473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) You completely miss the point. They look to Thaksin because he in effect has there written letters of resignation in his pocket. They are not as stupid as you would have us believe. Abhist is an experienced Politician does she look for advice from him. He has far more experience He had to rule while satisfying many different supporters and fight off terrorists. She has no such complications. "Abhisit is an experienced politician does she look for advice from him".........well not on how to win an election I would think......but did she not invite him to assist with the problems of the south as I recall. Edited February 2, 2013 by 473geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 The OP has - Ms. Yinluck firm on being genuine PM and she rules the country with her cabinet ==> Correct, at least 'de jure' and the PM/cabinet are supposed to run the country. - Opinion polls 'leadership and recognition increased' ==> an observation, not a confirmation or denial - 'I have succesfully proved myself' ==> an observation, not a confirmation or denial - "I can't stop people's thinking but I believe lots of people are fair to me. What a working person wants is moral support." ==> opinion or observation. Still no confirmation or denial - She described as groundless the report which said Mr Thaksin participated in some cabinet meetings and ordered ministers through Skype, saying the cabinet conferences are off limits to telephones. ==> groundless is not the same as a denial. No phones, but all use notebooks with 'instant messenger'? 'Thaksin has phoned-in before, that has been confirmed. - NYT The article said "the day-to-day governance of the country is carried out by Ms Yingluck, who is genial, photogenic and 18 years younger than Mr. Thaksin. She cuts the ribbons and makes the speeches." ==> Thaksin thinks, Ms. Yingluck and cabinet act' Conclusion: no denial that Thaksin controls and PM/cabinet run the daily business for him. In this it is totally irrelevant that Thaksin is a fugitive convict. He gives the orders and the others do. Welcome to Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown? Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown? Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown? Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations....... Probably because those questions cannot be asked on this forum, nor any other media in Thailand. But it does not absolve Thaksin from his (not necessarily sole) complicity. Nor does it explain how a smart accountant would have made any difference to the assets concealment case. Unless of course you have better information than the rest of us. Please feel free to expand, if that is the case. Edited February 2, 2013 by jackspratt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown? Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations....... Probably because those questions cannot be asked on this forum, nor any other media in Thailand. But it does not absolve Thaksin from his (not necessarily sole) complicity. Nor does it explain how a smart accountant would have made any difference to the assets concealment case. Unless of course you have better information than the rest of us. Please feel free to expand, if that is the case. Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Thank you, Mick a fair observation, in response I believe people are not proved guilty until they have their day in court, not just Thaksin, I believe the court will decide the culpability of Abhisit in the protest deaths, but until a decision is delivered by the court he should be allowed to continue with his poitical career as an innocent man. Although I have less faith in the "law" than I used to, I also believe in being innocent until proven guilty. Having said that, rightly or wrongly, he has ALREADY been convicted lol . . . and I believe he would/will be convicted of many more when/if he returns. If he was innocent, why isn't he here fighting to prove it? Why did he run? Why is he able to run the country remotely when he himself was not elected? A common misunderstanding. It makes no difference what a court says if a person is guilty he is guilty if a person is innocent he is innocent no matter what a court says Ask O J Simpson a court of law said he was innocent. A civil court saw it differently. he paid It is only in the eyes of the law and the gulable that a man is innocent until proven guilty. And you're trying to say what? That because Thaksin thinks he is innocent he shouldn't go to jail? (Where's Judge Dredd when you need him) Please reread the post I am saying it dosen't matter what a court says. If he did the crime he is guilty just because a court says he is innocent dosen't make him so. He is still guilty no matter what a court says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Off topic bickering/squabbling posts have been removed. Another post has been removed as the reply was made within the quoted with different colored fonts. This is not allowed as per rule #30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You completely miss the point. They look to Thaksin because he in effect has there written letters of resignation in his pocket. They are not as stupid as you would have us believe. Abhist is an experienced Politician does she look for advice from him. He has far more experience He had to rule while satisfying many different supporters and fight off terrorists. She has no such complications. "Abhisit is an experienced politician does she look for advice from him".........well not on how to win an election I would think......but did she not invite him to assist with the problems of the south as I recall. Well she is not a complete dumb Dora. She knew her brother was an inept bungling fool when it came to the south. Interesting she came to Abhist first be for turning it over to the three month ear medicine miracle worker. Ask your self would you have chose his advice over Abhist. She did the next to the door --------Dora thing fill in the word yourself. If Abhist had given her the secret she was seeking (how to solve the problem and take all the credit she would have listened to him) She would have been right on that. But he was honest with her and told her the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring. Let's simplify things - one step at a time. What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown? Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations....... Human rights don't apply if you are a red shirt or a supporter of them. Example red shirts invade hospital what was the punishment for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant..... Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold. How would Thai history read now, I wonder. You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations....... Probably because those questions cannot be asked on this forum, nor any other media in Thailand. But it does not absolve Thaksin from his (not necessarily sole) complicity. Nor does it explain how a smart accountant would have made any difference to the assets concealment case. Unless of course you have better information than the rest of us. Please feel free to expand, if that is the case. Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 " (Yingluck) She described as groundless the report which said Mr Thaksin participated in some cabinet meetings and ordered ministers through Skype, saying the cabinet conferences are off limits to telephones. (MCOT online news)" OMB pants on fire............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring. Let's simplify things - one step at a time. What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question? Didn't he thank the government for being kind enough to give him back 30 billion baht? Mustn't have been as serious as they first thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring. Let's simplify things - one step at a time. What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question? Didn't he thank the government for being kind enough to give him back 30 billion baht? Mustn't have been as serious as they first thought Do you mean this case? This is not the first time that Thailand's beleaguered PM has faced judgement from the court, nor may it be the last. In 2001 the court acquitted Thaksin by an even closer 8-7 vote. The charge in that case was concealment of assets. Or this case? Thailand's highest court has ruled that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra concealed his assets while in office and abused his power for personal gain, and ordered the seizure of 46bn baht (£923m) of his £1.5bn in frozen assets. The supreme court ruled today that "to seize all the money would be unfair since some of it was made before Thaksin became prime minister" Or maybe you are quoting Thaksin? Thaksin said to his supporters as ”he had 84,000 billion baht before entered to political sphere and Thieves (Court) stole his money” but if compared the officail data of National Anti Corruption Committee (NACC) which all thai politicians must delear asset to NACC before/after be minister. it’s not times when Thaksin and family had money nearly 84,000 billions. Edited February 2, 2013 by waza 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Nuremberg Dolly, read about it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post notmyself Posted February 2, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Edited February 2, 2013 by notmyself 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Nuremberg Dolly, read about it...... clumsy dodge. that is probably why you think so highly of the present PM and his sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Nuremberg Dolly, read about it...... clumsy dodge. that is probably why you think so highly of the present PM and his sister. What is dolly you haven,t even tried to join the dots......whhhoooooooooooooooooooooooossssshhhhhhhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Nuremberg Dolly, read about it...... clumsy dodge. that is probably why you think so highly of the present PM and his sister. What is dolly you haven,t even tried to join the dots......whhhoooooooooooooooooooooooossssshhhhhhhhhhhhh What dots? ..... there's only one dot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 " (Yingluck) She described as groundless the report which said Mr Thaksin participated in some cabinet meetings and ordered ministers through Skype, saying the cabinet conferences are off limits to telephones. (MCOT online news)" OMB pants on fire............. A much expected and thus not altogether surprising proof of yet another Yingluck lie to go in tandem with her lie that she is the real PM. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackspratt Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be? I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring. Let's simplify things - one step at a time. What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question? Didn't he thank the government for being kind enough to give him back 30 billion baht? Mustn't have been as serious as they first thought Do you mean this case? This is not the first time that Thailand's beleaguered PM has faced judgement from the court, nor may it be the last. In 2001 the court acquitted Thaksin by an even closer 8-7 vote. The charge in that case was concealment of assets. Or this case? Thailand's highest court has ruled that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra concealed his assets while in office and abused his power for personal gain, and ordered the seizure of 46bn baht (£923m) of his £1.5bn in frozen assets. The supreme court ruled today that "to seize all the money would be unfair since some of it was made before Thaksin became prime minister" The earlier case. But really, I am looking for 473's views - which he has studiously avoided thusfar. Perhaps he is too busy looking for dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 You tend to over minimize Thaksins role in things. Love to hear your take off on Hitler. Nuremberg Dolly, read about it...... clumsy dodge. that is probably why you think so highly of the present PM and his sister. What is dolly you haven,t even tried to join the dots......whhhoooooooooooooooooooooooossssshhhhhhhhhhhhh Some dots can only be joined "off" this forum . . . as I keep getting warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Sometimes the public makes dumb-ass decisions which they rue later. Americans did it with Nixon and Bush Jr. and other top bananas. Thais did it with Thaksin and later, his sister. It's just that millions of Thais haven't yet figured out their mistake in keeping that greedy family at the top. In the meantime, they reap what they sow; bad policies and more lies. Incidentally, when will Thaksin return the medals, ribbons, ranks, certificates and accolades which he is required, by law, to return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Sometimes the public makes dumb-ass decisions which they rue later. Americans did it with Nixon and Bush Jr. and other top bananas. Thais did it with Thaksin and later, his sister. It's just that millions of Thais haven't yet figured out their mistake in keeping that greedy family at the top. In the meantime, they reap what they sow; bad policies and more lies. Incidentally, when will Thaksin return the medals, ribbons, ranks, certificates and accolades which he is required, by law, to return? And when will his passport be cancelled? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Sometimes the public makes dumb-ass decisions which they rue later. Americans did it with Nixon and Bush Jr. and other top bananas. Thais did it with Thaksin and later, his sister. It's just that millions of Thais haven't yet figured out their mistake in keeping that greedy family at the top. In the meantime, they reap what they sow; bad policies and more lies. Incidentally, when will Thaksin return the medals, ribbons, ranks, certificates and accolades which he is required, by law, to return? And when will his passport be cancelled? Well guys if you are not capable of working out the answers to these questions...... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The earlier case. But really, I am looking for 473's views - which he has studiously avoided thusfar. Perhaps he is too busy looking for dots. I am humbled. you seek my view above that of all others, I will give the assett concealment some serious thought and deliberation then present my well thought out opinions......patience......what is important to you,at the top of your list, may not even be on my radar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The earlier case. But really, I am looking for 473's views - which he has studiously avoided thusfar. Perhaps he is too busy looking for dots. I am humbled. you seek my view above that of all others, I will give the assett concealment some serious thought and deliberation then present my well thought out opinions......patience......what is important to you,at the top of your list, may not even be on my radar The fact that you thought money returned to Thaksin had anything to do with the assets concealment case suggests you might need to do some serious reading to go along with that serious thinking. What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question? Didn't he thank the government for being kind enough to give him back 30 billion baht? Mustn't have been as serious as they first thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The fact that you thought money returned to Thaksin had anything to do with the assets concealment case suggests you might need to do some serious reading to go along with that serious thinking. I guess Rixalex that depends on how one views the all encompassing phrase 'abuse of power'.....please no more feeble attempts to divert my busy schedule there's a good chap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The fact that you thought money returned to Thaksin had anything to do with the assets concealment case suggests you might need to do some serious reading to go along with that serious thinking. I guess Rixalex that depends on how one views the all encompassing phrase 'abuse of power'.....please no more feeble attempts to divert my busy schedule there's a good chap.... Abuse of power, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct," is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties or is for the benefit solely of oneself or one's friends or family. What's your definition? 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