few can compete with British Politicians when the House is in full swing on a contentious debate. We have a parliamentary process which resembles nothing more than a kindergarten when it gets going. The Thai opposition were entirely correct to cause the disruption that they did, however shocking it was for the normally placid Thais. Anyone on here of foreign nationality that reads the contents of the reconciliation bill and sees it as anything other than what it is, a bill to pardon criminals who hold political appointments, needs their heads testing. We should be grateful that a 'breather' has been obtained by a group of politicians that were driven to the point of severe protest by a Government that consider that because they have a mandate they can change the law to suit themselves personally whilst doing nothing at all for their people.

And your thoughts on the charter change bill required to form a CDA? Was the dems decision to brand that as a threat to overthrow the head of state a normal reaction to defending democracy in parliament?

Perfectly acceptable if the MP's were being forbidden the opportunity to debate this more than slightly important subject. A non violent screaming match in Parliament - happens often in the UK. I would rather see that method used for the defence of Democracy, than the method used by the Reds, who thought it acceptable to burn down buildings in Bangkok and instigate violence of such a level that it led to the deaths of 91 people, mostly their own. Give me a slagging match in Parliament any day.

[GentlemanJim]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

[tlansford]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

[GentlemanJim]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Well if that was my counterpoint I would have said so wouldn't I? Perhaps it is because you do not see the relevance in the level of red violence and thuggish crowd behaviour and quite appalling behaviour by 'red leaders' in inciting murderous activity, that you will never change your viewpoint from your current unswerving loyalty towards a red fugitive criminal and his mafiosa like gang.

[gand]

Put all the perps of all criminal acts on trial, regardless of whom they are.

Where there is no justice, there is anarchy. When there are no consequences, things only get worse.

[ginjag]

Tiansford, why on earth when countering a comment about this government and it's antics, do you love to comment about Abhisit, It amazes me how you can compare him to this load of useless rubbish-and it's history. An elected P.M. that's not interested in her work, only as a poor public relations officer, side stepping most of her responsibilities. How many times have you condemmed PTP-T.S.interference or red shirt leaders, you seem to condone them. What is your problem ?? you have you say-but be a bit more fair my chappie.

[tlansford]

- deleted : quote limited reached -

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Well if that was my counterpoint I would have said so wouldn't I? Perhaps it is because you do not see the relevance in the level of red violence and thuggish crowd behaviour and quite appalling behaviour by 'red leaders' in inciting murderous activity, that you will never change your viewpoint from your current unswerving loyalty towards a red fugitive criminal and his mafiosa like gang.

Well that seemed to have been your counter point as it was what you wrote in reply - n'est-ce pas?

And if Abhisit is addressing people over the current issues, then no, I don't see the relevance of your grenade comments.

I have no loyalties, and I have never condoned the violence by any party involved.

I am just not blindly biased against only one side.

[tlansford]

Tiansford, why on earth when countering a comment about this government and it's antics, do you love to comment about Abhisit, It amazes me how you can compare him to this load of useless rubbish-and it's history. An elected P.M. that's not interested in her work, only as a poor public relations officer, side stepping most of her responsibilities. How many times have you condemmed PTP-T.S.interference or red shirt leaders, you seem to condone them. What is your problem ?? you have you say-but be a bit more fair my chappie.

I don't know, maybe it was just because Abhisit was the topic of G-Jim's post.

btw, read my reply to him - I don't condone the violence by any side and I never have... unlike many, many, many posters on TVF.

[GentlemanJim]

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Well if that was my counterpoint I would have said so wouldn't I? Perhaps it is because you do not see the relevance in the level of red violence and thuggish crowd behaviour and quite appalling behaviour by 'red leaders' in inciting murderous activity, that you will never change your viewpoint from your current unswerving loyalty towards a red fugitive criminal and his mafiosa like gang.

Well that seemed to have been your counter point as it was what you wrote in reply - n'est-ce pas?

And if Abhisit is addressing people over the current issues, then no, I don't see the relevance of your grenade comments.

I have no loyalties, and I have never condoned the violence by any party involved.

I am just not blindly biased against only one side.

We must somehow be talking to Tim from one of the other parallel universes then, because that statement above does not in any way or shape apply to the Tim we normally communicate with on TV in this universe. Stick around it will be fun chatting with the alter ego of our Tim.

[gand]

'Crisis Looms If Yingluck Won't Act'

Must be a rhetorical question.

[AleG]

i think he forgets abhsist living in an army barracks while his army was on the streets shooting people.

i guess the current PM needs this protection from the yellow shirts, speaks volumes about both sides really, I repeat again, both sides are as bad as each other.

I guess you don't see the irony in this. Abhisit is forced to move into RTA barracks because so-called "peaceful protesters" are rampaging in Bankok, people are actually dying at the hands of protesters.

2 years later, Yingluk is walking around with a military bodyguard before as much as a punch has been thrown, and the protesters outside parliament are ostensibly there to support her government.

Not to mention quite explicit calls from Red Shirts to murder Abhisit (and others)

Please, carra, show us were Yellow Shirts are using death threats against Yingluck.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Well if that was my counterpoint I would have said so wouldn't I? Perhaps it is because you do not see the relevance in the level of red violence and thuggish crowd behaviour and quite appalling behaviour by 'red leaders' in inciting murderous activity, that you will never change your viewpoint from your current unswerving loyalty towards a red fugitive criminal and his mafiosa like gang.

Well that seemed to have been your counter point as it was what you wrote in reply - n'est-ce pas?

And if Abhisit is addressing people over the current issues, then no, I don't see the relevance of your grenade comments.

I have no loyalties, and I have never condoned the violence by any party involved.

I am just not blindly biased against only one side.

We must somehow be talking to Tim from one of the other parallel universes then, because that statement above does not in any way or shape apply to the Tim we normally communicate with on TV in this universe. Stick around it will be fun chatting with the alter ego of our Tim.

no problem big jim. with all the one-sided venom posted here, reasonable criticisms of the UDD or the PTP get lost in the noise.

[GentlemanJim]

Well if that was my counterpoint I would have said so wouldn't I? Perhaps it is because you do not see the relevance in the level of red violence and thuggish crowd behaviour and quite appalling behaviour by 'red leaders' in inciting murderous activity, that you will never change your viewpoint from your current unswerving loyalty towards a red fugitive criminal and his mafiosa like gang.

Well that seemed to have been your counter point as it was what you wrote in reply - n'est-ce pas?

And if Abhisit is addressing people over the current issues, then no, I don't see the relevance of your grenade comments.

I have no loyalties, and I have never condoned the violence by any party involved.

I am just not blindly biased against only one side.

We must somehow be talking to Tim from one of the other parallel universes then, because that statement above does not in any way or shape apply to the Tim we normally communicate with on TV in this universe. Stick around it will be fun chatting with the alter ego of our Tim.

no problem big jim. with all the one-sided venom posted here, reasonable criticisms of the UDD or the PTP get lost in the noise.

Ooooh 'big Jim' ! are you one of those cowboy chaps that wears a big hat. Can you really fit 10 gallons in it?

[hellodolly]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Do you find it relevant that they were there illegally with weapons with no thought for the honest hard working citizens that were unable to earn their wages. And they refused to move. Or after make a deal they backed out of it.

For crying out loud It all started with them setting themselves above the law.

[tlansford]

-- just had to delete GJ's original comment due to quote limits. Please refer to earlier posts --

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

Well as nobody in the crowd was throwing grenades, burning tyres, invading hospitals, using RPG's and small arms fire,or threatening to murder soldiers then yes, you are absolutely correct, there was no need for soldiers anywhere near the vicinity, even to be armed with jello sticks, let alone live rounds.

If your counter point is "who shot first", then the answer to that has been documented already.

I just don't find it relevant at all.

Do you find it relevant that they were there illegally with weapons with no thought for the honest hard working citizens that were unable to earn their wages. And they refused to move. Or after make a deal they backed out of it.

For crying out loud It all started with them setting themselves above the law.

GentlemanJim was talkng about Abhisit speaking on TV this week and referred to / connected it to the 2010 violence from the UDD.

That just struck me as one-sided but not-connected, that's all. It's not about starting a tangent. Sorry for the disturbance, guys.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Well that seemed to have been your counter point as it was what you wrote in reply - n'est-ce pas?

And if Abhisit is addressing people over the current issues, then no, I don't see the relevance of your grenade comments.

I have no loyalties, and I have never condoned the violence by any party involved.

I am just not blindly biased against only one side.

We must somehow be talking to Tim from one of the other parallel universes then, because that statement above does not in any way or shape apply to the Tim we normally communicate with on TV in this universe. Stick around it will be fun chatting with the alter ego of our Tim.

no problem big jim. with all the one-sided venom posted here, reasonable criticisms of the UDD or the PTP get lost in the noise.

Ooooh 'big Jim' ! are you one of those cowboy chaps that wears a big hat. Can you really fit 10 gallons in it?

Excuse me sir, I'll revert to using your correct alias - pleeeease don't report me

(the 'rents came from Texas, but I never did...)

[Thaddeus]

no problem big jim. with all the one-sided venom posted here, reasonable criticisms of the UDD or the PTP get lost in the noise.

With all due respect, and no prejudice aforethought, have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a chance that you are misguided or blinded by the spectacular display of Shin arrogance and feel happy playing in the surf they leave behind them.

Do you live with these people that the Shins claim they are fighting for, no you don't, you've probably never spent more than 24 hours with them, if you have, I would love to see some pics, got any?

[Skywalker69]

no problem big jim. with all the one-sided venom posted here, reasonable criticisms of the UDD or the PTP get lost in the noise.

With all due respect, and no prejudice aforethought, have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a chance that you are misguided or blinded by the spectacular display of Shin arrogance and feel happy playing in the surf they leave behind them.

Do you live with these people that the Shins claim they are fighting for, no you don't, you've probably never spent more than 24 hours with them, if you have, I would love to see some pics, got any?

[Moruya]

Abhisit is on stage now giving a good speech to a calm peaceful crowd in BKK.

In 35 mins so far I have not heard him ask anyone to burn any part of Bangkok or to go out and kill soldiers. He has not asked anyone to bring a liter of fuel each, nor has he suggested they all throw blood and excrement on Yinglucks gate and driveway.

in the same level of relevance as your comments, I am guessing he didn't authorize live rounds, either.

No - that was Thaksin.

Keep up!!!

To keep things real, it was actually Suthep who authorised the use of live rounds as head of CRES.........

Who fired first?

Who turned a "peaceful" demonstration into a war zone?

[Moruya]

Wrong, very, very wrong

We shall see.

[gemini81]

Tiansford, why on earth when countering a comment about this government and it's antics, do you love to comment about Abhisit, It amazes me how you can compare him to this load of useless rubbish-and it's history. An elected P.M. that's not interested in her work, only as a poor public relations officer, side stepping most of her responsibilities. How many times have you condemmed PTP-T.S.interference or red shirt leaders, you seem to condone them. What is your problem ?? you have you say-but be a bit more fair my chappie.

He thinks she has a good fashion sense in those mulberries on a plank above the heads of others drenched in sewage below with not a passing thought of getting her hands dirty.

Edited June 12, 2012 by gemini81