Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

With your anathema to "unelected elites" and H6's frantic endorsement of anyone elected, I hope that you would both agree that their is no place in democracy for appointed party list candidates. This system is used, especially by PTP, to appoint elites, the unpalatable and those facing criminal charges without facing the enlightening of campaigning, facing questions on ethics and morality, and without the endorsement of an electorate.

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

You seem to misunderstand me - I have never "blamed" anybody for the party list system, only stated that to me it is undemocratic and open to corruption. PTP has taken this abuse to previously unheard of levels with the nomination of their mercenary thugs, both as a reward and to assist in perverting the course of justice.

Corruption? Is it this years buzzword or something?

Pick a subject that involves the PTP and I can almost guarantee that one of the majority on this forum would get the word corruption in somewhere - and now the party list. Perhaps we need a check and balance for the party list - Oh look there is. It's called the Election Commission.

These people have allowed the nomination of mercenary thugs both as a reward and to assist in perverting the course of justice, have they? In what particular way has this happened, you must have specifics in mind? Or is it just a typical mind rant transmitted to paper as soon as you hear the letters PTP or UDD?

Any thoughts on the democrat MP charged with premeditated murder who is still an MP? Personally thinking I would be more worried by a thug like that than one of your traditional bete noirs.

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

I bow to your knowledge and apologise. I was wrong. You don't seem to see that statement on here very often. Another way in which the " two sides " differ on this forum.

I could have done a "whybother" and explained that actually we were both wrong - the constitution of 1933 stated there would be 78 directly elected MP's and 78 more selected by the elected MP's, a precursor to the "party list" but I won't bother and will not enter into further discussion on it as it would derail the thread.

My reply to ozmick and his "thugs" rant still stands regardless of the date of the start of party lists as he states it is only one side that abuses the party list , of course he would say that.

Muttley,

I admire your stamina in arguing against the majority in this forum. Their continual tendency to state their opinions as fact shows that they have studied Orwell and taken the art of repeating lies until they are accepted as the truth to heart. They have worn me down. With so many minds clearly closed and poised only to refute alternate viewpoints, it is a fatiguing exercise.

I ahve found a way to know when your post makes a sucessful point: They ignore it and do not post a reply because they really don't have a reasonable argument (even by their twisted standars of reason). Uh, oh! I guess that was off-topic. Time to supress me.

Thanks for fact-checking these sort of revisionists that flat out misstate the truth.

.

haha, you have a cheek lol.

Feel free to cite any similar flat out misstatements of truth I've posted.

In the meantime...while we wait...

http://www.thaivisa....d/#entry5979735

.

By the way, the statement

"Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?"

is true. I was wrong about the junta and the date.

I think you know two things but you certainly won't admit one of them.

With 13000 odd posts there is a good chance that you may have made a "simple flat out mistatements of truth"

With 13000 odd posts nobody is going to bother or care to check.

Oh there is a third thing, rather than a "simple flat out mistatements of truth", I made whats called a mistake, and apologised for it. Something you probably have never done - either of them.

I bow to your knowledge and apologise. I was wrong. You don't seem to see that statement on here very often. Another way in which the " two sides " differ on this forum.

I could have done a "whybother" and explained that actually we were both wrong - the constitution of 1933 stated there would be 78 directly elected MP's and 78 more selected by the elected MP's, a precursor to the "party list" but I won't bother and will not enter into further discussion on it as it would derail the thread.

My reply to ozmick and his "thugs" rant still stands regardless of the date of the start of party lists as he states it is only one side that abuses the party list , of course he would say that.

Apology accepted.

A "precursor" doesn't mean it "existed". According to wiki, the party list system was an "innovation" in the 1997 constitution, which would imply that it wasn't used prior to that.

I'm not getting into the "how it's used" argument. It is used to make sure the "important people" get voted in. Australia uses the method of putting "important people" in "safe seats" to make sure they get elected, although a previous PM (John Howard) lost his "safe seat" in an election a couple of years ago. It probably saved a by-election, since he would have retired anyway as his party lost government.

Another interesting thread trashed Buchholz

Buchholz

You were repeatedly posting that they made a brand new position for Yingluck at her previous company. You were pulled up on it, and proven wrong and you whinged that you were just quoting someone else. You know this, but i expect you will deny it.

some squabbling and fighting posts have been removed, also some quoted replies, please stop it guys.