Thaddeus Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution It wouldn't happen in the US because it is not in the US constitution. It does happen in Thailand because it IS in the Thai constitution. We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution. exactly but they are barred from even discussing it and, it looks like, supported by the majority of TVF posters - the same ones who predicted a Dem victory at the last elections? anyway whatever we debate here ain't going to stop the train which has well and truly 'left the station' Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555 good morning, that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected Evidence of overall election policy that is illegal? Using banned politicians in electoral advertising, putting forward as candidates persons facing serious criminal charges and ineligible candidates. BTW you have made a series of posts decrying the posting of a list of countries where political parties are banned, and then ask "Where else is this done?" Would you like the list re-posted, or should I refer you back to it? refer back - it was rhetorical dude - simply making the point that it isn't done anywhere in developed countries and someone thought they were being clever and posted a laughable list including a party disbanded because they were Nazis - no correlation Refer back - and post your laughable explanation of Nazis being baned in... South Korea Iraq Bhutan Brunei Turkey Russia Portugal Finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. well whatever posters disagreements no one wants a 'wreck' but it can't be avoided if we don't support the elected Parliament and stop some people 'interfering' and 'banning' and so forth (and yes I would argue the same if it were Dems) the country simply won't stomach it so i'm hoping the CC will see it that way tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 that's not fair - by supplying a list you are indicating support and you know it - if no support then don't get involved in that particular discussion right? there is no justification, in a civilized society, to ban whole parties UNLESS it is something like the Nazis etc. but I see no correlation (although some TVF posters seems to think there is). move on Plenty of us can see the ugly face of fascism ah they are fascist now? are you serious? someone else said communist? so which is it? you are seriously saying Yingluck is a fascist? Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 that's not fair - by supplying a list you are indicating support and you know it - if no support then don't get involved in that particular discussion right? there is no justification, in a civilized society, to ban whole parties UNLESS it is something like the Nazis etc. but I see no correlation (although some TVF posters seems to think there is). move on Plenty of us can see the ugly face of fascism ah they are fascist now? are you serious? someone else said communist? so which is it? you are seriously saying Yingluck is a fascist? Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. well whatever posters disagreements no one wants a 'wreck' but it can't be avoided if we don't support the elected Parliament and stop some people 'interfering' and 'banning' and so forth (and yes I would argue the same if it were Dems) the country simply won't stomach it so i'm hoping the CC will see it that way tomorrow. Are you suggesting that the CC judges should make a decision not based on law, but, at least, influenced by threats?Is this your idea of democracy, where one political party uses threats by its militia to influence the other pillars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiOats Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I'm not jumping in to defend anyone. I'm just curious about your views but I'll go ahead and give mine first. It's written in the constitution that "banning a political party" can be the consequence of malfeasance, so that makes it legal according to Thai laws. Banning a political party is no different from a 200 baht fine, 5000 baht fine, 10 years in prison or 1000 years in prison in terms of it being a penalty. It's controversial like the Death Sentence in which the extremity of the penalty is to keep people from doing wrong things although banning political parties IMHO is much less extreme. Imagine if you were neutral for a sec in which your favorite political party haven't suffered from this penalty, wouldn't you agree that it's an acceptable one? It's not taking lives of anyone and the ideal goal is to keep politicians from doing something they're not supposed to do. You even admit that "[you] support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves", so I ask you what's wrong and what's your alternative? It seems you're only against this because it goes against your bias. I would hope that the banning of political parties ensure that ALL members of the party have a clean slate. It is then the prerogative of the leader and the members to consistently check on each other and not let one get away with corruption. Of course there will be cheating and corruption and until someone gets caught red-handed, they won't suffer from the penalty. Now, when I say caught red-handed, I mean evidence which proves the party in question is going against the law, no matter how bias it may seem ie: Somchai's case. For example, if you want the Democrats dissolved, you better find something that will prove their malfeasance and not cry double standards if they haven't done anything (or caught doing) which is against the law that has party dissolution as a penalty. Now, have you watched the video I posted? To support the Red shirts, this is what you're supporting and you can see why there are many people who will oppose you. the Dems case was not heard and thrown out because 'someone' had not filed it correctly within the time frame - wow how convenient So you go on about how I provided no argument, no evidence, no this or that and you reply to my post with a one line speculation again. Do you understand Thai by the way? I'm not saying that you NEED to know Thai to understand the political situation, but it would help for you listen to what these people you support are saying. Listen to one of the Red Shirt rally and come back to me with just one point they've made, with evidence, and I'll debate you with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Edited July 12, 2012 by Moruya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiOats Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. The opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved? Please provide me a link where they've said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 - deleted - nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. The opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved? Please provide me a link where they've said that. It would only be too honest of them to say that ... but the Democrats knew very well when they presented this case that one of the possible actions of the courts in their ruling on this case would be dissolving the PTP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. Thaksin had his single party parliament and Thaksin spoke about unite all the parties. NOT Abhisit. While I am not a fan of Abhisit I never saw anything dictator like at him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Moruya, one can believe they understand the intentions of the UDD and claim that the UDD wants a single-party dictatorship modeled on either Mao, Stalin, pol pot, or in this case, Hitler, but that is hard to make stick on a group which formed in reaction to a military coup, has seen an elected government deposed by the courts and not by the ballot box, have protested for elections where their opposition protested for a another coup, and then finally, threw their support behind the party that won a landslide election victory one year ago. (btw, how did The Nation miss celebrating that anniversary ??). Yes, one-party state and dictatorship is the core message of the UDD... Makes perfect sense.... well, not actually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. The only people I see calling for the opposition to be destroyed are the reds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. well whatever posters disagreements no one wants a 'wreck' but it can't be avoided if we don't support the elected Parliament and stop some people 'interfering' and 'banning' and so forth (and yes I would argue the same if it were Dems) the country simply won't stomach it so i'm hoping the CC will see it that way tomorrow. Are you suggesting that the CC judges should make a decision not based on law, but, at least, influenced by threats?Is this your idea of democracy, where one political party uses threats by its militia to influence the other pillars? the law say's they can only receive complaints THROUGH the Attorney General - did you miss that one? this is to stop opposition parties USING the law to confound the democratically elected government you see the thing is, my dear friend, is you do not accept the choice of the people - well tough luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. The only people I see calling for the opposition to be destroyed are the reds. If court judges find that the amendment plans threaten the monarchy, it could lead to the dissolution of the party -- although would not necessitate Yingluck's departure -- risking a potential fresh wave of unrest in the volatile nation. The above is a quote from the OP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. well whatever posters disagreements no one wants a 'wreck' but it can't be avoided if we don't support the elected Parliament and stop some people 'interfering' and 'banning' and so forth (and yes I would argue the same if it were Dems) the country simply won't stomach it so i'm hoping the CC will see it that way tomorrow. Are you suggesting that the CC judges should make a decision not based on law, but, at least, influenced by threats?Is this your idea of democracy, where one political party uses threats by its militia to influence the other pillars? the law say's they can only receive complaints THROUGH the Attorney General - did you miss that one? this is to stop opposition parties USING the law to confound the democratically elected government you see the thing is, my dear friend, is you do not accept the choice of the people - well tough luck In some cases complains can be made direct. Through the Attorney General is meant so the court isn't flooded with nonsense. The law wasn't intended so the politicians only need to bribe or bully one person instead of several judges. Anyway off topic as the current government wasn't democratic elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 If court judges find that the amendment plans threaten the monarchy, it could lead to the dissolution of the party -- although would not necessitate Yingluck's departure -- risking a potential fresh wave of unrest in the volatile nation. The above is a quote from the OP. you see this is the crux of it - Thai's are not peasants any longer and will NOT tolerate being 'Lorded over' and I actually see this as a (longterm) positive for Thailand that they are finally 'waking up' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 nope Do the words "single party state" mean anything to you? Or Dictatorship? Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. The opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved? Please provide me a link where they've said that. http://www.thaivisa....ng-on-pm-party/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The above is a quote from the OP. And who have you heard calling for the destruction of a political party? Spit it out or butt out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. And the other 38 parties? Sent from my shoe phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Ya, the opposition party wants to have the ruling party dissolved so they can have a single party state or an Abhsit dictatorship as it were. So If one reads the OP that is what this whole thing is about. The loyal opposition is loyal unto itself and wants only one party. Astute post Mr. Moruya. And the other 38 parties? Sent from my shoe phone Did not bring the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The above is a quote from the OP. And who have you heard calling for the destruction of a political party? Spit it out or butt out "If court judges find that the amendment plans threaten the monarchy, it could lead to the dissolution of the party -- although would not necessitate Yingluck's departure -- risking a potential fresh wave of unrest in the volatile nation." That quote is from the OP. OP means original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The above is a quote from the OP. And who have you heard calling for the destruction of a political party? Spit it out or butt out "If court judges find that the amendment plans threaten the monarchy, it could lead to the dissolution of the party -- although would not necessitate Yingluck's departure -- risking a potential fresh wave of unrest in the volatile nation." That quote is from the OP. OP means original post. You said that the opposition party wanted to have the ruling party dissolved. Stop wriggling and justify your words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 that's not fair - by supplying a list you are indicating support and you know it - if no support then don't get involved in that particular discussion right? there is no justification, in a civilized society, to ban whole parties UNLESS it is something like the Nazis etc. but I see no correlation (although some TVF posters seems to think there is). move on Plenty of us can see the ugly face of fascism ah they are fascist now? are you serious? someone else said communist? so which is it? you are seriously saying Yingluck is a fascist? Don't try twisting my words. You don't think that the behaviour that we are seeing from the Red Shirts is not fascist in nature? Exactly there are fascist factions, and old school communist factions that have no problem riding those coattails to their dream of power. To not see that is happening is delusional. Democracy is barely more than a tool to power as a catchphrase, not a viable working concept here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The above is a quote from the OP. And who have you heard calling for the destruction of a political party? Spit it out or butt out "If court judges find that the amendment plans threaten the monarchy, it could lead to the dissolution of the party -- although would not necessitate Yingluck's departure -- risking a potential fresh wave of unrest in the volatile nation." That quote is from the OP. OP means original post. You said that the opposition party wanted to have the ruling party dissolved. Stop wriggling and justify your words I don't know what is your problem. It could lead to the dissolution ot the party. Dissolved and dissolution are about the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Add the word 'wreck' to increase the accuracy of that post. well whatever posters disagreements no one wants a 'wreck' but it can't be avoided if we don't support the elected Parliament and stop some people 'interfering' and 'banning' and so forth (and yes I would argue the same if it were Dems) the country simply won't stomach it so i'm hoping the CC will see it that way tomorrow. Are you suggesting that the CC judges should make a decision not based on law, but, at least, influenced by threats?Is this your idea of democracy, where one political party uses threats by its militia to influence the other pillars? the law say's they can only receive complaints THROUGH the Attorney General - did you miss that one? this is to stop opposition parties USING the law to confound the democratically elected government you see the thing is, my dear friend, is you do not accept the choice of the people - well tough luck In some cases complains can be made direct. Through the Attorney General is meant so the court isn't flooded with nonsense. The law wasn't intended so the politicians only need to bribe or bully one person instead of several judges. Anyway off topic as the current government wasn't democratic elected. "Anyway off topic as the current government wasn't democratic elected." ?? One year ago as I recall. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/569115-red-shirt-leader-korkaew-warns-of-civil-war-if-court-rules-against-amendments/page__view__findpost__p__5476900 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I don't know what is your problem. It could lead to the dissolution ot the party. Dissolved and dissolution are about the same thing. But that isn't "the opposition calling for ..." is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I don't know what is your problem. It could lead to the dissolution ot the party. Dissolved and dissolution are about the same thing. Having problems understanding today? Red Shirts want to destroy the Democrats. It's an attributable fact. Where did the Dems say that they wanted to destroy the opposition? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I don't know what is your problem. It could lead to the dissolution ot the party. Dissolved and dissolution are about the same thing. But that isn't "the opposition calling for ..." is it? You're kidding right? 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