NLA to consider Yingluck’s impeachment case‏

[Emster23]

Why can't these people find something useful to do? Seems there are more pressing problems that should be addressed than this witch hunt....

[Baerboxer]

They have already set a precedence by citing the 2007 charter being revoked.

This case is dead in the water.

The yellow elite want her head because of her popularity and the people want their elected leader back.

They have no clue how to handle the shin popularity .

The people never had an elected leader with Yingluck though. They got a non elected convicted fugitive running things for his own purposes instead.

The Shins are now despised my many I know who voted for them previously. They've twigged the Shins are in it for their own benefit - no one else counts.

[Baerboxer]

Why can't these people find something useful to do? Seems there are more pressing problems that should be addressed than this witch hunt....

She was a puppet who failed to do anything to keep her brother's government in check.

Should she be punished - doesn't matter what any one thinks, the rich elite hiso's rarely go to courts, or get real punishment. Her brother was an exception because,as always he went too far.

Worst case is a 5 year ban from politics, like her sister, niece, various in-laws, bother's henchmen.

Sure that's not going to bother her. Big brother probably has the next stooge, party name change, all lined up just in case.

[Baerboxer]

Hey leko your source of information is impeccable and it's from a completely unbiased paper.

What is it? The pad facts information with the banner anti Thaksin traitor to the nation..

The mere mention of the name Yingluck sends shivers down the yellow elites spines because they have nothing .

Nothing? You seem to forget the 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guaranteed by the Yingluck Government. A self-financing scheme gone wrong. A charge of 'negligence' seems rather mild.

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

Externally, they can see clearly what's going on in LOS. Internally, there are increasing noises like from Paul Chambers of Chiang Mai University said that the puppets in the NLA and their master will probably arranged for Yingluck to be banned from political office. Sadly the NLA is interpreting their own laws to reach their goal but will not be enough to soften the Thaksin camp.

Which is exactly what PTP did before - interpret laws how they wanted too, ignore the ones they didn't like.

And most if not all previous governments did the same.

Same same - not different.

[Baerboxer]

Hey leko your source of information is impeccable and it's from a completely unbiased paper.

For the benefit of the apparently learning disabled, the website is not a newspaper, but a source of information in which it quotes newspaper articles.

Is there some factual information in my quote or the linked article that you dispute, or are you just sputtering to deflect from Yingluck and her attorney because you have nothing?

Learning difficulties - not learning disabled.

Your second sentence is spot on though.

[rubl]

Hey leko your source of information is impeccable and it's from a completely unbiased paper.

What is it? The pad facts information with the banner anti Thaksin traitor to the nation..

The mere mention of the name Yingluck sends shivers down the yellow elites spines because they have nothing .

Nothing? You seem to forget the 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guaranteed by the Yingluck Government. A self-financing scheme gone wrong. A charge of 'negligence' seems rather mild.

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

I wonder why this post as reply to what I wrote?

Don't we have a 700++ billion Baht gap due to the failed self-financing scheme of the Yingluck Administration? At least a charge of negligence seems in order rather than 'nothing'. What some seem to misunderstand is a possible lack of legal base doesn't alter the criminality of the offence, negligence which cost the taxpayer and the country 700++ billion Baht which will be paid back in seven years time. That at a time when money could have a better use in economical promotion.

BTW, no offence, but knowing you, I somehow doubt the quote from the FT is literal, especially the 'puppet' part.

[rubl]

Hey leko your source of information is impeccable and it's from a completely unbiased paper.

What is it? The pad facts information with the banner anti Thaksin traitor to the nation..

The mere mention of the name Yingluck sends shivers down the yellow elites spines because they have nothing .

Nothing? You seem to forget the 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guaranteed by the Yingluck Government. A self-financing scheme gone wrong. A charge of 'negligence' seems rather mild.

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

Externally, they can see clearly what's going on in LOS. Internally, there are increasing noises like from Paul Chambers of Chiang Mai University said that the puppets in the NLA and their master will probably arranged for Yingluck to be banned from political office. Sadly the NLA is interpreting their own laws to reach their goal but will not be enough to soften the Thaksin camp.

So, clearly some see no reason to look into the 700++ billion Baht gap at BAAC which was a result of Ms. Yingluck failed self-financing scheme.

BTW you may think writing 'master' and 'puppet' helps, but stricly speaking it just shows bias and lack of objectivity.

[jayboy]

Hey leko your source of information is impeccable and it's from a completely unbiased paper.

What is it? The pad facts information with the banner anti Thaksin traitor to the nation..

The mere mention of the name Yingluck sends shivers down the yellow elites spines because they have nothing .

Nothing? You seem to forget the 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guaranteed by the Yingluck Government. A self-financing scheme gone wrong. A charge of 'negligence' seems rather mild.

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

I wonder why this post as reply to what I wrote?

Don't we have a 700++ billion Baht gap due to the failed self-financing scheme of the Yingluck Administration? At least a charge of negligence seems in order rather than 'nothing'. What some seem to misunderstand is a possible lack of legal base doesn't alter the criminality of the offence, negligence which cost the taxpayer and the country 700++ billion Baht which will be paid back in seven years time. That at a time when money could have a better use in economical promotion.

BTW, no offence, but knowing you, I somehow doubt the quote from the FT is literal, especially the 'puppet' part.

On the basis of your posts you don't seem to be the type who would be a regular FT reader (no offence).I can however assure you that "Junta's puppet government" is a direct quote from its Thailand correspondent, Michael Peel.It's easy to obtain access to the FT for a limited number of articles, so knock yourself out.

The ludicrous aspect of your post is not your indignation that the FT speaks frankly but your implied suggestion that the regime currently in power is something other than the Junta's puppet government.

[rubl]

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

I wonder why this post as reply to what I wrote?

Don't we have a 700++ billion Baht gap due to the failed self-financing scheme of the Yingluck Administration? At least a charge of negligence seems in order rather than 'nothing'. What some seem to misunderstand is a possible lack of legal base doesn't alter the criminality of the offence, negligence which cost the taxpayer and the country 700++ billion Baht which will be paid back in seven years time. That at a time when money could have a better use in economical promotion.

BTW, no offence, but knowing you, I somehow doubt the quote from the FT is literal, especially the 'puppet' part.

On the basis of your posts you don't seem to be the type who would be a regular FT reader (no offence).I can however assure you that "Junta's puppet government" is a direct quote from its Thailand correspondent, Michael Peel.It's easy to obtain access to the FT for a limited number of articles, so knock yourself out.

The ludicrous aspect of your post is not your indignation that the FT speaks frankly but your implied suggestion that the regime currently in power is something other than the Junta's puppet government.

No offence taken, there are lots of other newspapers I don't read regularly if at all. since you're so adamant about it I accept your explanation.

Now as for the 'indignation, I didn't show any, I only wondered about the 'puppet' part.

The rest of my post was a follow up on your reply which didn't seem to have much relation with the post you replied to.

[jayboy]

The Financial Times (that well known revolutionary rag) - behind a pay wall - simply reports "The Thailand Junta's puppet government seeks to impeach Yingluck under a law that no longer exists".

It's fortunate that on the forum we have a number of cheerleaders to the current Junta who can put us right when ignorant outsiders misunderstand.

I wonder why this post as reply to what I wrote?

Don't we have a 700++ billion Baht gap due to the failed self-financing scheme of the Yingluck Administration? At least a charge of negligence seems in order rather than 'nothing'. What some seem to misunderstand is a possible lack of legal base doesn't alter the criminality of the offence, negligence which cost the taxpayer and the country 700++ billion Baht which will be paid back in seven years time. That at a time when money could have a better use in economical promotion.

BTW, no offence, but knowing you, I somehow doubt the quote from the FT is literal, especially the 'puppet' part.

On the basis of your posts you don't seem to be the type who would be a regular FT reader (no offence).I can however assure you that "Junta's puppet government" is a direct quote from its Thailand correspondent, Michael Peel.It's easy to obtain access to the FT for a limited number of articles, so knock yourself out.

The ludicrous aspect of your post is not your indignation that the FT speaks frankly but your implied suggestion that the regime currently in power is something other than the Junta's puppet government.

No offence taken, there are lots of other newspapers I don't read regularly if at all. since you're so adamant about it I accept your explanation.

Now as for the 'indignation, I didn't show any, I only wondered about the 'puppet' part.

The rest of my post was a follow up on your reply which didn't seem to have much relation with the post you replied to.

What possible grounds could any sentient person have to "wonder about the puppet part"? It is not even up for debate.It's not an insult, simply the unvarnished truth.

[rubl]

What possible grounds could any sentient person have to "wonder about the puppet part"? It is not even up for debate.It's not an insult, simply the unvarnished truth.

... and we're not even discussing the Yingluck Administration yet.