NLA resolves to proceed with impeachment case against Somsak, Nikom

[webfact]

NLA resolves to proceed with impeachment case against Somsak, Nikom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly voted 87 to 75 to accept an impeachment case against former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon and his deputy Nikom Wairatpanich over alleged constitutional offences.

Fifteen other NLA members abstained.

After deliberation, the NLA decided it had authority to go ahead with the impeachment process.

The NLA began a meeting at 10 am Thursday to consider whether it had the authority to proceed with the case. After a brief debate, the NLA voted 96 to 75 to hold the deliberation in camera. One NLA member stained. The closed-door meeting started at 10:45 am.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NLA-resolves-to-proceed-with-impeachment-case-agai-30247120.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-06

[bangkokfrog]

An inconclusive vote if you ask me. If the 15 who abstained had voted against, the motion would not have been carried. As it was, the "for" vote only 49% of the total NLA membership.

[fab4]

After a brief debate, the NLA voted 96 to 75 to hold the deliberation in camera. One NLA member stained.

No! I will not go there................................

Edited November 6, 2014 by fab4

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

And what if they voted FOR the impeachment????

[WhizBang]

Interesting development. I was betting they would not have voted to proceed.

[siampolee]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to destroy the Constitution through a sneaky parliamentary procedure that would have actually ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate aim of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Edited November 6, 2014 by siampolee

[fab4]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court?..........................

[Cuchulainn]

Oh God. He's back out of his box.

[mikemac]

An inconclusive vote if you ask me. If the 15 who abstained had voted against, the motion would not have been carried. As it was, the "for" vote only 49% of the total NLA membership.

Deja vu ? PTP trying to rush through the infamous amnesty bill that "brought forward" their inevitable downfall. Poetic justice, I say !

Edited November 6, 2014 by mikemac

[mikemac]

fab4 pos t# 7.

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court

Aha the Messiah Shinwatra puppet troll awakes.

fab4 admit it, you are really Robert Amsterdam in disguise.

Pip is not in disguise and never has been, after all everyone knows who he really is. Sore loser nevertheless.

[Cuchulainn]

(Nearly) a trillion times a loser.

[brucec64]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to destroy the Constitution through a sneaky parliamentary procedure that would have actually ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate aim of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Interesting that those voting to impeach, for attempting to change one section of the constitution, were appointed, not elected, by a junta that actually ripped up the entire Constitution. The hypocrisy here, both by the NLA and the junta supporters, is unbelievable.

[bangrak]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court?..........................

When trying to sneak through a fraudulently altered motion at 3 am is not enough for you... But we now what kind of 'opinions' you propagate, so...

[bangrak]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to destroy the Constitution through a sneaky parliamentary procedure that would have actually ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate aim of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Interesting that those voting to impeach, for attempting to change one section of the constitution, were appointed, not elected, by a junta that actually ripped up the entire Constitution. The hypocrisy here, both by the NLA and the junta supporters, is unbelievable.

'bruce64' when hypocrisy is concerned, you are the pot and we are the kettles, not that you're alone as a pot, you're comrades aren't any better, maybe we should call your group: 'the soot brigade' from now on, black being reserved exclusively for your terrorist paramilitary wing...

[Robespiere]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

[bangrak]

An inconclusive vote if you ask me. If the 15 who abstained had voted against, the motion would not have been carried. As it was, the "for" vote only 49% of the total NLA membership.

More PTP/UDD apologists crawling out from under their stone... Do you realise that when one does apply the same very special principles of these mathematics of yours to the (NOT fair and honest) elections which brought the desastrous PTP pseudo-government into power, PTP could never, no way, have been pretending to be 'a' 'majority' of any kind at the time... So, what will it be, hmm? When was your bunch wrong? Then or now?

[Robespiere]

angmo post # 6

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to change part of the Constitution through parliamentary procedure even if a little fishy. Wonder what they would do to someone who ripped up the entire Constitution

Interesting that they want to impeach two guys who tried to destroy the Constitution through a sneaky parliamentary procedure that would have actually ripped up the entire Constitution

That was the ultimate aim of those involved in the administration at that time by devious means.Their acts have led Thailand and its peoples to where we are now

Interesting that those voting to impeach, for attempting to change one section of the constitution, were appointed, not elected, by a junta that actually ripped up the entire Constitution. The hypocrisy here, both by the NLA and the junta supporters, is unbelievable.

'bruce64' when hypocrisy is concerned, you are the pot and we are the kettles, not that you're alone as a pot, you're comrades aren't any better, maybe we should call your group: 'the soot brigade' from now on, black being reserved exclusively for your terrorist paramilitary wing...

Which is the greater crime?

A - Legally attempting to alter 1 section of the constitution in parliament.

B - Throwing out the entire constitution at gunpoint.

Any response to this post need only consist of a single A or a single B - no distortions, propaganda, obfuscations, falsities, outright lies, avoidance, misdirection or waffling required.

Default answer is B - lack of response is acknowledgement of B being the correct answer.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Robespiere

[bangrak]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

Pupil 'Robespierre' in the corner with the fools' cap on, now! How is it possible it could escape to a brilliant mind like yours that, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote? No, I can't accept that from you! So elementary! Shame on you! (Or were you just blinded: 'ah-ha, here I have a rotten fish to throw at these people'? When so, frame it up, eat it, sit on it, sleep with it, take it to your friends, do what you want with it, because that rotten fish, Robespierre, it's all yours! Ba-ah, what a smell! )

[bangrak]

Interesting that those voting to impeach, for attempting to change one section of the constitution, were appointed, not elected, by a junta that actually ripped up the entire Constitution. The hypocrisy here, both by the NLA and the junta supporters, is unbelievable.

'bruce64' when hypocrisy is concerned, you are the pot and we are the kettles, not that you're alone as a pot, you're comrades aren't any better, maybe we should call your group: 'the soot brigade' from now on, black being reserved exclusively for your terrorist paramilitary wing...

Which is the greater crime?

A - Legally attempting to alter 1 section of the constitution in parliament.

B - Throwing out the entire constitution at gunpoint.

Any response to this post need only consist of a single A or a single B - no distortions, propaganda, obfuscations, falsities, outright lies, avoidance, misdirection or waffling required.

Default answer is B - lack of response is acknowledgement of B being the correct answer.

Your 'A' is misleading, as it was NOT done 'legally', that's 'la pointe'(Fr.), mon cher, as for your 'at gunpoint' in 'B', it suits your alias well, as the product of an agitated mind, with not even a remote link with the reality of facts! So, sorry for you, but your whole question is corrupt, when it's not your mind that is, I hope, though considering...

Edited November 6, 2014 by bangrak

[blaze]

Oh God. He's back out of his box.

Excellent summary of the current mess--- probably the most reasoned arguement yet provided by the khakisniffers to rationalize a clownocracy.

[dru2]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

Pupil 'Robespierre' in the corner with the fools' cap on, now! How is it possible it could escape to a brilliant mind like yours that, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote? No, I can't accept that from you! So elementary! Shame on you! (Or were you just blinded: 'ah-ha, here I have a rotten fish to throw at these people'? When so, frame it up, eat it, sit on it, sleep with it, take it to your friends, do what you want with it, because that rotten fish, Robespierre, it's all yours! Ba-ah, what a smell! )

Don't worry about him - he can't even spell Robespierre correctly.

[blaze]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

Pupil 'Robespierre' in the corner with the fools' cap on, now! How is it possible it could escape to a brilliant mind like yours that, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote? No, I can't accept that from you! So elementary! Shame on you! (Or were you just blinded: 'ah-ha, here I have a rotten fish to throw at these people'? When so, frame it up, eat it, sit on it, sleep with it, take it to your friends, do what you want with it, because that rotten fish, Robespierre, it's all yours! Ba-ah, what a smell! )

, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote?

that's all you needed to say-- and leave the head scratching prompted by your kick ass theory to the readers.

(and keep adding those animated cartoons applauding your brilliance-- even if you sound like a fool, the cartoons don't lie);

Edited November 6, 2014 by blaze

[bangrak]

fab4 pos t# 7.

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court

Aha the Messiah Shinwatra puppet troll awakes.

fab4 admit it, you are really Robert Amsterdam in disguise.

No, he's not RA! RA is devious and evil, but he's getting paid big time for it, RA is intelligent...

[bangrak]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

Pupil 'Robespierre' in the corner with the fools' cap on, now! How is it possible it could escape to a brilliant mind like yours that, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote? No, I can't accept that from you! So elementary! Shame on you! (Or were you just blinded: 'ah-ha, here I have a rotten fish to throw at these people'? When so, frame it up, eat it, sit on it, sleep with it, take it to your friends, do what you want with it, because that rotten fish, Robespierre, it's all yours! Ba-ah, what a smell! )

, just maybe, 5 members of the assembly could, eventually, not have been present behind their desk at the time of the first vote, but had (re-?)joined in time for the second vote?

that's all you needed to say-- and leave the head scratching prompted by your kick ass theory to the readers.

Sorry, you could well be right, it's as if Robespierre, fab4, etc., the members of 'the soot brigade', awake the dark side in me...

[bangrak]

Oh God. He's back out of his box.

Excellent summary of the current mess--- probably the most reasoned arguement yet provided by the khakisniffers to rationalize a clownocracy.

Did I miss something? I thought 'Cuchulainn' was writing about 'fab4' joining the forum... One might wonder what some people do sniff through their upright nose before writing here, sure not 'khaki' this blazed one, but...

Edited November 6, 2014 by bangrak

[Phuket Stan]

fab4 pos t# 7.

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court

Aha the Messiah Shinwatra puppet troll awakes.

fab4 admit it, you are really Robert Amsterdam in disguise.

Disguise !!!! Don't u mean in drag

[whybother]

First vote:...................96 + 75 + 01 = 172

Second vote:............. 87 + 75 + 15 = 177

How the <deleted> does anyone believe these idiots managed to count millions of sacks of rice if they can't even work out how many people are in a room?

If you're not there you don't vote or abstain. You only abstain if you are there and choose not to vote.

[whybother]

Which is the greater crime?

A - Legally attempting to alter 1 section of the constitution in parliament.

B - Throwing out the entire constitution at gunpoint.

Any response to this post need only consist of a single A or a single B - no distortions, propaganda, obfuscations, falsities, outright lies, avoidance, misdirection or waffling required.

Default answer is B - lack of response is acknowledgement of B being the correct answer.

Why does it matter which one is the greater crime, if they are both crimes?

[bangrak]

Dear (not sure, but I am polite) 'blaze',

'Khaki' is something from the good (for me) old (alas) days, like from the British 'B.D.' or battle dress, and the smell of the clean freshly ironed wool didn't leave me with any negative olfactive experience, rather the opposite. But nowadays, many armies, like the RTA, wear green uniforms, just for you to know, not khaki anymore.

Calling the Generals 'clowns' makes you a big one, I'm afraid, but you don't make me laugh, so maybe you should change jobs.

Does YOUR big red (nothing about a colour-coded political group here) nose not allow you to smell your own blazed ...? Don't you think a circus manager would rather pick Jatuporn, Nattawut and Arisman as a, ...blazing(!), clowns' trio, with Weng as the sad clown, and, when there's money left, Thida as the red dressed assistant? Hmm?

'Poop, poop, a-do, waaah'?

(distant) Regards

[Baerboxer]

fab4 pos t# 7.

Complete bullshine. What devious means did the administration at that time employ? Do you even know, or is this just a "go along with the flow and argue the toss because it's something to do with the PTP" type argument?

Surely you can't mean the attempts to amend the constitution in line with the guidelines of the Constitutional Court

Aha the Messiah Shinwatra puppet troll awakes.

fab4 admit it, you are really Robert Amsterdam in disguise.

No, I don't think he is.

But whatever happened to Frisian Boppe? Has he reincarnated as Robespiere? The style is, so very familiar.