fab4 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 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... Ah. I knew it would come out eventually. Perhaps you could explain how a bill that was debated for 19 hours, after which the "opposition", such as they were, walked out, which then passed the 2nd and 3rd readings with ease, as Bills with no opposition available because of their boycott to vote against it tend to do, is somehow the result of "devious means" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab4 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 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? Where is the crime in legally attempting to alter one section of the constitution in line with the guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) 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? Where is the crime in legally attempting to alter one section of the constitution in line with the guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court? I didn't actually say it was a crime. Rob suggested it was a crime by asking "Which is the greater crime?" *IF* it is a crime, why would it matter which is the greater one? Edited November 6, 2014 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamini Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 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?.......................... Seems you do not know the real reason. It was not the make up of the senate. (even the Democrats supported an elected senate) It was the fact that they wanted to allow wives and children of MP's to become senators so they could have complete control over the senate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesimps Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) 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 You mean unlike the junta who ripped up the constitution without parliamentary approval sneaky or otherwise. Edited November 6, 2014 by jesimps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bangrak Posted November 6, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2014 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... Ah. I knew it would come out eventually. Perhaps you could explain how a bill that was debated for 19 hours, after which the "opposition", such as they were, walked out, which then passed the 2nd and 3rd readings with ease, as Bills with no opposition available because of their boycott to vote against it tend to do, is somehow the result of "devious means" ? So, you must have been in a padded isolation cell, not to hear anything either about the text being proposed to the vote in the end having been, just before the, unsheduled, abruptly called (very) early morning session, how could I say, 'slightly altered'? I know TRT/PPP/PTP has made this country getting used to a lot, but when these aren't 'devious means', well... They tried to con the whole nation, do you need to try conning us as a premium? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I reacted in #29 on 'blaze''s #20 khaki and clowns elucubration, let me please be allowed to add the following while staying in the same 'atmosphere'. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Thai political world is, one, big circus. To the clown's number in my #29, I would like to add a few more 'informations' I've got about 'the circus'. The ringmaster's, 'Monsieur Loyal' in French, test period of 6 months is nearing its end, it seems the owners of the circus would have expressed the wish to see more 'action' from him, whatever this might mean. The guy who had two(!) numbers in the show, although he had come highly recommended, has now been booted out for good by the owners: his number with many poodles was going well, but his dogs proved to cost a fortune in premium beef; as for his magician number, they liked the most, as well as the public on the cheapest seats did, there appeared in the long run to be a major problem with, as he was unrivalled in making things disappear but never seemed to be able to bring anything back; his always clean and good looking assistant (said to be his sister, or so, nobody knows for sure) was given a try in the magical number herself, but she seemed to have the same problem as her master, pardon, teacher, not being able to bring anything back after making it disappear, so she had to be dismissed too, though some say she could possibly, to please the backrow spectators, re-appear in the equestrian number, where the outfits are very fashionable too, and would suit her well as you just have to stay on the back of the horse while smiling and not having to say one word (I didn't know she is a mute, and my source didn't want to comment on this), last, today I heard there might be a slight problem about that come-back, as the manager suspects her of having also made the circus' cash reserve disappear. I will keep you posted about further developments. Todeloo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Ah. I knew it would come out eventually. Perhaps you could explain how a bill that was debated for 19 hours, after which the "opposition", such as they were, walked out, which then passed the 2nd and 3rd readings with ease, as Bills with no opposition available because of their boycott to vote against it tend to do, is somehow the result of "devious means" ? So, you must have been in a padded isolation cell, not to hear anything either about the text being proposed to the vote in the end having been, just before the, unsheduled, abruptly called (very) early morning session, how could I say, 'slightly altered'? I know TRT/PPP/PTP has made this country getting used to a lot, but when these aren't 'devious means', well... They tried to con the whole nation, do you need to try conning us as a premium? Now tell me, was this before the dems were supposedly "tricked" into believing that the debate would be continued the next day, or, in reality, was it before they decided to boycott that vote and walk out of the chamber thus leaving the 2nd and 3rd readings of the Bill to sail through unchallenged? Fab, you forgot or d'you have a selective memory? Anyway, I don't want to embarass you any further with this affair, wherein people you so obstinately (or is it blindly?) support show their true face, once more, and, again, it's not a good looking one. Though this bad lakorn will maybe be soon 'enlightened' by the (for some) pretty face of your dear Yingluck who is said to be casted in a next episode, a mass production with a lot of ugly faces it might become, when the whole bunch of former PTP MPs and 'sympathetic' Senators, who weren't 'cosher' either during that in-famous night, would have to join the show. Let us sit and relax, and see what's coming next. As in many a lakorn the villains seem to win, I can't wait to see how (litterally) costly it might become for your idols to work themselves around this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Seems you do not know the real reason. It was not the make up of the senate. (even the Democrats supported an elected senate) It was the fact that they wanted to allow wives and children of MP's to become senators so they could have complete control over the senate. Then would you like to explain to me how the "real reason" of wanting to change the restrictions on family members of MP's from being elected to the Senate is a "devious act" and supposedly such a heinous crime as to be actually attempting to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State" - with a straight face please................................. So, it's not a problem for you to have whole families 'elected', in the fair-and-honest Thaksin way, occupying the Senate... When you can't understand there's a serious issue there with the 'democratical content' of such nepotism, you might as well ask for a seat in Pion Yang's half moon, many members of a few families too, as the great leader there seems to throw the 'disobedient' ones, litterally, to the dogs the system might suit you well... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustBucket Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 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?.......................... The devious means were that all those who voted in the senate for the yes camp are all well known as being in the control of Thaksin.... No secrets there. Secondly., The speakers sent home all the no camp and told them the debate would reopen at 9am in the morning, strange how the entire yes camp stayed and did not go home, and the no camp returned in the morning at 9am only to find that the bill had been unanimously pushed through. Or did you forget all that? Why the hell do you think they were dragged up in front of the constitutional court in the first place? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robespiere Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 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? Where is the crime in legally attempting to alter one section of the constitution in line with the guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court? I didn't actually say it was a crime. Rob suggested it was a crime by asking "Which is the greater crime?" *IF* it is a crime, why would it matter which is the greater one? One is a crime and one isn't, so it's really quite clear to all but the brainwashed which is the greater crime (because there is only one choice). Secondly, it matters because the guys guilty of B a trying to impeach the guys who did A. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe the situation we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 A few troll posts have been removed from view. I highly suggest a member or two calm down a bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. C. Squandering a trillion Baht on a rice scam to try and buy your way back to the top? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angmo Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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 So what about the guys who just ripped it up anyway. Not devious of course just 'good'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robespiere Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. C. Squandering a trillion Baht on a rice scam to try and buy your way back to the top? Yet another one avoiding answering a simple question. A or B It's easy, try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. C. Squandering a trillion Baht on a rice scam to try and buy your way back to the top? Yet another one avoiding answering a simple question. A or B It's easy, try it. So is spelling. Hint: copying and pasting is even easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robespiere Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. C. Squandering a trillion Baht on a rice scam to try and buy your way back to the top? Yet another one avoiding answering a simple question. A or B It's easy, try it. So is spelling. Hint: copying and pasting is even easier. I'll say it for you. B - throwing out the entire constitution at gunpoint. Rest easy now my friend, no more need to concoct excuses to avoid answering the ever so simple question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucec64 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The case is accepted but the impeachment will most likely not succeed. The close vote indicates that the 123 votes needed to impeach will not be there. The military can afford to appear magnanimous in this case, and not undertake what might appear to be malicious prosecution. But at the end of the day, the NCPO sponsored constitution will ensure that all of the "wrong" politicians will have their wings clipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now