I find it both humorous and a little sad that foreigners in Thailand get so engaged in the political inadequacies and structure of the place.

If anyone doesn't condemn Thaksin outright as a preface to any post about politics they will be branded 'Pro-Thaksin' . . . quite ludicrous and childish.

This says it best:

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

It says what best, Sing_Sling? That its humerous or a little sad or quite ludicrous and childish or just pro Thaksin?. I think it suggests that popularity trumps the rule of law and the constitution so I will go with ludicrous and childish.

Everybody's key goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of the taxpayers' and Internationsl communities' ripped off money, matter who they are...

Pheu Thai, PAD, whatever... They are all the same.

How was blocking the airport, and terrorizing the city any different from one another...

Their incompetent followers will never stop to rally...

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

I find it both humorous and a little sad that foreigners in Thailand get so engaged in the political inadequacies and structure of the place.

If anyone doesn't condemn Thaksin outright as a preface to any post about politics they will be branded 'Pro-Thaksin' . . . quite ludicrous and childish.

This says it best:

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

It says what best, Sing_Sling? That its humerous or a little sad or quite ludicrous and childish or just pro Thaksin?. I think it suggests that popularity trumps the rule of law and the constitution so I will go with ludicrous and childish.

You give yourself just two choices and then answer one yourself?

No, it suggests that 'we' are not Thai and getting so up in arms about their politics is ridiculous . . . the self-righteous indignation that is at times exhibited about one political party or another is also - ridiculous.

Did Thaksin have some policies beneficial to the people? Of course he did. Do his negatives outweigh his positives? By negatives I mean the mass-killing of Muslims in the south etc . . . I don't know, but I doubt it.

Did Abisith represent the people? How many people were murdered/assassinated on the say-so of Abhisith? Do his positives outweigh his negatives? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Again, the next post puts it in perspective far better than I could:

Everybody's key goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of the taxpayers' and Internationsl communities' ripped off money, matter who they are...

Pheu Thai, PAD, whatever... They are all the same.

How was blocking the airport, and terrorizing the city any different from one another...

Their incompetent followers will never stop to rally...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other . . .

looks like he failed so far.

does he have any other goals?

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Maybe they are relatives.

Everybody's key goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of the taxpayers' and Internationsl communities' ripped off money, matter who they are...

Pheu Thai, PAD, whatever... They are all the same.

How was blocking the airport, and terrorizing the city any different from one another...

Their incompetent followers will never stop to rally...

I'd take a delayed flight over being killed by a grenade every time, how about you?

PTP/UDD/Thaksin supporters are really scrapping the bottom of the argumentative barrel, aren't they?

Everybody's key goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of the taxpayers' and Internationsl communities' ripped off money, matter who they are...

Pheu Thai, PAD, whatever... They are all the same.

How was blocking the airport, and terrorizing the city any different from one another...

Their incompetent followers will never stop to rally...

I'd take a delayed flight over being killed by a grenade every time, how about you?

PTP/UDD/Thaksin supporters are really scrapping the bottom of the argumentative barrel, aren't they?

Agreed.

You can't compare the two. I've watched the family who I work for nearly lose everything after the red shirts burned their school down, all the work, hours, blood and sweat they poured in to provide for their family, almost gone, just because some people up North are bitter and jealous towards Bangkonians.

I really don't understand any arguments from the Pro-Thaksin lot on here and surely deep down they must see what's going on. And they certainly kept quiet on recent debates on the red-shirt hasselling of Democrat politicians and trying to get the election re-done. Why? Because the red shirts have been inexcusable.

You can't compare what the yellow shirts did compared to the red-shirt burning of the capital at all.

Meh, enough with that. Thaksin may be the devil himself and this government his lapdogs, the people of Thailand still voted for them. They stay in power until the next election, and that's all there is to it.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Not at all . . . it's quite clear what he means . . . and since you didn't seem to see that, well . . . a bit of help never hurt.

In Thai politics, who is worse? Did the Thaksin crowd do more damage in their years in power or Abisith in his short time? Did either of them have the peoples' best interests at heart? Certainly doesn't look like it.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Not at all . . . it's quite clear what he means . . . and since you didn't seem to see that, well . . . a bit of help never hurt.

In Thai politics, who is worse? Did the Thaksin crowd do more damage in their years in power or Abisith in his short time? Did either of them have the peoples' best interests at heart? Certainly doesn't look like it.

Thaksin's crowd did a hell of a lot of damage during Abhisit's time too, they didn't have the people's best interest at heart as they looted burned and fired weapons.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Not at all . . . it's quite clear what he means . . . and since you didn't seem to see that, well . . . a bit of help never hurt.

In Thai politics, who is worse? Did the Thaksin crowd do more damage in their years in power or Abisith in his short time? Did either of them have the peoples' best interests at heart? Certainly doesn't look like it.

You continue going off at random tangents on behalf of someone else, that do not in any way answer to the point i made.

These Chinese can only understand 'monopoly'. For those of you who are not aware, both Thaksin and Abhisit are Chinese.

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

The basis of the argument you are making is that essentially, the act of being voted in to power, or put another way, the act of being popular, over-rides and out-trumps everything else. Ergo, even if a convicted on the run overseas criminal is running the country, and even if there is a law that stipulates this situation breaks the law, law must take a back seat to popularity.

Reminds me of the sort of attitude amongst judges back in 2001 that started all this nonsense.

No, it's not the basis of his argument . . . his argument is that this is politics in Thailand. The law is there to set things right. If it doesn't then the law is not fulfilling its purpose.

He doesn't say that it is a goods thing, merely points out that this is the way it is . . . unless YOU would like to change it.

Not at all . . . it's quite clear what he means . . . and since you didn't seem to see that, well . . . a bit of help never hurt.

In Thai politics, who is worse? Did the Thaksin crowd do more damage in their years in power or Abisith in his short time? Did either of them have the peoples' best interests at heart? Certainly doesn't look like it.

You continue going off at random tangents on behalf of someone else, that do not in any way answer to the point i made.

You believe I am 'going off' at random tangents . . . because you can't follow a thread?

Here it is as easy as it can get in a nutshell:

Red: Not so good for people

Yellow: Not so good for people

There, no 'going off' on tangents . . . please tell me you're going to keep arguing a moot point

These Chinese can only understand 'monopoly'. For those of you who are not aware, both Thaksin and Abhisit are Chinese.

For those of you who are not aware . . . the vast majority of Thais are Chinese . . . when did you have your lone thought?

You seem to know a lot about what Zolt thinks. Perhaps he could have a go at explaining his thoughts, because your attempt didn't make much sense.

Not at all . . . it's quite clear what he means . . . and since you didn't seem to see that, well . . . a bit of help never hurt.

In Thai politics, who is worse? Did the Thaksin crowd do more damage in their years in power or Abisith in his short time? Did either of them have the peoples' best interests at heart? Certainly doesn't look like it.

Thaksin's crowd did a hell of a lot of damage during Abhisit's time too, they didn't have the people's best interest at heart as they looted burned and fired weapons.

Again, you comment only on one transgressor, seemingly justifying or negating the party's negatives . . . keep some perspective or is that really so difficult?

You believe I am 'going off' at random tangents . . . because you can't follow a thread?

Here it is as easy as it can get in a nutshell:

Red: Not so good for people

Yellow: Not so good for people

There, no 'going off' on tangents . . . please tell me you're going to keep arguing a moot point

I can follow a thread, i can't follow what any of the above has to do with what Zolt stated about: whether or not Thaksin was the devil, people voted him in and that's the end of the story, and to which i responded to by explaining why i thought it wasn't the end of the story. Since then you've been rambling along with all this red and yellow as bad as each other stuff, which is all very well but it's a different topic altogether.

Can you just hand me over to Zolt? Maybe i can understand him better...

This is rather nonsense. Abhisit is the opposition leader during a depressing era of politics when one very dodgy man is dominating and taken advantage of a, frankly, appalling electoral judgment to grab power with both hands and never have to let go (aka Mugabe, Hun Sen etc).

The massive difference is that Mugabe and Hun Sen hold power through controlling the military. Through force.

You make out Abhisit as some kind of Gandhi character. You are deluded.

It's called a democracy, suck it up or you can always leave.

You believe I am 'going off' at random tangents . . . because you can't follow a thread?

Here it is as easy as it can get in a nutshell:

Red: Not so good for people

Yellow: Not so good for people

There, no 'going off' on tangents . . . please tell me you're going to keep arguing a moot point

I can follow a thread, i can't follow what any of the above has to do with what Zolt stated about: whether or not Thaksin was the devil, people voted him in and that's the end of the story, and to which i responded to by explaining why i thought it wasn't the end of the story. Since then you've been rambling along with all this red and yellow as bad as each other stuff, which is all very well but it's a different topic altogether.

Can you just hand me over to Zolt? Maybe i can understand him better...

Still too difficult, is it? Keep on keeping on then . . . and Zolt is 'mine' to hand over

You believe I am 'going off' at random tangents . . . because you can't follow a thread?

Here it is as easy as it can get in a nutshell:

Red: Not so good for people

Yellow: Not so good for people

There, no 'going off' on tangents . . . please tell me you're going to keep arguing a moot point

I can follow a thread, i can't follow what any of the above has to do with what Zolt stated about: whether or not Thaksin was the devil, people voted him in and that's the end of the story, and to which i responded to by explaining why i thought it wasn't the end of the story. Since then you've been rambling along with all this red and yellow as bad as each other stuff, which is all very well but it's a different topic altogether.

Can you just hand me over to Zolt? Maybe i can understand him better...

Still too difficult, is it? Keep on keeping on then . . . and Zolt is 'mine' to hand over

and Zolt is "mine" to hand over... ???

You are not getting any more comprehensible.

Did Thaksin have some policies beneficial to the people? Of course he did. Do his negatives outweigh his positives? By negatives I mean the mass-killing of Muslims in the south etc . . . I don't know, but I doubt it.

Did Abisith represent the people? How many people were murdered/assassinated on the say-so of Abhisith? Do his positives outweigh his negatives? I don't know, but I doubt it.

To answer your questions one at a time:

Did Thaksin have some policies beneficial to the people? Yes

Do his negatives outweigh his positives? Yes. As well as the murders of Muslims there were also many other documented killings and huge corruption and theft of public money. Go look for yourself and you will find many more.

.

Did Abisith represent the people? Yes.

How many people were murdered/assassinated on the say-so of Abhisith? Zero, You have been reading the red shirt book, Abhisit was forced to use the army to retaliate against an armed insurrection by a Thaksin inspired and funded mob of thugs. No murder or assassination.

Do his positives outweigh his negatives? Yes.

And to go back to the topic.

Somebody has to stop Thaksin and no one else has the balls to take on the job.

You believe I am 'going off' at random tangents . . . because you can't follow a thread?

Here it is as easy as it can get in a nutshell:

Red: Not so good for people

Yellow: Not so good for people

There, no 'going off' on tangents . . . please tell me you're going to keep arguing a moot point

I can follow a thread, i can't follow what any of the above has to do with what Zolt stated about: whether or not Thaksin was the devil, people voted him in and that's the end of the story, and to which i responded to by explaining why i thought it wasn't the end of the story. Since then you've been rambling along with all this red and yellow as bad as each other stuff, which is all very well but it's a different topic altogether.

Can you just hand me over to Zolt? Maybe i can understand him better...

Still too difficult, is it? Keep on keeping on then . . . and Zolt is 'mine' to hand over

and Zolt is "mine" to hand over... ???

You are not getting any more comprehensible.

I meant to say 'not' mine . . . apologies.

I'll re-cap as that confused you.

Reds: Not good for people

Yellows: Not good for people

Please tell me this is simple enough for you.

"Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics".......... looks like an admission of continued under achievement

"Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics".......... looks like an admission of continued under achievement

To the contrary - if Abhisit managed to oust Thaksin, it would be a huge achievement for Thailand's future.

And probably more than he achieved while he was PM.

"Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics".......... looks like an admission of continued under achievement

To the contrary - if Abhisit managed to oust Thaksin, it would be a huge achievement for Thailand's future.

And probably more than he achieved while he was PM.

If............he has been trying for years....he hasn't......under achievement.....

"Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics".......... looks like an admission of continued under achievement

To the contrary - if Abhisit managed to oust Thaksin, it would be a huge achievement for Thailand's future.

And probably more than he achieved while he was PM.

If............he has been trying for years....he hasn't......under achievement.....

For the sake of Thailand, let's hope he keeps trying, and finally achieves.

"Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics".......... looks like an admission of continued under achievement

To the contrary - if Abhisit managed to oust Thaksin, it would be a huge achievement for Thailand's future.

And probably more than he achieved while he was PM.

If............he has been trying for years....he hasn't......under achievement.....

For the sake of Thailand, let's hope he keeps trying, and finally achieves.

They banned 115 opposition politicians for 5 years......Abhisit failed to get the democrats re-elected and get rid of Thaksin......I wouldn't hold your breath.....

......Abhisit failed to get the democrats re-elected and get rid of Thaksin......I wouldn't hold your breath.....

Could the reason he failed to get re-elected be because he wasn't prepared to make silly election promises that he knew would cost the country dearly?

Then after his defeat he had enough respect for the peoples choice and the rule of law that he accepted defeat and did the honorable thing by resigning.

That he was re-elected again as party leader shows the high regard he is held in by his party.

Contrast that with the gutless actions of Thaksin who ran away without even appealing his conviction.

Also the ongoing sore loser actions of PT when they lost the BKK election.

Attempting to make excuses for the failure cannot change history......115 opposition politicians banned for 5 years.........Abhisit failed to get re-elected

To the contrary - if Abhisit managed to oust Thaksin, it would be a huge achievement for Thailand's future.

And probably more than he achieved while he was PM.

If............he has been trying for years....he hasn't......under achievement.....

For the sake of Thailand, let's hope he keeps trying, and finally achieves.

They banned 115 opposition politicians for 5 years......Abhisit failed to get the democrats re-elected and get rid of Thaksin......I wouldn't hold your breath.....

I'm not - but I have no doubt there are many thinking people around Thailand who are.

If............he has been trying for years....he hasn't......under achievement.....

For the sake of Thailand, let's hope he keeps trying, and finally achieves.

They banned 115 opposition politicians for 5 years......Abhisit failed to get the democrats re-elected and get rid of Thaksin......I wouldn't hold your breath.....

I'm not - but I have no doubt there are many thinking people around Thailand who are.

Then there is a good chance they will be very red in the face if getting rid of Thaksin is left to Abhisit..........