candide Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 How many of those who voted for her impeachment were elected to their positions? None? Zero? How many appointed by current puppets of ruling class? All? Those 18 votes: was this to give illusion there is some sort of representative government in power? do we know who the 18 were? I'd be interested who these ethical 18 were as they were appointees of the unelected military Junta YET voted against them - Kudos to every one of them No names, but the Nation had "while the 18 votes in her favour mostly came from people in the business sector." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/politics/Most-military-officers-voted-against-the-former-pr-30252607.html It may be that business people, even those hand-picked by Gen. Prayut, are more 'understanding' regarding business expenses and may also have been more concerned with the possible economical effects if an Amply Rich woman would be impeached and her poor supporters would raise up to show their displeasure.Can't really blame them. Even a court had similar concerns in 2001. 'rule of law' anyone? Always the same logic: the army and the members of the group of 40 senators cannot be suspected of being politically biased, and the 18 who voted against impeachment are suspected to have done so because they were afraid of retaliations by YL's supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) How many of those who voted for her impeachment were elected to their positions? None? Zero? How many appointed by current puppets of ruling class? All? Those 18 votes: was this to give illusion there is some sort of representative government in power? do we know who the 18 were? I'd be interested who these ethical 18 were as they were appointees of the unelected military Junta YET voted against them - Kudos to every one of them No names, but the Nation had "while the 18 votes in her favour mostly came from people in the business sector." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/politics/Most-military-officers-voted-against-the-former-pr-30252607.html It may be that business people, even those hand-picked by Gen. Prayut, are more 'understanding' regarding business expenses and may also have been more concerned with the possible economical effects if an Amply Rich woman would be impeached and her poor supporters would raise up to show their displeasure.Can't really blame them. Even a court had similar concerns in 2001. 'rule of law' anyone? Always the same logic: the army and the members of the group of 40 senators cannot be suspected of being politically biased, and the 18 who voted against impeachment are suspected to have done so because they were afraid of retaliations by YL's supporters There are also some other combinations possible it would seem, that is when reading posts here. Maybe all politically biased? Maybe only those we dislike politically biased? Maybe all perfectly objective? Maybe all subjective? Maybe some both politically biased AND objective in voting? Almost like a real parliament Edited January 25, 2015 by rubl 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 rubl fascist supporters of juntas are not 'innocent' at least defend what you are and 'innocent ' is NOT one of them I agree and support Rubi. Does that make me a facist also? fascism ~ a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Don't know about you billd766, but that description pretty much suits Thaksin, not you and rubl. (These guys like to throw words around, don't they ? Democratically elected, reconciliation, fascism, elites, dictatorships, elections, impeach etc etc etc.................shame they do not know what these words actually mean, or how to use them correctly in a sentence) I don't think that the term facist really fits anybody on Thai Visa but if it keeps binjalin happy why should I care? It is only his opinion and that is worth as much as mine or anybody elses. At least in Italy under Mussolini and the facists the trains ran on time and rarely crashed. Something that the SRT has a great problem with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) fascism ~ a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Don't know about you billd766, but that description pretty much suits Thaksin, not you and rubl. (These guys like to throw words around, don't they ? Democratically elected, reconciliation, fascism, elites, dictatorships, elections, impeach etc etc etc.................shame they do not know what these words actually mean, or how to use them correctly in a sentence) fas·cism a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a d******r (censored) controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism not 'throwing words around' what is incorrect about this description? pray tell... Edited January 26, 2015 by binjalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Then don't. If you did please explain how the street protest didn't lead to Yingluck's caretaker status in the first place, or how Suthep didn't threaten the banks while there was still some debate over the loans or how the PDRC didn't sometimes just resort to outright violence to impede the sale of rice http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/protesters-stall-rice-auction There was no debate over the loans. A care-taker government is NOT allowed to borrow money. The banks may have thought "but Yingluck will be in power again", but that doesn't make lending money to a care-taker government legal. 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