Surprised no reaction from BYD owners on this forum

[rubl]

Rich teacher, the topic is 58 senators from four different committees wanting to grill PM Yingluck over her speech in Mongolia. Any suggestion that these senator might only do so because they don't like the Pheu Thai party is a simple ploy to deflect from the topic.

PM Yingluck in her role as Prime Minister of Thailand said things which were not true, belabored her poor brother and the harm done to her family. All that at a conference about 'democracy'. Of course senators in their supervisory role would like to ask the PM what she said, what she meant by what she said and following form an opinion and possible judgement on that. Democracy it's called, described in the constitution. Why not read it to check I'm not lying here?

BTW senators in other countries do similar things I'm told :-)

[Rich teacher]

Rich teacher, the topic is 58 senators from four different committees wanting to grill PM Yingluck over her speech in Mongolia. Any suggestion that these senator might only do so because they don't like the Pheu Thai party is a simple ploy to deflect from the topic.

PM Yingluck in her role as Prime Minister of Thailand said things which were not true, belabored her poor brother and the harm done to her family. All that at a conference about 'democracy'. Of course senators in their supervisory role would like to ask the PM what she said, what she meant by what she said and following form an opinion and possible judgement on that. Democracy it's called, described in the constitution. Why not read it to check I'm not lying here?

BTW senators in other countries do similar things I'm told :-)

What relevance is it that they come from 4 different committees. You have know idea how many of them are elected or appointed, but I would put a substantial bet on that they are the latter.

And if the PM "said things which were not true" is a matter of opinion.

[muttley]

Rich teacher, the topic is 58 senators from four different committees wanting to grill PM Yingluck over her speech in Mongolia. Any suggestion that these senator might only do so because they don't like the Pheu Thai party is a simple ploy to deflect from the topic.

PM Yingluck in her role as Prime Minister of Thailand said things which were not true, belabored her poor brother and the harm done to her family. All that at a conference about 'democracy'. Of course senators in their supervisory role would like to ask the PM what she said, what she meant by what she said and following form an opinion and possible judgement on that. Democracy it's called, described in the constitution. Why not read it to check I'm not lying here?

BTW senators in other countries do similar things I'm told :-)

Which "things" were not true, Rubl?

[MikeOboe57]

Rich teacher, it's immaterial how many senators of the 58 forming four committees were elected or appointed. They're all qualified people.

BTW do you really think only appointed senators could have cornered a position in those four committees? If yes, I am starting to lean to the side which thinks you may been gifted your teaching qualification assuming you have one.

It doesn't take a great intellect (but obviously slightly more than yours) to realise that the appointed senators are directly opposed to the party that wants them removed.

So you were able to realize that. However you fail to realize what a diplomatic and political disaster Yinglucks whining was, as this requires some more brain activity.

Little Cinderella weeping (in a figurative sense) for her brothers lost money on a public stage while representing ALL of Thailand is inexcusable. But she did her duty as propaganda loudmouth for the PTP. It is a shame that her rhetorical (dis)abilities have people stop listening to her stammering after the first few sentences.

[rubl]

Rich teacher, the topic is 58 senators from four different committees wanting to grill PM Yingluck over her speech in Mongolia. Any suggestion that these senator might only do so because they don't like the Pheu Thai party is a simple ploy to deflect from the topic.

PM Yingluck in her role as Prime Minister of Thailand said things which were not true, belabored her poor brother and the harm done to her family. All that at a conference about 'democracy'. Of course senators in their supervisory role would like to ask the PM what she said, what she meant by what she said and following form an opinion and possible judgement on that. Democracy it's called, described in the constitution. Why not read it to check I'm not lying here?

BTW senators in other countries do similar things I'm told :-)

Which "things" were not true, Rubl?

Well thank you, for a moment I thought no one would ask

1. Brother was not PM, but a caretaker PM with dubious legal status

2. political victimized is like telling all that possible wrongdoing while in politics is being politically exploited.

3. family damaged

4. I stand here as PM of Thailand for all Thai people

Have fun

[rubl]

Rich teacher, the topic is 58 senators from four different committees wanting to grill PM Yingluck over her speech in Mongolia. Any suggestion that these senator might only do so because they don't like the Pheu Thai party is a simple ploy to deflect from the topic.

PM Yingluck in her role as Prime Minister of Thailand said things which were not true, belabored her poor brother and the harm done to her family. All that at a conference about 'democracy'. Of course senators in their supervisory role would like to ask the PM what she said, what she meant by what she said and following form an opinion and possible judgement on that. Democracy it's called, described in the constitution. Why not read it to check I'm not lying here?

BTW senators in other countries do similar things I'm told :-)

What relevance is it that they come from 4 different committees. You have know idea how many of them are elected or appointed, but I would put a substantial bet on that they are the latter.

And if the PM "said things which were not true" is a matter of opinion.

You're really trolling with your 'appointed' mood. But so be it.

Your suggestion that only appointed senators dislike the government and push for asking the PM to explain herself is actually a good reason why appointed senotors may be preferred over elected ones. Senators are supposed to ask questions when some make dubious speeches. If all senators simply ignore problems because "well, it our party PM" I rather have the whole senate appointed.

Furthermore your suggestion that lots of the 58 senators will be of the appointed type, even enforcing the suggestion by being willing to bet on it (against forum rules by the way ) is still very short from offering proof that what you suggest is actually the case.

Thirdly the senate appoints members to committees, it's like people express willingness and preference, but the whole senate decides. Now the committees we talk about are 'foreign affairs', 'religions, ethics, arts and culture', 'human rights and consumer protection' and 'corruption and good governance'. If all 58 senators in those committees are of the appointed type, may I be excused to wonder why elected senators are not interested in these committees? Are you giving me yet another splendid reason why appointed senators can be counted on to do their duty much more than elected senators, here in Thailand that is?

Now for the PM said things not true, that's indeed on topic and partially correct. I mean the poor woman should be excused for lamenting the 30 to 40 billion the government refused to return to her family while stressing the succesful implementation of 300 Baht/day for lowly labourers.

Edited May 3, 2013 by rubl