Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[smutcakes]

[quote

That's right!

The international community are on-side

And Yingluk is off-side, but being a woman, she doesn't understand the off-side rule.

So today you have used 'black' and chauvinism, sounds like you are a balanced bloke.

[bigbamboo]

[quote

That's right!

The international community are on-side

And Yingluk is off-side, but being a woman, she doesn't understand the off-side rule.

So today you have used 'black' and chauvinism, sounds like you are a balanced bloke.

Lighten up old chap! If only that was all she didn't understand.

[OzMick]

[quote

That's right!

The international community are on-side

And Yingluk is off-side, but being a woman, she doesn't understand the off-side rule.

So today you have used 'black' and chauvinism, sounds like you are a balanced bloke.

Having a chip on each shoulder is far better than lacking a sense of humour IMHO.

[Locationthailand]

Let me get this right - speeches from the PM need translation so Thai's can understand her? Okay - you can imagine what will happen with that - so is this an ongoing necessity for Thai people?

[smutcakes]

Let me get this right - speeches from the PM need translation so Thai's can understand her? Okay - you can imagine what will happen with that - so is this an ongoing necessity for Thai people?

Hows your Thai?

[gerry1011]

Abhisit sounded a lot better to an international audience. She sounds like the birds that takes my beer order.

The problem with Abhisit is that he only "sounded" better. He has a cute little face (though he looks tired and he seems to put on weight a bit lately), but Yingluck is much more charming.

Maybe her English (Thai) accent and her mistakes make her even more charming in the eyes of the international community. Good for her...

While both are politicians, it seems that the world is more willing to listen to Yingluck than Abhisit... What is sure is that she is invited everywhere.

She is better percieved (for several reasons), she seems more legitimate than her predecessor, and, it is important in the eyes of many, she is the one who talks about reconciliation and the future of the country, while her oponents are stuck in the past, obsessed by only one man, with no project for the future and show resistance to any idea to settle the present problems.

It is not difficult to understand why the international community likes her. She is just playing smarter politics than her oponents.

By the way, since my own mother language is not English, it would be very easy for any British or American (probably also Filipinos) to "sound" better than me too... which is not a big problem since, for sure, it is very far from being what is important. If we take the language skills apart, the "English native guys", who feel so strong on this forum, might find themselves far behind on a number of other subjetcs. Certainly compared to Yingluck too...

But when I read that "Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted", I wonder if the level of expertise of the people on this forum regarding the political game in Thailand goes further than her language skills (as well as birds and beer, maybe).

[Pi Sek]

The" history you say Yingluck intentionally distorted is the version of the history which you decided to believe is the truth. And I respect your choice.

A lot of people believe other versions, or the version of the present government, to be more truthful.

For what I can see, it seems that since a few years Yingluck's version is the one that the international community prefers to believe.

It is up to us to make our own opinion, which is also influenced by our environment (south vs north vs Bangkok vs those who live abroad). It is also influenced by our circle of friends and aquaintances, our own past, or even the number of years we have been in Thailand. I hear some people make comments about the past while they "live" here since only two or three years. In fact these ones just swallowed the version presented to them by The Nation without thinking further... Up to them, the way they think will not change anything anyway.

Whatever version of "the history" we want to believe, I notice that one side is trying to walk towards reconciliation, while the other side puts all his efforts in keeping reconciliation away.

I personally see much more hatred coming from the anti governement group, but you probably do not notice that one. One side is accomodating and patient, while the other side never loses time to come with the usual stories "Thaksin is bad" etc..., in order to block whatever idea is originating from their oponents, or rather ennemies.

While I am sure your are moderate person and that you can explain in detail why you have your own opinion, why you think the way you think, why you support the ones you support, why you believe this guy is good and that guy is bad, ... I think that, in this case, you have been really quick in writing that the speech had the purpose to incite hatred. This is not really moderate... I even find it quite extreme, and this is why I took a few minutes of my time to reply to your comments.

However, I do not want to go further into a - most probably heated - conversation. It would be useless.

I wish you all the best

Khrap

Just one thing - the distorted history is that her brother was PM when he was ousted. Regardless of my opinions/beliefs/whatever, that is not true. As for the rest, I agree that we can agree to differ and return your goodwill.

Sorry to come again... I don't get that one.

Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted?

Not sure I understand your phrase (because of my average English maybe...)

To become Prime Minister according to the constitution at the time, the 1997 one to which Peua Thai would like to revert, there is a sequential process. This process was not followed so, when Thaksin resigned in mid-2006 following multi-party boycotts of the 2006 election and promptly decided to install himself as caretaker PM unconstitutionally and illegally, it is a distortion of history to say that Thaksin was the legitimately elected PM when he was ousted. He was not.

[gerry1011]

The" history you say Yingluck intentionally distorted is the version of the history which you decided to believe is the truth. And I respect your choice.

A lot of people believe other versions, or the version of the present government, to be more truthful.

For what I can see, it seems that since a few years Yingluck's version is the one that the international community prefers to believe.

It is up to us to make our own opinion, which is also influenced by our environment (south vs north vs Bangkok vs those who live abroad). It is also influenced by our circle of friends and aquaintances, our own past, or even the number of years we have been in Thailand. I hear some people make comments about the past while they "live" here since only two or three years. In fact these ones just swallowed the version presented to them by The Nation without thinking further... Up to them, the way they think will not change anything anyway.

Whatever version of "the history" we want to believe, I notice that one side is trying to walk towards reconciliation, while the other side puts all his efforts in keeping reconciliation away.

I personally see much more hatred coming from the anti governement group, but you probably do not notice that one. One side is accomodating and patient, while the other side never loses time to come with the usual stories "Thaksin is bad" etc..., in order to block whatever idea is originating from their oponents, or rather ennemies.

While I am sure your are moderate person and that you can explain in detail why you have your own opinion, why you think the way you think, why you support the ones you support, why you believe this guy is good and that guy is bad, ... I think that, in this case, you have been really quick in writing that the speech had the purpose to incite hatred. This is not really moderate... I even find it quite extreme, and this is why I took a few minutes of my time to reply to your comments.

However, I do not want to go further into a - most probably heated - conversation. It would be useless.

I wish you all the best

Khrap

Just one thing - the distorted history is that her brother was PM when he was ousted. Regardless of my opinions/beliefs/whatever, that is not true. As for the rest, I agree that we can agree to differ and return your goodwill.

Sorry to come again... I don't get that one.

Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted?

Not sure I understand your phrase (because of my average English maybe...)

To become Prime Minister according to the constitution at the time, the 1997 one to which Peua Thai would like to revert, there is a sequential process. This process was not followed so, when Thaksin resigned in mid-2006 following multi-party boycotts of the 2006 election and promptly decided to install himself as caretaker PM unconstitutionally and illegally, it is a distortion of history to say that Thaksin was the legitimately elected PM when he was ousted. He was not.

Umf...

[Pi Sek]

Abhisit sounded a lot better to an international audience. She sounds like the birds that takes my beer order.

The problem with Abhisit is that he only "sounded" better. He has a cute little face (though he looks tired and he seems to put on weight a bit lately), but Yingluck is much more charming.

Maybe her English (Thai) accent and her mistakes make her even more charming in the eyes of the international community. Good for her...

While both are politicians, it seems that the world is more willing to listen to Yingluck than Abhisit... What is sure is that she is invited everywhere.

She is better percieved (for several reasons), she seems more legitimate than her predecessor, and, it is important in the eyes of many, she is the one who talks about reconciliation and the future of the country, while her oponents are stuck in the past, obsessed by only one man, with no project for the future and show resistance to any idea to settle the present problems.

It is not difficult to understand why the international community likes her. She is just playing smarter politics than her oponents.

By the way, since my own mother language is not English, it would be very easy for any British or American (probably also Filipinos) to "sound" better than me too... which is not a big problem since, for sure, it is very far from being what is important. If we take the language skills apart, the "English native guys", who feel so strong on this forum, might find themselves far behind on a number of other subjetcs. Certainly compared to Yingluck too...

But when I read that "Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted", I wonder if the level of expertise of the people on this forum regarding the political game in Thailand goes further than her language skills (as well as birds and beer, maybe).

Presumably this is aimed at me and possibly why you suggested that we should cease the conversation before it gets "heated". I just hope the above post, which is factually correct, clears it up.

By the way, your English is fine... and my Thai is way better than Yinglak's English.

[GentlemanJim]

Khrap

Just one thing - the distorted history is that her brother was PM when he was ousted. Regardless of my opinions/beliefs/whatever, that is not true. As for the rest, I agree that we can agree to differ and return your goodwill.

Sorry to come again... I don't get that one.

Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted?

Not sure I understand your phrase (because of my average English maybe...)

To become Prime Minister according to the constitution at the time, the 1997 one to which Peua Thai would like to revert, there is a sequential process. This process was not followed so, when Thaksin resigned in mid-2006 following multi-party boycotts of the 2006 election and promptly decided to install himself as caretaker PM unconstitutionally and illegally, it is a distortion of history to say that Thaksin was the legitimately elected PM when he was ousted. He was not.

Umf...

Sorry to burst your bubble old chap but Pi Sek is absolutely correct. Thaksin was NOT the elected Prime Minister at the time of the coup. Why do you think there was a coup?

[MrSlatersParrot]

GentlemenJim said:

Sorry to burst your bubble old chap but Pi Sek is absolutely correct. Thaksin was NOT the elected Prime Minister at the time of the coup. Why do you think there was a coup?

That's easy.

To make things better of course.

Silly

[Dr Wanchai]

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

Sadly, prudence is not the strength of most TV members.

[OzMick]

Let me get this right - speeches from the PM need translation so Thai's can understand her? Okay - you can imagine what will happen with that - so is this an ongoing necessity for Thai people?

The speech was given in English (more or less), hence the need of translation. For English speakers, a transcript was supplied, to the same end.

[Baerboxer]

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

Fine - if you think it's ok for a puppet PM to go to another country and present a one sided, inaccurate speech whitewashing those on her side and blackening any who dare challenge them.

PTP and its master have a very one sided interpreataion of democracy. Thaksin was a caretaker PM clinging to power at the time of the coup, the Red thugs were burning Bangkok, intimidating innocent people and acting outside the law, and the much vaunted "democratically" elected PPT government (which a majority of Thai people did not vote for - hence reluctance on referendums) ignores the law when it suits too.

Anyone who wants to can believe this thinly veiled attempt at re-writing history the PTP way, or even Mr. Amsterdams sycophantic propagnda babble. But to suggest that this was smart is ridiculous. Foreign politicians, journalists all know who really runs the country; and the reality which they may chose to ignore.