Jump to content

When politicians shelter behind uniforms


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

first, not complete 'rubbish'. You also don't know what would have happened. I point out - correctly - that with half of the Senate appointed, there was a yellow majority. Whether a PTP person thought the bill would get through or not is irrelevant. It might have, or it might not have. We won't ever know because the PM asked the senate to kill the bill and they did so rather convincingly.

second, there were many UDD who opposed the bill and made their positions clear. You are talking about voting MPs where as I am talking about the UDD members.

The original poster said simply that killing the amnesty was an example of how the system works. Rubl is the one who equated that with the protests. But none the less, in an open and democratic society, it is part of participating to voice your views be it as an individual or a group. So as Rubl is an unabashed junta cheerleader, it is probably natural that he would question this point.

You tell some porkies, my dear tbthailand, and more over since you suggest you know better than others, you seem to be lying.

You assume that the half of the Senate which was appointed was 'yellow'. No proof of course.

The PM didn't ask the Senate to kill the bill, she tried to wash her hands of the blanket amnesty bill when the anti-government protests grew and no one listened to her "please go home, not all done yet". Then she said "It's up to the Senate, I/we have nothing to do with it". With the overwhelming protests the Senate correctly concluded that the bill was not in the interest of the people and they voted against it sending it back to parliament where it would lay dormant for 180 days.

Furthermore there were some red-shirt who opposed the bill mainly because it included Abhisit and Suthep. They didn't seem to mind that even Ms. Yingluck managed to have herself included. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Korkaew and other red-shirt MPs voted in favour of the bill. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leaders Nattawut and Dr weng abstained only as did the late Seh Daeng's daughter as Pheu Thai party list MP. Luckily with the ongoing protests the UDD leaders managed to let the red-shirts forget they even contemplated a blanket amnesty and rallied them behind 'their' darling Yingluck who was threatened and there were ever suggestions about 'stealing your election again'. There were also sporadic talks about the blanket amnesty bill not including Abhisit/Suthep of course, just a misunderstanding, etc., etc.

So, six amnesty bills still at the begin of the parliamentary process were withdrawn, killed. The "blanket amnesty bill" remained.

Edited by rubl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chap was challenging the authority of the NCPO in a public broadcast. He even wrote about this on his facebook page, voicing surprise that he was asked to leave after asking about "stealing the rights from the people".

Now if he had asked such questions in a forum I would only call it disruptive. He doesn't really seem to want progress, only condemnation, provocation and obstruction.

BTW this being an English language forum, links to Thai only articles are not encouraged.

In fact he was asking a very valid and thoughtful question, a skill that is sadly lacking in Thai youth, and becoming even more exaggerated in this stifling, repressive environment. (part of the grand scheme)

PS You asked for the link.

He talked about the NCPO having stolen the rights of the people. He would have known that he was not allowed to ask such a question in a public broadcast. Martial Law and such.

So, it would seem he deliberately provoked by asking a question which under circumstances would see him removed only to be able to complain about being removed. Furthermore he also complained about the restrictions put to him before by the TV5 program team.

I'm only surprised he didn't give a three finger salute. In a figurative manner though he did give a one or two finger salute.

BTW this case is similar to some poster being banned as he didn't heed the pinned topic at the begin. You still post though.

PS as for the link, my mistake. I assumed you would provide a link to an English article which is the norm here.

The Matayom 5 female student was invited onto the show because of her role as the secretary of a student group promoting freedom. When she arrived at Channel 5 she was given a script to read, which she refused. She said she had her own questions, but when the President of the NRC heard them, she was told she could not participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was dead.

really, it was dead.

you and rubl are in dreamland.

even suthep knew it was dead.

no one was talking about the bill after december. it was dead.

have you figured that out yet?

of course not.... clap2.gif

I'm afraid you also need to get a few commonly accessable pages on the Internet removed, parliamentary notes destroyed, a rewrite of the constitution and a few laws before you will manage to convince the "blanket amnesty bill" was dead.

No one needed to talk about the "blanket amnesty bill" after it was rejected by the Senate laying dormant for 180 days, apart from using it to remind people of the conniving nature of the Thaksin ordered Yingluck government.

The "blanket amnesty bill" was such a stupid miscalculation of what democracy means that all Thaksin, Yingluck, Pheu Thai, UDD supporters here would like it dead and buried at least six deep. IIt would seem some are even prepared to lie about it, all for the good cause of a Amply Rich fellow.

Edited by rubl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He talked about the NCPO having stolen the rights of the people. He would have known that he was not allowed to ask such a question in a public broadcast. Martial Law and such.

So, it would seem he deliberately provoked by asking a question which under circumstances would see him removed only to be able to complain about being removed. Furthermore he also complained about the restrictions put to him before by the TV5 program team.

I'm only surprised he didn't give a three finger salute. In a figurative manner though he did give a one or two finger salute.

BTW this case is similar to some poster being banned as he didn't heed the pinned topic at the begin. You still post though.

PS as for the link, my mistake. I assumed you would provide a link to an English article which is the norm here.

The Matayom 5 female student was invited onto the show because of her role as the secretary of a student group promoting freedom. When she arrived at Channel 5 she was given a script to read, which she refused. She said she had her own questions, but when the President of the NRC heard them, she was told she could not participate.

So? The young lady tried to use a public broadcast for propaganda and to agitate against the NCPO. She even got much further in her questions than you would have seen in the time we could ask PM Yingluck "all we wanted'.

In those days we were told that "of course" public broadcasts would be scripted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there you go again...

there were plenty of people against the amnesty bill in it's final form. Including red shirts.

and not even the PDRC was protesting against the amnesty bill once it was killed.

There you go again....... repeating Yingluck's lie that the contentious version of the amnesty bill was killed. It wasn't. All the other versions, that didn't whitewash her criminal brother were killed off. But not that version. All PTP had to do was make sure they were still in power when it was returned to the house and they could vote it into law without having to go back again to the Senate.

it was dead.

really, it was dead.

you and rubl are in dreamland.

even suthep knew it was dead.

no one was talking about the bill after december. it was dead.

have you figured that out yet?

of course not.... clap2.gif

You do not seem to have it figured out at all. It could be no one was talking about the bill but what Baerboxer said is absolutely correct. It was stated many times in the news that it was in PTP's power to bring up th ebill again, I believe the timeframe is 180 days.

I have it well figured out. Of course it was, technically, possible to revive the bill. Everyone who is informed about the bill knows that.

And the bill was still dead. Dead. Gone, Nada. Finished, ... Everyone who is informed about how the bill was killed understands that. Except Rubl, evidently...

Rubl clings to the technicalities and for what reason I don't know. It doesn't even support any of his other positions which cheer on the junta to no end. it's just a fantasy that he somehow believes in and keeps bringing up in his posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was dead.

really, it was dead.

you and rubl are in dreamland.

even suthep knew it was dead.

no one was talking about the bill after december. it was dead.

have you figured that out yet?

of course not.... clap2.gif

You do not seem to have it figured out at all. It could be no one was talking about the bill but what Baerboxer said is absolutely correct. It was stated many times in the news that it was in PTP's power to bring up th ebill again, I believe the timeframe is 180 days.

I have it well figured out. Of course it was, technically, possible to revive the bill. Everyone who is informed about the bill knows that.

And the bill was still dead. Dead. Gone, Nada. Finished, ... Everyone who is informed about how the bill was killed understands that. Except Rubl, evidently...

Rubl clings to the technicalities and for what reason I don't know. It doesn't even support any of his other positions which cheer on the junta to no end. it's just a fantasy that he somehow believes in and keeps bringing up in his posts.

Those technicalities are called 'law' by some people, imagine rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, not complete 'rubbish'. You also don't know what would have happened. I point out - correctly - that with half of the Senate appointed, there was a yellow majority. Whether a PTP person thought the bill would get through or not is irrelevant. It might have, or it might not have. We won't ever know because the PM asked the senate to kill the bill and they did so rather convincingly.

second, there were many UDD who opposed the bill and made their positions clear. You are talking about voting MPs where as I am talking about the UDD members.

The original poster said simply that killing the amnesty was an example of how the system works. Rubl is the one who equated that with the protests. But none the less, in an open and democratic society, it is part of participating to voice your views be it as an individual or a group. So as Rubl is an unabashed junta cheerleader, it is probably natural that he would question this point.

You tell some porkies, my dear tbthailand, and more over since you suggest you know better than others, you seem to be lying.

You assume that the half of the Senate which was appointed was 'yellow'. No proof of course.

The PM didn't ask the Senate to kill the bill, she tried to wash her hands of the blanket amnesty bill when the anti-government protests grew and no one listened to her "please go home, not all done yet". Then she said "It's up to the Senate, I/we have nothing to do with it". With the overwhelming protests the Senate correctly concluded that the bill was not in the interest of the people and they voted against it sending it back to parliament where it would lay dormant for 180 days.

Furthermore there were some red-shirt who opposed the bill mainly because it included Abhisit and Suthep. They didn't seem to mind that even Ms. Yingluck managed to have herself included. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Korkaew and other red-shirt MPs voted in favour of the bill. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leaders Nattawut and Dr weng abstained only as did the late Seh Daeng's daughter as Pheu Thai party list MP. Luckily with the ongoing protests the UDD leaders managed to let the red-shirts forget they even contemplated a blanket amnesty and rallied them behind 'their' darling Yingluck who was threatened and there were ever suggestions about 'stealing your election again'. There were also sporadic talks about the blanket amnesty bill not including Abhisit/Suthep of course, just a misunderstanding, etc., etc.

So, six amnesty bills still at the begin of the parliamentary process were withdrawn, killed. The "blanket amnesty bill" remained.

I've posted all the links and information to you before rubl. you didn't believe it then, you won't believe it now. And yes, that included links to the PM asking the Senate to vote against the bill. She did that herself. The bill was dead. Get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, not complete 'rubbish'. You also don't know what would have happened. I point out - correctly - that with half of the Senate appointed, there was a yellow majority. Whether a PTP person thought the bill would get through or not is irrelevant. It might have, or it might not have. We won't ever know because the PM asked the senate to kill the bill and they did so rather convincingly.

second, there were many UDD who opposed the bill and made their positions clear. You are talking about voting MPs where as I am talking about the UDD members.

The original poster said simply that killing the amnesty was an example of how the system works. Rubl is the one who equated that with the protests. But none the less, in an open and democratic society, it is part of participating to voice your views be it as an individual or a group. So as Rubl is an unabashed junta cheerleader, it is probably natural that he would question this point.

You tell some porkies, my dear tbthailand, and more over since you suggest you know better than others, you seem to be lying.

You assume that the half of the Senate which was appointed was 'yellow'. No proof of course.

The PM didn't ask the Senate to kill the bill, she tried to wash her hands of the blanket amnesty bill when the anti-government protests grew and no one listened to her "please go home, not all done yet". Then she said "It's up to the Senate, I/we have nothing to do with it". With the overwhelming protests the Senate correctly concluded that the bill was not in the interest of the people and they voted against it sending it back to parliament where it would lay dormant for 180 days.

Furthermore there were some red-shirt who opposed the bill mainly because it included Abhisit and Suthep. They didn't seem to mind that even Ms. Yingluck managed to have herself included. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Korkaew and other red-shirt MPs voted in favour of the bill. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leaders Nattawut and Dr weng abstained only as did the late Seh Daeng's daughter as Pheu Thai party list MP. Luckily with the ongoing protests the UDD leaders managed to let the red-shirts forget they even contemplated a blanket amnesty and rallied them behind 'their' darling Yingluck who was threatened and there were ever suggestions about 'stealing your election again'. There were also sporadic talks about the blanket amnesty bill not including Abhisit/Suthep of course, just a misunderstanding, etc., etc.

So, six amnesty bills still at the begin of the parliamentary process were withdrawn, killed. The "blanket amnesty bill" remained.

I've posted all the links and information to you before rubl. you didn't believe it then, you won't believe it now. And yes, that included links to the PM asking the Senate to vote against the bill. She did that herself. The bill was dead. Get over it.

PM asking the Senate to vote against her bill? Sorry, no dice.

Only obfuscation, misrepresentation, 'technicalities', denial.

What all of your comments do express is a sense of desperation, maybe the realisation that the "blanket amnesty bill" ranks amongst the more bizarre cases of corruption of an already faulty democratic system for the benefit of some Amply Rich people.

Edited by rubl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...