Lessons on democracy to be taught shortly

[rubl]

So your answer is "no", you're not going to post anything remotely on-topic. I'll refer this to the monitor and see if he/she has an opinion.

Democracy according to HeyBruce it would seem, as taken from his posts here.

Democracy, lesson 1.

Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy.

Democracy, lesson 2.

When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic, can't see why it has anything to do with topic on hand', etc. Don't even try to understand why elected governments fail to pick up somethings like 'minimum wage law' or 'property and inheritance law'. Completely ignore remarks as "appointed government told to leave important issues to elected governments'. Don't wonder about how politicians see their rights and ignore their duties.

That's all for today kids. Tomorrow more,

PS. did you forget to contact the 'monitor' ?

"Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy."

That's what you do rubl, and what you did when your position on the NRC became indefensible. That's when you started extolling the virtue of a government unconstrained by any semblance of checks and balances.

"When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic,"

They were off-topic. Minimum wage and inheritance tax have nothing to do with the OP or any discussion of the OP. But if you insist on an opinion, in my opinion these are contentious subjects. Some people would like to see them debated in a democratic government, others clearly prefer the expediency of rule by decree government. No need to ask which side you're on.

By the way, do you still maintain the NRC is so sublimely representative there's no need to subject it to democratic complications?

Democracy, lesson 3.

Continue to blame the other without really a need to explain why and how, just blame. It's the others, pure and simple.

Democracy, lesson 4.

Continue with suggesting someone said something without feeling a need to prove the suggestion. Label someone as slavish or acting as a lackey extolling the despised enemy all obviously should be against.

Democracy, lesson 5.

Continue asking the same question, each time rephrasing to make it obvious what the answer should be and how ridiculous it is someone 'refuses' to give the answer you want them to give.

Mind you, some of these 'brucy' lessons seems to come straight out of some red book, or maybe a fascist manual.

Edited October 2, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy."

That's what you do rubl, and what you did when your position on the NRC became indefensible. That's when you started extolling the virtue of a government unconstrained by any semblance of checks and balances.

"When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic,"

They were off-topic. Minimum wage and inheritance tax have nothing to do with the OP or any discussion of the OP. But if you insist on an opinion, in my opinion these are contentious subjects. Some people would like to see them debated in a democratic government, others clearly prefer the expediency of rule by decree government. No need to ask which side you're on.

By the way, do you still maintain the NRC is so sublimely representative there's no need to subject it to democratic complications?

Democracy, lesson 3.

Continue to blame the other without really a need to explain why and how, just blame. It's the others, pure and simple.

Democracy, lesson 4.

Continue with suggesting someone said something without feeling a need to prove the suggestion. Label someone as slavish or acting as a lackey extolling the despised enemy all obviously should be against.

Democracy, lesson 5.

Continue asking the same question, each time rephrasing to make it obvious what the answer should be and how ridiculous it is someone 'refuses' to give the answer you want them to give.

Mind you, some of these 'brucy' lessons seems to come straight out of some red book, or maybe a fascist manual.

rubl, it's clear that you are out of arguments and posting written babble in frustration. I pointed out very clearly where you went off-topic and won't address that again. However since you can't seem to remember your own posts, I'll remind you that you wrote earlier:

I seem to remember that this time the army has said that there will be no referendum.

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Which seems to show great faith in the NRC, so much faith a referendum is unnecessary. However as I pointed out earlier:

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

This would seem to imply the NRC is somewhat stacked, don't you think?

[rubl]

rubl, it's clear that you are out of arguments and posting written babble in frustration. I pointed out very clearly where you went off-topic and won't address that again. However since you can't seem to remember your own posts, I'll remind you that you wrote earlier:

I seem to remember that this time the army has said that there will be no referendum.

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Which seems to show great faith in the NRC, so much faith a referendum is unnecessary. However as I pointed out earlier:

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

This would seem to imply the NRC is somewhat stacked, don't you think?

Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird.

Following you return to your own obsession, anything which you think can be used against the junta.

The theNation article has lots of someones opinion, but no facts it would seem. The "He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC)." is not substantiated.

Anyway, still searching for the new democracy curriculum for kids and the 'red-shirt school for democracy''s curriculum for older kids. In English preferably.

Edited October 3, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

rubl, it's clear that you are out of arguments and posting written babble in frustration. I pointed out very clearly where you went off-topic and won't address that again. However since you can't seem to remember your own posts, I'll remind you that you wrote earlier:

I seem to remember that this time the army has said that there will be no referendum.

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Which seems to show great faith in the NRC, so much faith a referendum is unnecessary. However as I pointed out earlier:

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

This would seem to imply the NRC is somewhat stacked, don't you think?

Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird.

Following you return to your own obsession, anything which you think can be used against the junta.

The theNation article has lots of someones opinion, but no facts it would seem. The "He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC)." is not substantiated.

Anyway, still searching for the new democracy curriculum for kids and the 'red-shirt school for democracy''s curriculum for older kids. In English preferably.

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

[tbthailand]

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

good point

I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Democracy lesson 1, kiddies,

Every democracy in the world has a professional military under control of a civilian government. There are no exceptions to rule number one.

[slipperx]

A look at the subject matter would be interesting, but I'm sure it will be quite a bit different to the privately run "democracy schools" of a few years back.

Perhaps we could get some of our TVF posters a seat in a class. There are quite a few who seem never to have got past "elections" and into the more challenging aspects.

With your extensive knowledge of democracy perhaps you could detail and explain the more challenging aspects of that democracy that "quite a few" are not sufficiently intelligent to grasp.

Perhaps you could start with explaining how the "democracy" that existed and was readily accepted between 2008 and 2011 apparently morphed into a "democracy" that the Thai populace was not ready for in subsequent years. Then maybe you could expound on why the abrogation of all democratic rights as a result of a military coup and the establishment of a pseudo "government" whose actions can be overturned at any time by the junta under Article 44 is supposedly the antidote to a fully functional democracy?

Ready when you are.

Maybe you are missing the point made in the post you replied to. That post seemed to me to be saying that many people fail to understand that there is substantially more to democracy than simply elections. As you point out you cannot really have democracy under a coup. You could in theory have a democracy without elections if all people voted for every idea or proposal which may become technologically possible in the future but for now is just a theoretical concept. Democracy means that the majority choose the path of the country - under elections you only have a hope of a semi democratic system since the people voted in are supposed to represent their constituents but usually represent their self interest and ideas especially on Thailand.

[Fred Flinstone]

Try letting people decide-

Sad

[khunjamesjohnson]

de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

[AleG]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

[khunjamesjohnson]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

...and the voters like it.

[AleG]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

...and the voters like it.

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

[khunjamesjohnson]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

...and the voters like it.

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

It's not complicated, like some sore losers with friends in the army would like you to think.

The sore losers kept claiming vote buying but refused to allow international observers in.

Now they are saying the voters that don't agree with them are too stupid and need educating.

Do you really need it spelled out?

[AleG]

...and the voters like it.

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

It's not complicated, like some sore losers with friends in the army would like you to think.

The sore losers kept claiming vote buying but refused to allow international observers in.

Now they are saying the voters that don't agree with them are too stupid and need educating.

Do you really need it spelled out?

Spell out what?

I can explain you how and why pretty much every single part of the definition of Democracy you provided was not in effect while PTP was in government.

You want to argue that Thai people want democracy and want undemocratic governance at the same time? By all means, spell away the contradiction.

[heybruce]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

...and the voters like it.

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

Before Thaksin 90% of government investment was in Bangkok. After 12 years of on and off Shinawatra governance the figure was reduced to 72% http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report.

Shinawatra parties consistently won more votes than other parties because they distributed government spending a little more evenly. So the voters outside of Bangkok were voting in their interests when they voted for these Shinawatra parties, and the voters inside Bangkok were acting in their interests when they fought to keep Bangkok the focal point of government spending.

Do you know of any democracy where voters do not vote in their interests? Do you think the people of Bangkok need to be educated about the need for equitably distributed government investment?

[AleG]

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

Before Thaksin 90% of government investment was in Bangkok. After 12 years of on and off Shinawatra governance the figure was reduced to 72% http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report.

Shinawatra parties consistently won more votes than other parties because they distributed government spending a little more evenly. So the voters outside of Bangkok were voting in their interests when they voted for these Shinawatra parties, and the voters inside Bangkok were acting in their interests when they fought to keep Bangkok the focal point of government spending.

Do you know of any democracy where voters do not vote in their interests? Do you think the people of Bangkok need to be educated about the need for equitably distributed government investment?

Putting aside your dubious statistics....

Yes, everyone should be educated about best government practices, what would make you believe I don't think so?

What you are arguing is not in favour of Democracy, it is in favour of populism to gain political power.

Does Democracy get better the more handouts politicians give out to gain support? Or better Democracy is achieved when an informed population makes decisions not only on their own self interest but with the interests of their country and fellow citizens in mind?

[tbthailand]

...and the voters like it.

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

It's not complicated, like some sore losers with friends in the army would like you to think.

The sore losers kept claiming vote buying but refused to allow international observers in.

Now they are saying the voters that don't agree with them are too stupid and need educating.

Do you really need it spelled out?

it is the rich royalists who don't like democracy. Period.

[tbthailand]

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

Before Thaksin 90% of government investment was in Bangkok. After 12 years of on and off Shinawatra governance the figure was reduced to 72% http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report.

Shinawatra parties consistently won more votes than other parties because they distributed government spending a little more evenly. So the voters outside of Bangkok were voting in their interests when they voted for these Shinawatra parties, and the voters inside Bangkok were acting in their interests when they fought to keep Bangkok the focal point of government spending.

Do you know of any democracy where voters do not vote in their interests? Do you think the people of Bangkok need to be educated about the need for equitably distributed government investment?

Putting aside your dubious statistics....

Yes, everyone should be educated about best government practices, what would make you believe I don't think so?

What you are arguing is not in favour of Democracy, it is in favour of populism to gain political power.

Does Democracy get better the more handouts politicians give out to gain support? Or better Democracy is achieved when an informed population makes decisions not only on their own self interest but with the interests of their country and fellow citizens in mind?

well, if the royalist elite had allowed elections and put the interests of the country ahead of their own greed, we might still have a democracy in Thailand

[heybruce]

... and that is why it is necessary to teach the people what Democracy really means and entails.

Before Thaksin 90% of government investment was in Bangkok. After 12 years of on and off Shinawatra governance the figure was reduced to 72% http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report.

Shinawatra parties consistently won more votes than other parties because they distributed government spending a little more evenly. So the voters outside of Bangkok were voting in their interests when they voted for these Shinawatra parties, and the voters inside Bangkok were acting in their interests when they fought to keep Bangkok the focal point of government spending.

Do you know of any democracy where voters do not vote in their interests? Do you think the people of Bangkok need to be educated about the need for equitably distributed government investment?

Putting aside your dubious statistics....

Yes, everyone should be educated about best government practices, what would make you believe I don't think so?

What you are arguing is not in favour of Democracy, it is in favour of populism to gain political power.

Does Democracy get better the more handouts politicians give out to gain support? Or better Democracy is achieved when an informed population makes decisions not only on their own self interest but with the interests of their country and fellow citizens in mind?

They're not my dubious statistics, they're the World Bank's dubious statistics. They show that in 2012 72% of Thailand's general government expenditures were in Bangkok, which had 17% of the country's population. If you want to identify undemocratic, vote-buying populism, you should follow the money. The money leads to Bangkok, not the north or northeast.

Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?

It is inevitable that people will vote in their self-interest. The trick is to get people to take the long view and not vote for immediate gratification with budget busting hand-outs. In a country like Thailand that has long had a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth and government spending it is also inevitable that when given the vote people will vote for the candidate that promises to equalize this uneven distribution. Even if the junta succeeds in completely removing the Shinawatras from politics, another candidate or party will see this open door to votes. Whether this is undemocratic populism or necessary equalization of investment depends on whether if benefits you or the other guy. But the World Bank seems to be in favor of it.

[rubl]

rubl, it's clear that you are out of arguments and posting written babble in frustration. I pointed out very clearly where you went off-topic and won't address that again. However since you can't seem to remember your own posts, I'll remind you that you wrote earlier:

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Which seems to show great faith in the NRC, so much faith a referendum is unnecessary. However as I pointed out earlier:

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

This would seem to imply the NRC is somewhat stacked, don't you think?

Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird.

Following you return to your own obsession, anything which you think can be used against the junta.

The theNation article has lots of someones opinion, but no facts it would seem. The "He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC)." is not substantiated.

Anyway, still searching for the new democracy curriculum for kids and the 'red-shirt school for democracy''s curriculum for older kids. In English preferably.

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

So, most comments are off topic ?

Anyway, you seem like an ivory tower airchair 'democracy' warrior who doesn't know any common or poor Thai. Only concerned with 'amart', faulty 'democracy' and zigzagging along. From afar, safely away from that dangerous place called Thailand.

The list of people who liked your post seems to confirm that an aggressive stance only polarises.

[rubl]

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

good point

I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Democracy lesson 1, kiddies,

Every democracy in the world has a professional military under control of a civilian government. There are no exceptions to rule number one.

I will stand in awe when you show concern for common Thai people, rather than obfuscating and showing concern for a faulty democracy which seemingly allowed a criminal fugitive to control 'his' country from afar through a clone PM and a cabinet / group of 'his' party MPS who regularly came for praise and new orders.

Democracy 'brucy' style anyone? Maybe 'tbthailand style' ? Last offer, all thrown together, real cheap, anyone ?

[rubl]

de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

: a political unit that has a democratic government

3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4

: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5

: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Indeed.

What did Thailand have before the coup? "Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does"

...and the voters like it.

At least 43% of the voters who cast a vote in July 2011 that is.

[rubl]

It's not complicated, like some sore losers with friends in the army would like you to think.

The sore losers kept claiming vote buying but refused to allow international observers in.

Now they are saying the voters that don't agree with them are too stupid and need educating.

Do you really need it spelled out?

it is the rich royalists who don't like democracy. Period.

Oh boy, 'period'.

That's close to dictatorial, I can't accept that, I'm afraid.

[heybruce]

rubl, it's clear that you are out of arguments and posting written babble in frustration. I pointed out very clearly where you went off-topic and won't address that again. However since you can't seem to remember your own posts, I'll remind you that you wrote earlier:

Which seems to show great faith in the NRC, so much faith a referendum is unnecessary. However as I pointed out earlier:

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

This would seem to imply the NRC is somewhat stacked, don't you think?

Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird.

Following you return to your own obsession, anything which you think can be used against the junta.

The theNation article has lots of someones opinion, but no facts it would seem. The "He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC)." is not substantiated.

Anyway, still searching for the new democracy curriculum for kids and the 'red-shirt school for democracy''s curriculum for older kids. In English preferably.

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

So, most comments are off topic ?

Anyway, you seem like an ivory tower airchair 'democracy' warrior who doesn't know any common or poor Thai. Only concerned with 'amart', faulty 'democracy' and zigzagging along. From afar, safely away from that dangerous place called Thailand.

The list of people who liked your post seems to confirm that an aggressive stance only polarises.

"Anyway, you seem like an ivory tower airchair 'democracy' warrior who doesn't know any common or poor Thai. Only concerned with 'amart', faulty 'democracy' and zigzagging along. From afar, safely away from that dangerous place called Thailand."

Wrong, but funny. Having nothing to post doesn't keep you from posting.

[heybruce]

"Since you seem to dislike your own lessons in democracy, it would seem you get somewhat weird."

My lessons in democracy? You mean those childish things you wrote when you could no longer defend you nonsense statements?

"anything which you think can be used against the junta."

The most obvious criticisms of the junta can not be printed here, but there is still much else to comment on.

So you question the article published in The Nation? You seemed happy with their reports when they published articles about questionable polls that show everyone is happy. But I assume you can prove this article is wrong and show that there are a significant number of people in the NRC who supported the PTP and opposed the coup. I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Keep searching for the new democracy curriculum, it seems to be carefully hidden. That's why comments on this topic started on on the qualifications of a military junta to implement democracy lessons.

good point

I will stand in awe of your brilliance if you can prove there are NRC members advocating serious reform of the military.

Democracy lesson 1, kiddies,

Every democracy in the world has a professional military under control of a civilian government. There are no exceptions to rule number one.

I will stand in awe when you show concern for common Thai people, rather than obfuscating and showing concern for a faulty democracy which seemingly allowed a criminal fugitive to control 'his' country from afar through a clone PM and a cabinet / group of 'his' party MPS who regularly came for praise and new orders.

Democracy 'brucy' style anyone? Maybe 'tbthailand style' ? Last offer, all thrown together, real cheap, anyone ?

What is most notable about your post rubl, is that you in no way address what tbthailand wrote. You just offer sarcasm and once again go on about Thaksin the criminal fugitive (charged by the last military junta and convicted under the government installed by that junta). How many generals would be criminal fugitives if they didn't allow themselves to rewrite constitutions and grant themselves immunity?

I think tbthailand's 'Democracy lesson 1' is the finest post on this entire thread. Although I don't think it is completely true, if I remember correctly Costa Rica is a democracy without a military. Maybe Thailand should try that, democracy Costa Rica style.

[AleG]

Putting aside your dubious statistics....

Yes, everyone should be educated about best government practices, what would make you believe I don't think so?

What you are arguing is not in favour of Democracy, it is in favour of populism to gain political power.

Does Democracy get better the more handouts politicians give out to gain support? Or better Democracy is achieved when an informed population makes decisions not only on their own self interest but with the interests of their country and fellow citizens in mind?

They're not my dubious statistics, they're the World Bank's dubious statistics. They show that in 2012 72% of Thailand's general government expenditures were in Bangkok, which had 17% of the country's population. If you want to identify undemocratic, vote-buying populism, you should follow the money. The money leads to Bangkok, not the north or northeast.

Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?

It is inevitable that people will vote in their self-interest. The trick is to get people to take the long view and not vote for immediate gratification with budget busting hand-outs. In a country like Thailand that has long had a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth and government spending it is also inevitable that when given the vote people will vote for the candidate that promises to equalize this uneven distribution. Even if the junta succeeds in completely removing the Shinawatras from politics, another candidate or party will see this open door to votes. Whether this is undemocratic populism or necessary equalization of investment depends on whether if benefits you or the other guy. But the World Bank seems to be in favor of it.

Yes, dubious statistics, can you provide a cite for them and what they refer to? You do know how easy it is to play fast and loose with statistics, don´t you? For example, I can tell you that according to statistic and with complete certainty and veracity that I have more legs than the average human being.

"Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?"

Yes, and that is why it is important to provide education on what Democracy is and what it entails, so that it doesn't degenerate into what Thailand has been trudging through (without the benefit of ever actually had a full fledged Democracy)

Edited October 3, 2014 by AleG

[heybruce]

Putting aside your dubious statistics....

Yes, everyone should be educated about best government practices, what would make you believe I don't think so?

What you are arguing is not in favour of Democracy, it is in favour of populism to gain political power.

Does Democracy get better the more handouts politicians give out to gain support? Or better Democracy is achieved when an informed population makes decisions not only on their own self interest but with the interests of their country and fellow citizens in mind?

They're not my dubious statistics, they're the World Bank's dubious statistics. They show that in 2012 72% of Thailand's general government expenditures were in Bangkok, which had 17% of the country's population. If you want to identify undemocratic, vote-buying populism, you should follow the money. The money leads to Bangkok, not the north or northeast.

Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?

It is inevitable that people will vote in their self-interest. The trick is to get people to take the long view and not vote for immediate gratification with budget busting hand-outs. In a country like Thailand that has long had a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth and government spending it is also inevitable that when given the vote people will vote for the candidate that promises to equalize this uneven distribution. Even if the junta succeeds in completely removing the Shinawatras from politics, another candidate or party will see this open door to votes. Whether this is undemocratic populism or necessary equalization of investment depends on whether if benefits you or the other guy. But the World Bank seems to be in favor of it.

Yes, dubious statistics, can you provide a cite for them and what they refer to? You do know how easy it is to play fast and loose with statistics, don´t you? For example, I can tell you that according to statistic and with complete certainty and veracity that I have more legs than the average human being.

"Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?"

Yes, and that is why it is important to provide education on what Democracy is and what it entails, so that it doesn't degenerate into what Thailand has been trudging through (without the benefit of ever actually had a full fledged Democracy)

I don't care how many legs you have, show me why the World Bank statistics are wrong. Did you even look at the report?

While you're at it, show me a democracy where people don't vote in their best interests.

[The Blot]

Yeah!

Right!

It is a hierarchy system!

Does it work with Democrasy....Hmmm, I think NOOOOOT!!!!!!

Sad but true!

It is better with Dictatorship...

Think about Plato and Sokrates... confusion! Make it right! Dictator!!!

[khunjamesjohnson]

I used to have a similar position to Rubi. For years I read the Bangkok Post and The Nation and thought they did a decent job on reporting.

Then, the internet came alive and I had access to better information. Comparing what I had read in the Thai press and what was available on the web, I concluded the local press was as bad as the press in North Korea. There is no free press in Thailand.

You can't defend your position if you have only read what they let you read.

Nobody, I mean nobody would defend this junta (and their backers) if they take the time to get a balanced view of the situation.

[Fred Flinstone]

I used to have a similar position to Rubi. For years I read the Bangkok Post and The Nation and thought they did a decent job on reporting.

Then, the internet came alive and I had access to better information. Comparing what I had read in the Thai press and what was available on the web, I concluded the local press was as bad as the press in North Korea. There is no free press in Thailand.

You can't defend your position if you have only read what they let you read.

Nobody, I mean nobody would defend this junta (and their backers) if they take the time to get a balanced view of the situation.

Its true that countries with a good democracy like Australia Have banned this Junta from setting foot on their soil.

And its silly to try and defend a morally indefensible over throw of democratic rule.

But weak men exist in every Nation.

There will always be individual's who are passive submitting types.

Men in military uniforms with guns they begin to admire .

Stockholm Syndrome suffers , cowards , and just uneducated easily indoctrinated morons.

Democracy in Thailand is so disgracefully displaced at present the reader has to go no further than re-writes of history happening in text books…..

I noted John Kerry American secretary of State refused to shake the Thai deputy leaders hand this week in a snub that made the loss of face abundantly clear they are not viewed in endearing terms.

Nor should they be-

This childish discourse on the meaning of democracy from a Junta is extremely audacious thats best left for cowards and their groupies to mull over.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Fred Flinstone

[AleG]

Yes, dubious statistics, can you provide a cite for them and what they refer to? You do know how easy it is to play fast and loose with statistics, don´t you? For example, I can tell you that according to statistic and with complete certainty and veracity that I have more legs than the average human being.

"Regarding people's willingness to make decisions based on the interest of their country and fellow citizens, how naive are you? Have you not noticed that people have a remarkable talent to rationalize that what is in their interests is also for the greater good?"

Yes, and that is why it is important to provide education on what Democracy is and what it entails, so that it doesn't degenerate into what Thailand has been trudging through (without the benefit of ever actually had a full fledged Democracy)

I don't care how many legs you have, show me why the World Bank statistics are wrong. Did you even look at the report?

While you're at it, show me a democracy where people don't vote in their best interests.

No, I didn't look at the report because you haven't provided a link to it.