Thaksin in the list of those hunted for lese majeste and other offences

[DaffyDuck]

Since none of your other criteria were met by prior government, the only difference left are one had elections (however corrupted they were) and the other does not. Hence, elections are your only criteria to demonize the current government, no matter how much it might achieve, or what its true intentions are.

Seriously do you consider you have made a grown up point?

Since you are desperately evading addressing it, it would appear that I have.

[GarryP]

[quo hear I disagree with your conclusion.

You keep confirming that the ONLY thing you care about to declare a democratic process are elections - by this same logic, China, Russia, and Cambodia also have flourishing democracies. Yet, you reject that.

Not wanting to jump to Jayboy's defence, as he does write a lot that I disagree with, but he does not confirm ONLY that the be all and end all of democracy is elections. Stop cherry picking.

Also, don't you think that the current regime, yes - regime, is once again cementing the position of the men in green and the current establishment. Okay they are introducing laws which should have been in place long ago and have actually done some things which should have been implemented by previous governments (who did nothing due to self interest), but this cannot be used as an excuse for stregthening the military role in government.

[jayboy]

Since none of your other criteria were met by prior government, the only difference left are one had elections (however corrupted they were) and the other does not. Hence, elections are your only criteria to demonize the current government, no matter how much it might achieve, or what its true intentions are.

Seriously do you consider you have made a grown up point?

Since you are desperately evading addressing it, it would appear that I have.

I find your argument incomprehensible and I am a Cambridge graduate.

Perhaps it would be better for us both to go silent, and let others be the judge.

[DaffyDuck]

Not wanting to jump to Jayboy's defence, as he does write a lot that I disagree with, but he does not confirm ONLY that the be all and end all of democracy is elections. Stop cherry picking.

Also, don't you think that the current regime, yes - regime, is once again cementing the position of the men in green and the current establishment. Okay they are introducing laws which should have been in place long ago and have actually done some things which should have been implemented by previous governments (who did nothing due to self interest), but this cannot be used as an excuse for stregthening the military role in government.

How does the current government - yes, government - do that with any permanent intention? Are they enacting rulings and laws that assist them in their present tasks, and provide them additional authority and protection that they need, presently? Yes.

How are they making that permanent, considering their roadmap includes eventually providing free elections and stepping down?

[DaffyDuck]

Since you are desperately evading addressing it, it would appear that I have.

I find your argument incomprehensible and I am a Cambridge graduate.

Perhaps it would be better for us both to go silent, and let others be the judge.

Yes, I would expect you to seek a flounce around now, seeing as you are being boxed in having to explain your own hypocrisy - your weak appeal to your own authority (Cambridge - haha) doesn't carry much weight. Having graduated in chaucerian literature from Cambridge would give you no authority with regards to politics - and considering your penchant for evading and avoiding uncomfortable issues, I doubt very much that you held your weight in debate, politics, economics or any relevant field.

Edited December 23, 2014 by DaffyDuck

[CharlieH]

Some posts edited as "quotes" messed up.

[GarryP]

Not wanting to jump to Jayboy's defence, as he does write a lot that I disagree with, but he does not confirm ONLY that the be all and end all of democracy is elections. Stop cherry picking.

Also, don't you think that the current regime, yes - regime, is once again cementing the position of the men in green and the current establishment. Okay they are introducing laws which should have been in place long ago and have actually done some things which should have been implemented by previous governments (who did nothing due to self interest), but this cannot be used as an excuse for stregthening the military role in government.

How does the current government - yes, government - do that with any permanent intention? Are they enacting rulings and laws that assist them in their present tasks, and provide them additional authority and protection that they need, presently? Yes.

How are they making that permanent, considering their roadmap includes eventually providing free elections and stepping down?

But are they talking about free elections and is the legislation they aim to put into place truly democratic. It would seem, and I may be wrong here, that they are doing their damndest to make sure democratic reform is balanced so that certain interests cannot return. A tilted see-saw so to speak. And those with their bums firmly on the ground are the people that continue to support the military's position/power. So while not introducing legislation to legitimize their role as the gatekeeper, they are creating a situation where their favorites get in, and pass on the role to them.

They are trying to create an image that the elections will be free and fair, when in fact the results are likely to be pre-ordained, if not by gerrymandering, but other means at their disposal, including pre-election bans. After the elections and stepping down, the trumpeting to the world that Thailand is once again a true democracy is going to be laughable.

Perhaps I am too cynical.

Apart from the above, the junta should continue with what it is doing at the moment as their is no denying that some good has come from the takeover. Just don't go on and on about democracy when Thaialnd has never been and is unlikely to be in my lifetime a true democracy with all the attendant rights afforded to the people and a justice system that is just.

[jayboy]

Since you are desperately evading addressing it, it would appear that I have.

I find your argument incomprehensible and I am a Cambridge graduate.

Perhaps it would be better for us both to go silent, and let others be the judge.

Yes, I would expect you to seek a flounce around now, seeing as you are being boxed in having to explain your own hypocrisy - your weak appeal to your own authority (Cambridge - haha) doesn't carry much weight. Having graduated in chaucerian literature from Cambridge would give you no authority with regards to politics - and considering your penchant for evading and avoiding uncomfortable issues, I doubt very much that you held your weight in debate, politics, economics or any relevant field.

You may think what you like - though in fact I graduated in economics.The point is even members who share your general position are bewildered by your "argument".

[DaffyDuck]

So while not introducing legislation to legitimize their role as the gatekeeper, they are creating a situation where their favorites get in, and pass on the role to them.

I think it's less a situation of favoritism, but rather just wanting to prevent undesirable elements (well, just ONE undesirable element) of standing a chance at a return. There is a difference between the two approaches.

At least we can agree that the Army is not enacting legislation to entrench themselves permanently. That's my whole point, as there is no indication that they are.

[DaffyDuck]

.The point is even members who share your general position are bewildered by your "argument".

All that matter is how you continue to avoid responding or addressing the points made about your hypocritical position on 'democracy' ...

[jayboy]

.The point is even members who share your general position are bewildered by your "argument".

All that matter is how you continue to avoid responding or addressing the points made about your hypocritical position on 'democracy' ...

But since you have never framed my alleged hypocrisy in a coherent way, it is almost impossible to respond.

You seem to be saying that mature democracy did not exist under the previous regime and does not exist under the present one, the only difference being that the former was elected by the Thai people.You suggest therefore given my criticism of the current regime that my only criterion for democracy, despite what I have clearly said to the contrary,is that a government should be elected.

Have I understood you correctly?

[DaffyDuck]

Wow. There's hope for you yet - yes, and thus, I'm calling out your cherry-picking of 'democracy criteria' as hypocrisy:

- your claimed that elections alone are not a sufficient criteria.

- are admitting that the prior governments failed on the remaining criteria you listed.

- yet consistently demonize the present government as being non-democratic, and steps backward from democracy.

- yet can't show what the prior government did better or different, except, of course, not being the current government.

Face it, at the end of the day, your abject hatred of the present government is simply that - a personal, irrational hatred that you have built upon a foundation of confirmation biased assertions and invalid criteria.

There is really little for you left to address - your earlier flounces, and your consistent refusal to address my earlier questions about your positions regarding China, Russia, Cambodia or North Korea (and your flounce when persisted further on it) have exposed you for the hypocrite that you are with regards to your position, and have lost you any credibility that you might have mustered.

[smutcakes]

Wow. There's hope for you yet - yes, and thus, I'm calling out your cherry-picking of 'democracy criteria' as hypocrisy:

- your claimed that elections alone are not a sufficient criteria.

- are admitting that the prior governments failed on the remaining criteria you listed.

- yet consistently demonize the present government as being non-democratic, and steps backward from democracy.

- yet can't show what the prior government did better or different, except, of course, not being the current government.

Face it, at the end of the day, your abject hatred of the present government is simply that - a personal, irrational hatred that you have built upon a foundation of confirmation biased assertions and invalid criteria.

There is really little for you left to address - your earlier flounces, and your consistent refusal to address my earlier questions about your positions regarding China, Russia, Cambodia or North Korea (and your flounce when persisted further on it) have exposed you for the hypocrite that you are with regards to your position, and have lost you any credibility that you might have mustered.

Wow is that the scraping of goal posts i hear.

You want me to pass the lube Daffy?

[DaffyDuck]

Finally, concluding this thread - the basic assertion of the OP, that Thaksin is being hunted for LM is incorrect and essentially false. Others might be sought for LM violation (unlikely they will be extradited for rear sons previously given).

Thaksin's violations are numerous and significant enough to make them stick, though - including being a convicted criminal who fled, corruption, and state sponsored murder. So, he has reason enough to be worried.

Personally, I agree with those that opine that Thaksin should simply be ignored (at least overtly and publicly) as any attention given him only benefits him, and keeps people aware of him. A better use of govt resource would be the definitive annexation of the billions of baht of his fortune, and using it to fund projects that benefit the people.

Furthermore, I also feel that pursuing Yingluk for culpability in the rice scam is pointless. She was merely following order - so, it anything, they should pursue charges of dereliction of duties, or whatever the equivalent of 'abdicating responsibility to unelected third parties' would be. Plenty of verifiable evidence to make such cases stick. At the end of the day, she will get her 5 year suspension.

From a strategic point of view, Prayuth should invite Yingluk, Abhisit and even Suthep into a 'consulting' position with his government, to provide opinions and suggestions about government issues. It'd be best way to keep them all close, and avoiding any claims of excluding people. Plus, it'd be fun to watch.

As for the Prayuth government (yes, government) they have a roadmap in place, and we have established that they are not enacting legislation to keep themselves permanently in charge - and that they have a definite roadmap to establish a framework and environment in which *real* democratic elections and governance would be possible, in the future.

As such, since that appears to be the constant demand of people like jayboy, I find it oddly startling how vehemently opposed he is to a government that has the stated goal of achieving exactly what he demands (lie blindly supportive of prior governments and leaders that have shown to have the exact opposite goals and intentions. Ask yourselves why that is?

[rubl]

Oh, so you didn't mean the elected vested interest of PM businessman Thaksin, the one who disgracefully used the Thai State for his own interest.

No I didn't mean Thaksin as of course was obvious.Still I note the time honoured tactic lives on of invoking him when other arguments fail.

But on the whole I prefer elected vested interests to non elected vested interests - because the former can be voted out.

'invoke Thaksin'? Did you forget that the topic is on him ?

Personally I would prefer that vested interests cannot stand for elections when it's not certain and certified they will forget about their own interest before getting a change to be elected for a public office and misuse it for their own benefit.

[jayboy]

Wow. There's hope for you yet - yes, and thus, I'm calling out your cherry-picking of 'democracy criteria' as hypocrisy:

- your claimed that elections alone are not a sufficient criteria.

- are admitting that the prior governments failed on the remaining criteria you listed.

- yet consistently demonize the present government as being non-democratic, and steps backward from democracy.

- yet can't show what the prior government did better or different, except, of course, not being the current government.

Face it, at the end of the day, your abject hatred of the present government is simply that - a personal, irrational hatred that you have built upon a foundation of confirmation biased assertions and invalid criteria.

There is really little for you left to address - your earlier flounces, and your consistent refusal to address my earlier questions about your positions regarding China, Russia, Cambodia or North Korea (and your flounce when persisted further on it) have exposed you for the hypocrite that you are with regards to your position, and have lost you any credibility that you might have mustered.

If,as you have now confirmed my tongue in cheek summary actually represented your argument (I can hardly credit its mindless puerility), then you have truly embarrassed yourself.You are talking utter nonsense.

[DaffyDuck]

If,as you have now confirmed my tongue in cheek summary actually represented your argument (I can hardly credit its mindless puerility), then you have truly embarrassed yourself.You are talking utter nonsense.

Seeing as all I have done is repeat, focus and expose your own stated positions, thank you for confirming both that your own position is utter nonsense, and that you are truly embarrassing yourself. Your projecting really, really helps in this exposé.

Weren't you in the process of storming out and flouncing?

Edited December 23, 2014 by DaffyDuck

[jayboy]

If,as you have now confirmed my tongue in cheek summary actually represented your argument (I can hardly credit its mindless puerility), then you have truly embarrassed yourself.You are talking utter nonsense.

Seeing as all I have done is repeat, focus and expose your own stated positions, thank you for confirming both that your own position is utter nonsense, and that you are truly embarrassing yourself. Your projecting really, really helps in this exposé.

The lame tu quoque response as expected.Let others judge.That's it for me.

[DaffyDuck]

Yeah holding up a mirror to you didn't really work out to well for you, did it? Flounce away.

[tbthailand]

If,as you have now confirmed my tongue in cheek summary actually represented your argument (I can hardly credit its mindless puerility), then you have truly embarrassed yourself.You are talking utter nonsense.

Seeing as all I have done is repeat, focus and expose your own stated positions, thank you for confirming both that your own position is utter nonsense, and that you are truly embarrassing yourself. Your projecting really, really helps in this exposé.

The lame tu quoque response as expected.Let others judge.That's it for me.

jayboy,

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

[DaffyDuck]

Yes, I've noticed that when challenged to support your position or assertions with actual facts, both of you tend to rage-quit and flounce, with lots of faux indignation over being called out for your fabrications. Seems consistent behavior so far.

[jayboy]

If,as you have now confirmed my tongue in cheek summary actually represented your argument (I can hardly credit its mindless puerility), then you have truly embarrassed yourself.You are talking utter nonsense.

Seeing as all I have done is repeat, focus and expose your own stated positions, thank you for confirming both that your own position is utter nonsense, and that you are truly embarrassing yourself. Your projecting really, really helps in this exposé.

The lame tu quoque response as expected.Let others judge.That's it for me.

jayboy,

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

Thanks for that.I don't take it too seriously however.I agree there is something rather "off" with this fellow's observations and I strongly suspect he is not intellectually up to scratch.

Still it's a pity there aren't some articulate defenders of the new dispensation.It would be interesting to have a proper debate without acrimony or sarcasm.For some reason the more rabid democracy haters seem to be a blue collar bunch and probably not accustomed to balanced or analytical thought.

[rubl]

jayboy,

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

Thanks for that.I don't take it too seriously however.I agree there is something rather "off" with this fellow's observations and I strongly suspect he is not intellectually up to scratch.

Still it's a pity there aren't some articulate defenders of the new dispensation.It would be interesting to have a proper debate without acrimony or sarcasm.For some reason the more rabid democracy haters seem to be a blue collar bunch and probably not accustomed to balanced or analytical thought.

Be careful there, my dear boy. Before you know it you start to talk about buffaloes

[tbthailand]

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

Thanks for that.I don't take it too seriously however.I agree there is something rather "off" with this fellow's observations and I strongly suspect he is not intellectually up to scratch.

Still it's a pity there aren't some articulate defenders of the new dispensation.It would be interesting to have a proper debate without acrimony or sarcasm.For some reason the more rabid democracy haters seem to be a blue collar bunch and probably not accustomed to balanced or analytical thought.

Did I mention that he also likes to get the last word?

Yet he continues to goad posters into replying. Maybe it's his need to feel superior. Or it could be his need for attention.

btw, I don't know about the 'blue collar' part - at least in the US, the level of education and position in the professional hierarchy doesn't seem to be indicative of someone's ability to formulate a coherent case for their point of view. I mean a good education helps ... no doubt, but I know some really bright farmers and some very incoherent PhDs.

In the case of DD, his objective seems to have nothing to do with being coherent, so it doesn't really matter.

Ciao ....

[moe666]

LM112 is the highest and most important law of the land. This is the land of the father. He provided love, peace and hope for all his children living under his protection. Anyone who do not love the father do not deserve to live here and should be jailed until they do.

There is no law in Thailand. The military coup illegally took control of the country and abolished the constitution. There are no legally elected officials in Thailand.

That doesn't mean there is no law.

[jayboy]

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

Thanks for that.I don't take it too seriously however.I agree there is something rather "off" with this fellow's observations and I strongly suspect he is not intellectually up to scratch.

Still it's a pity there aren't some articulate defenders of the new dispensation.It would be interesting to have a proper debate without acrimony or sarcasm.For some reason the more rabid democracy haters seem to be a blue collar bunch and probably not accustomed to balanced or analytical thought.

Did I mention that he also likes to get the last word?

Yet he continues to goad posters into replying. Maybe it's his need to feel superior. Or it could be his need for attention.

btw, I don't know about the 'blue collar' part - at least in the US, the level of education and position in the professional hierarchy doesn't seem to be indicative of someone's ability to formulate a coherent case for their point of view. I mean a good education helps ... no doubt, but I know some really bright farmers and some very incoherent PhDs.

In the case of DD, his objective seems to have nothing to do with being coherent, so it doesn't really matter.

Ciao ....

You're right of course and my blue collar comment was really just another way of expressing surprise that some rather ordinary foreigners feel an identification with the Thai ruling class - who actually would want nothing to do with them.

I think in Thailand many confuse education with intelligence.It's not a particularly analytical culture so self proclaimed educated people often just repeat mantras and cliches.

There's not much doubt that Thai voters are perceptive and acute regardless of background or education.They choose candidates they believe will benefit their families and communities.

[tbthailand]

feel free to ignore quacks like this guy. Not only is his demeanour 'unpleasant', to be kind, his MO for discussions is to take what you say & draw an illogical conclusion from that or otherwise misrepresent what you said. Then he'll repeat it back as 'so you claim, XYZ', and demand that you defend a position that you don't hold... yet he'll continue to claim that you do.

It's not a tactic for discussion, but rather it is a tactic for killing discussion from a disingenuous intellectual wannabe.

Thanks for that.I don't take it too seriously however.I agree there is something rather "off" with this fellow's observations and I strongly suspect he is not intellectually up to scratch.

Still it's a pity there aren't some articulate defenders of the new dispensation.It would be interesting to have a proper debate without acrimony or sarcasm.For some reason the more rabid democracy haters seem to be a blue collar bunch and probably not accustomed to balanced or analytical thought.

Did I mention that he also likes to get the last word?

Yet he continues to goad posters into replying. Maybe it's his need to feel superior. Or it could be his need for attention.

btw, I don't know about the 'blue collar' part - at least in the US, the level of education and position in the professional hierarchy doesn't seem to be indicative of someone's ability to formulate a coherent case for their point of view. I mean a good education helps ... no doubt, but I know some really bright farmers and some very incoherent PhDs.

In the case of DD, his objective seems to have nothing to do with being coherent, so it doesn't really matter.

Ciao ....

You're right of course and my blue collar comment was really just another way of expressing surprise that some rather ordinary foreigners feel an identification with the Thai ruling class - who actually would want nothing to do with them.

I think in Thailand many confuse education with intelligence.It's not a particularly analytical culture so self proclaimed educated people often just repeat mantras and cliches.

There's not much doubt that Thai voters are perceptive and acute regardless of background or education.They choose candidates they believe will benefit their families and communities.

I agree that Thai voters vote in their own interests. It's interesting since in the USA, the amount of money in the process actually sways many voters to vote against their own self-interest.

What is also interesting in Thailand is that so many normal people understand the fundamentals of democracy. The anti-democrats in Thailand tend to be more privileged and should know better. I've got several good friends who fall into this latter group, and it's amazing.