'Democratic culture is being eroded'

[tbthailand]

I agree with the other poster who says, democracy has really not been real in the past either.

The recent government seemed to be too attached to a past Thai PM.

Maybe being related to someone who was in power in the recent past is hard to

stay distant enough to make the Thai population believe that big brother was no influence

at all.

I was going to say that I cannot believe that there are still so many people who

show support of the red party, but then I also have some relatives that are

supporters, so go figure!

I am just glad that the current PM is not a big red supporter.

How was democracy not real? Thais voted in free and fair elections as per the 1997 Peoples Constitution, the Reds won time after time after time and each time they won they formed government and began enacting their policies - i.e. democracy.

You're saying past PM's lacked legitimacy because democracy wasn't real yet you readily support an unelected anti democratic PM because...........he is not a big red supporter.

Seems to me your issue is not with democracy but rather with being an extreme right wing nutter, you are bad-mouthing Thai democracy to provide a fig leaf of cover for your fascist tendencies.

In a free and fair election there is no vote buying (all sides have done it)

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

Now some may be an entity by themselves and I wish them luck in making their lives better. But certainly 2010 they were bought and paid for!

The Shinawatra clan in various guises won the elections. The first one in 2001 was a breath of fresh air for Thailand with high hopes for the future, then unfortunately it progressed into a power hungry me, me, me attitude!

It's no mistake that only one PM under the Shinawatra Thai rak Thai, People's party, Phua Thai evolutions hasn't been family .. and Samak was a huge mistake for Thaksin.

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

that is a rather simple, and in any case, inaccurate description of the origins of the red shirts and the UDD. The UDD is and always has been an umbrella group for many different groups which formed in the wake of (and in reaction to) the 2006 coup.

[tbthailand]

Any links for your unlinked, alleged news source Economist quote?

Not that we distrust your paraphrasing or wonder if it actually exists.

yes, but since both articles/documents also discuss things that are illegal to discuss in Thailand, I did not post them.

So actually that's a no then and we're left with trusting you to paraphrase an article that doesn't have proof of existence.

In other words, if you can't link a quoted reference, probably best not to quote it in the first place.

.

Actually that is a "yes", but since the forum rules and the laws of Thailand both would prohibit me from posting the 2 that I reference, I did not.

The parts of both which deal with the economic impact would be allowed here, but there are parts of the documents which would not be allowed here. The D&B is a PDF which states :

Recommendations n DO NOT disseminate this Special Briefing to associates based in or due to travel to Thailand; it covers the (deleted), punishable under Thai law

Got it?

And since Heybruce already pointed out the obvious, no, you are not left with trusting me, either.

[Jeffreyake]

in a long period democracy always leads to socialism, because any society consists of 80% losers and 20% winners (Pareto principle) so majority will vote for robbing the minority and sharing, as soon as any populist will promise this.

so martial law is bad for democracy but good for economy.

what is more important for you? your own prosperity or absence of individuals richer than you? freedom or equality? 80% choose the second option because they are slaves of there ego

Thailand chose freedom, but "masters in pith helmets" from the West still believe they know it better how other nations should live. and keep trying to indoctrinate Thais with there sick left-liberal dogma...

progressive humanity should unite to fight against left-liberal fundamentalists

Edited February 16, 2015 by Jeffreyake

[casualbiker]

I agree with the other poster who says, democracy has really not been real in the past either.

The recent government seemed to be too attached to a past Thai PM.

Maybe being related to someone who was in power in the recent past is hard to

stay distant enough to make the Thai population believe that big brother was no influence

at all.

I was going to say that I cannot believe that there are still so many people who

show support of the red party, but then I also have some relatives that are

supporters, so go figure!

I am just glad that the current PM is not a big red supporter.

How was democracy not real? Thais voted in free and fair elections as per the 1997 Peoples Constitution, the Reds won time after time after time and each time they won they formed government and began enacting their policies - i.e. democracy.

You're saying past PM's lacked legitimacy because democracy wasn't real yet you readily support an unelected anti democratic PM because...........he is not a big red supporter.

Seems to me your issue is not with democracy but rather with being an extreme right wing nutter, you are bad-mouthing Thai democracy to provide a fig leaf of cover for your fascist tendencies.

In a free and fair election there is no vote buying (all sides have done it)

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

Now some may be an entity by themselves and I wish them luck in making their lives better. But certainly 2010 they were bought and paid for!

The Shinawatra clan in various guises won the elections. The first one in 2001 was a breath of fresh air for Thailand with high hopes for the future, then unfortunately it progressed into a power hungry me, me, me attitude!

It's no mistake that only one PM under the Shinawatra Thai rak Thai, People's party, Phua Thai evolutions hasn't been family .. and Samak was a huge mistake for Thaksin.

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

that is a rather simple, and in any case, inaccurate description of the origins of the red shirts and the UDD. The UDD is and always has been an umbrella group for many different groups which formed in the wake of (and in reaction to) the 2006 coup.

Fair enough .. who financed the UDD? Who were the UDD primarily working for?

Since 2014 some Red shirt groups have split away from the UDD and Phua Thai, and I wish them the best of luck furthering their cause not an on the run billionaires!

Edited February 16, 2015 by casualbiker

[tbthailand]

Seems to me your issue is not with democracy but rather with being an extreme right wing nutter, you are bad-mouthing Thai democracy to provide a fig leaf of cover for your fascist tendencies.

In a free and fair election there is no vote buying (all sides have done it)

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

Now some may be an entity by themselves and I wish them luck in making their lives better. But certainly 2010 they were bought and paid for!

The Shinawatra clan in various guises won the elections. The first one in 2001 was a breath of fresh air for Thailand with high hopes for the future, then unfortunately it progressed into a power hungry me, me, me attitude!

It's no mistake that only one PM under the Shinawatra Thai rak Thai, People's party, Phua Thai evolutions hasn't been family .. and Samak was a huge mistake for Thaksin.

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

that is a rather simple, and in any case, inaccurate description of the origins of the red shirts and the UDD. The UDD is and always has been an umbrella group for many different groups which formed in the wake of (and in reaction to) the 2006 coup.

Really? Link to UDD start date please.

I tell you what, if you think you are right, and since you were first in line to make such a statement... go ahead and provide some support for and back up your claim ... then we'll talk about mine.... 'cause not only am I second in line here, ... I know I can back up mine...

[JAG]

Bangkok is a feudal system. It is running Thailand.

No worse then the shin dictatorship.

Never seen an elected dictator. Universal suffrage is far from perfect, but people usually get the government that deserve. As much as you and other despise them, the Shinawatra are hardworking and intelligent. More so than any other Thai family. They paid attention to those in the countryside while other privilege families stayed home. There are reasons to dislike them but why can't some other family challenge them ?

Iran, Venezuela, Turkey. Egypt (Morsi). And, of course, Germany, Hitler. That's just a beginning of a list of elected dictators.

your point is nonsense, but just for the record: hilter was not elected dictator. He was appointed by the power that be. They, presumably, were sorry later.

So no different to Yingluck, she was appointed as well. Unlike popular belief she wasn't elected as she wasn't a constituency MP just party list. She was appointed PM after a parliamentary vote!

Just about every sentient being who voted for PT in the election which brought them to power did so in the knowledge that a PT victory was going to result in Yingluck as Prime Minister. The mechanisms which formally brought her to the post were the result of the (then) constitutional process. To say she was not elected is taking pedantry to the stage of lying in order to attempt to undermine the fact that she is the last elected Prime Minister of Thailand.

The people voted for her.

Not a claim which can be made for the present incumbent.

Edited February 16, 2015 by JAG

[heybruce]

in a long period democracy always leads to socialism, because any society consists of 80% losers and 20% winners (Pareto principle) so majority will vote for robbing the minority and sharing, as soon as any populist will promise this.

so martial law is bad for democracy but good for economy.

what is more important for you? your own prosperity or absence of individuals richer than you? freedom or equality? 80% choose the second option because they are slaves of there ego

Thailand chose freedom, but "masters in pith helmets" from the West still believe they know it better how other nations should live. and keep trying to indoctrinate Thais with there sick left-liberal dogma...

progressive humanity should unite to fight against left-liberal fundamentalists

Your argument might have some credibility if you could give examples of countries that prospered under military rule and/or martial law.

Edited February 16, 2015 by heybruce

[casualbiker]

Bangkok is a feudal system. It is running Thailand.

No worse then the shin dictatorship.

Never seen an elected dictator. Universal suffrage is far from perfect, but people usually get the government that deserve. As much as you and other despise them, the Shinawatra are hardworking and intelligent. More so than any other Thai family. They paid attention to those in the countryside while other privilege families stayed home. There are reasons to dislike them but why can't some other family challenge them ?

Iran, Venezuela, Turkey. Egypt (Morsi). And, of course, Germany, Hitler. That's just a beginning of a list of elected dictators.

your point is nonsense, but just for the record: hilter was not elected dictator. He was appointed by the power that be. They, presumably, were sorry later.

So no different to Yingluck, she was appointed as well. Unlike popular belief she wasn't elected as she wasn't a constituency MP just party list. She was appointed PM after a parliamentary vote!

Just about every sentient being who voted for PT in the election which brought them to power did so in the knowledge that a PT victory was going to result in Yingluck as Prime Minister. The mechanisms which formally brought her to the post were the result of the (then) constitutional process. To say she was not elected is taking pedantry to the stage of lying in order to attempt to undermine the fact that she is the last elected Prime Minister of Thailand.

The people voted for her.

Not a claim which can be made for the present incumbent.

So the facts are now lies... I understand your point but the facts are that even after the election Yingluck COULD have been changed for any other Phua Thai member!

She was an elected Pm in the same way that Abhisit was an elected Pm. " The mechanisms which formally brought them to the post were the result of the (then) constitutional process"

And yet according to the Red shirts and their paymaster Thaksin, Abhisit was illegitimate!

[casualbiker]

Seems to me your issue is not with democracy but rather with being an extreme right wing nutter, you are bad-mouthing Thai democracy to provide a fig leaf of cover for your fascist tendencies.

In a free and fair election there is no vote buying (all sides have done it)

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

Now some may be an entity by themselves and I wish them luck in making their lives better. But certainly 2010 they were bought and paid for!

The Shinawatra clan in various guises won the elections. The first one in 2001 was a breath of fresh air for Thailand with high hopes for the future, then unfortunately it progressed into a power hungry me, me, me attitude!

It's no mistake that only one PM under the Shinawatra Thai rak Thai, People's party, Phua Thai evolutions hasn't been family .. and Samak was a huge mistake for Thaksin.

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

that is a rather simple, and in any case, inaccurate description of the origins of the red shirts and the UDD. The UDD is and always has been an umbrella group for many different groups which formed in the wake of (and in reaction to) the 2006 coup.

Really? Link to UDD start date please.

I tell you what, if you think you are right, and since you were first in line to make such a statement... go ahead and provide some support for and back up your claim ... then we'll talk about mine.... 'cause not only am I second in line here, ... I know I can back up mine...

I did a Google and saw my mistake. Still stand by the financing of the UDD though :-D

[djjamie]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

[baboon]

Being eroded?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Why? Is your life that dull at the moment?

[heybruce]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

Right, why don't you demonstrate the junta's tolerance of dissent by publicly calling for elections and a full and transparent investigation of the wealth of all those generals?

[aimbc]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I find the article heading humorous. I think democracy eroded along time ago and that is why the military was able to took over.

The article is hardly any kind of an analysis but more of a generalization about any situation. Sure it will affect something in the long term negatively, but it will affect other things in a positive way. Depending which business you are in. So we have to weigh the out come. I don't know what other junta have this much autonomy to the people.

The only thing that I see affected are the very people who created this mess and caused the military to take over, The politicians.

Indeed, I don't see anyone anywhere I go that is affected by martial law, but then I don't associate with politicians or trouble makers.

The OP says there are 20 people detained......Out of 65 million.

While the other 64.9999, whatever million go about their normal business.

20 , 200, 2000, Its still people being detained without trial for what they believe in.

These detained are politicians who are the cancer. But no one ever frets about the damages that these politicians did to Millions of people with their irresponsible populist policies. These are hard earn tax and future tax that only help a few of the poor farmers, but mostly benefited the already well to do farmers. Many others that not only eroded, but corroded democracy. Pathetic, time to clean up the the mess and I am glad someone had the balls to do.

And don't tell me that the USA stands for democracy. The last time they had spat with each other, it was the civil war. Better to have the junta come out many times than an all out civil war. BTW, nothing civil about a war.

[uppo]

Any links for your unlinked, alleged news source Economist quote?

Not that we distrust your paraphrasing or wonder if it actually exists.

yes, but since both articles/documents also discuss things that are illegal to discuss in Thailand, I did not post them.

So actually that's a no then and we're left with trusting you to paraphrase an article that doesn't have proof of existence.

In other words, if you can't link a quoted reference, probably best not to quote it in the first place.

.

Actually that is a "yes", but since the forum rules and the laws of Thailand both would prohibit me from posting the 2 that I reference, I did not.

The parts of both which deal with the economic impact would be allowed here, but there are parts of the documents which would not be allowed here. The D&B is a PDF which states :

Recommendations n DO NOT disseminate this Special Briefing to associates based in or due to travel to Thailand; it covers the (deleted), punishable under Thai law

And since Heybruce already pointed out the obvious, no, you are not left with trusting me, either.

Actually, it's still a no, as we find trusting you to relay accurate information is more than a bit risky.

Heybruce didn't point out "the obvious", but at least he did provide the info to find the actual article that you neglected to include in your supposed quote of the alleged article.

You left out important information in your quote of the article such as that other banking analysts see things quite differently to what you say.

Additionally, there is not one single reference to D & B in it.

If you are citing a different article for that, once again, rather than quoting from an article that you won't link, perhaps, once again, it's best if you don't quote it in the first place.

Your attempt at deceiving other forum members is duly noted.

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by uppo

[tbthailand]

Seems to me your issue is not with democracy but rather with being an extreme right wing nutter, you are bad-mouthing Thai democracy to provide a fig leaf of cover for your fascist tendencies.

In a free and fair election there is no vote buying (all sides have done it)

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

Now some may be an entity by themselves and I wish them luck in making their lives better. But certainly 2010 they were bought and paid for!

The Shinawatra clan in various guises won the elections. The first one in 2001 was a breath of fresh air for Thailand with high hopes for the future, then unfortunately it progressed into a power hungry me, me, me attitude!

It's no mistake that only one PM under the Shinawatra Thai rak Thai, People's party, Phua Thai evolutions hasn't been family .. and Samak was a huge mistake for Thaksin.

Also the "red's " didn't win time after time, they didn't exist until 2009-2010 bought into existence by Shinawatra money.

that is a rather simple, and in any case, inaccurate description of the origins of the red shirts and the UDD. The UDD is and always has been an umbrella group for many different groups which formed in the wake of (and in reaction to) the 2006 coup.

Really? Link to UDD start date please.

I tell you what, if you think you are right, and since you were first in line to make such a statement... go ahead and provide some support for and back up your claim ... then we'll talk about mine.... 'cause not only am I second in line here, ... I know I can back up mine...

I did a Google and saw my mistake. Still stand by the financing of the UDD though :-D

Thanks - no sweat

There are a lot of red shirts who are diehard Thaksin fans... but over the years, there have been various events demonstrating that while they dance together, they also are not joined at the hip.

I've never seen any hard evidence presented of things that Thaksin has financed, but it is a reasonable assumption that he does.

I agree with you completely that red shirts should separate from Thaksin. He has shown many times that he is more interested in himself than he is in his supporters.

Oddly enough, the current situation may accelerate that - and maybe in unexpected ways. Here is a link from P-tai that talks about activists and red shirts having a common cause due to martial law and military suppression... which is not exclusively targeting political suppression.

[tbthailand]

So actually that's a no then and we're left with trusting you to paraphrase an article that doesn't have proof of existence.

In other words, if you can't link a quoted reference, probably best not to quote it in the first place.

.

Actually that is a "yes", but since the forum rules and the laws of Thailand both would prohibit me from posting the 2 that I reference, I did not.

The parts of both which deal with the economic impact would be allowed here, but there are parts of the documents which would not be allowed here. The D&B is a PDF which states :

Recommendations n DO NOT disseminate this Special Briefing to associates based in or due to travel to Thailand; it covers the (deleted), punishable under Thai law

And since Heybruce already pointed out the obvious, no, you are not left with trusting me, either.

Actually, it's still a no, as we find trusting you to relay accurate information is more than a bit risky.

Heybruce didn't point out "the obvious", but at least he did provide the info to find the actual article that you neglected to include in your supposed quote of the alleged article.

You left out important information in your quote of the article such as that other banking analysts see things quite differently to what you say.

Additionally, there is not one single reference to D & B in it.

If you are citing a different article for that, once again, rather than quoting from an article that you won't link, perhaps, once again, it's best if you don't quote it in the first place.

Your attempt at deceiving other forum members is duly noted.

.

I mentioned that it has been widely reported, and Heybruce's recommendation comes up with one of the reports, albeit not what I referenced.

The D&B reference is to a D&B report. Again, it is one of many reports on the economic costs to Thailand.

But here is a thought for you, ... a little jingle my girl sings....

Five little ducks went swimming one day

Over the hill and far away

Momma duck said "quack, quack, quack"

And only four little ducks came back

I won't provide the link to it, but a search on youtube will give you many many versions of this story.

See what I mean?

Quack, quack...

[uppo]

So actually that's a no then and we're left with trusting you to paraphrase an article that doesn't have proof of existence.

In other words, if you can't link a quoted reference, probably best not to quote it in the first place.

.

Actually that is a "yes", but since the forum rules and the laws of Thailand both would prohibit me from posting the 2 that I reference, I did not.

The parts of both which deal with the economic impact would be allowed here, but there are parts of the documents which would not be allowed here. The D&B is a PDF which states :

Recommendations n DO NOT disseminate this Special Briefing to associates based in or due to travel to Thailand; it covers the (deleted), punishable under Thai law

And since Heybruce already pointed out the obvious, no, you are not left with trusting me, either.

Actually, it's still a no, as we find trusting you to relay accurate information is more than a bit risky.

Heybruce didn't point out "the obvious", but at least he did provide the info to find the actual article that you neglected to include in your supposed quote of the alleged article.

You left out important information in your quote of the article such as that other banking analysts see things quite differently to what you say.

Additionally, there is not one single reference to D & B in it.

If you are citing a different article for that, once again, rather than quoting from an article that you won't link, perhaps, once again, it's best if you don't quote it in the first place.

Your attempt at deceiving other forum members is duly noted.

.

I mentioned that it has been widely reported, and Heybruce's recommendation comes up with one of the reports, albeit not what I referenced.

The D&B reference is to a D&B report.

As said, if you're not willing to provide a link to a quote, it becomes an unverified quote and best to not bother quoting ANY OF IT in the first place.

Seems very straight forward and it seems all the other forum members comply with this basic tenet of forum etiquette.

Perhaps you see yourself as special and don't need to follow what all others do.

[Jeffreyake]

in a long period democracy always leads to socialism, because any society consists of 80% losers and 20% winners (Pareto principle) so majority will vote for robbing the minority and sharing, as soon as any populist will promise this.

so martial law is bad for democracy but good for economy.

what is more important for you? your own prosperity or absence of individuals richer than you? freedom or equality? 80% choose the second option because they are slaves of there ego

Thailand chose freedom, but "masters in pith helmets" from the West still believe they know it better how other nations should live. and keep trying to indoctrinate Thais with there sick left-liberal dogma...

progressive humanity should unite to fight against left-liberal fundamentalists

Your argument might have some credibility if you could give examples of countries that prospered under military rule and/or martial law.

Chile, Taiwan, South Korea for example

Right, why don't you demonstrate the junta's tolerance of dissent by publicly calling for elections and a full and transparent investigation of the wealth of all those generals?

here it is, a voice of envy! why don't you call for "fair distribution of wealth"?

this what I am talking about!

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jeffreyake

[tbthailand]

The parts of both which deal with the economic impact would be allowed here, but there are parts of the documents which would not be allowed here. The D&B is a PDF which states :

Recommendations n DO NOT disseminate this Special Briefing to associates based in or due to travel to Thailand; it covers the (deleted), punishable under Thai law

And since Heybruce already pointed out the obvious, no, you are not left with trusting me, either.

Actually, it's still a no, as we find trusting you to relay accurate information is more than a bit risky.

Heybruce didn't point out "the obvious", but at least he did provide the info to find the actual article that you neglected to include in your supposed quote of the alleged article.

You left out important information in your quote of the article such as that other banking analysts see things quite differently to what you say.

Additionally, there is not one single reference to D & B in it.

If you are citing a different article for that, once again, rather than quoting from an article that you won't link, perhaps, once again, it's best if you don't quote it in the first place.

Your attempt at deceiving other forum members is duly noted.

.

I mentioned that it has been widely reported, and Heybruce's recommendation comes up with one of the reports, albeit not what I referenced.

The D&B reference is to a D&B report.

As said, if you're not willing to provide a link to a quote, it becomes an unverified quote and best to not bother quoting ANY OF IT in the first place.

Seems very straight forward and it seems all the other forum members comply with this basic tenet of forum etiquette.

Perhaps you see yourself as special and don't need to follow what all others do.

quack

[uppo]

Actually, it's still a no, as we find trusting you to relay accurate information is more than a bit risky.

Heybruce didn't point out "the obvious", but at least he did provide the info to find the actual article that you neglected to include in your supposed quote of the alleged article.

You left out important information in your quote of the article such as that other banking analysts see things quite differently to what you say.

Additionally, there is not one single reference to D & B in it.

If you are citing a different article for that, once again, rather than quoting from an article that you won't link, perhaps, once again, it's best if you don't quote it in the first place.

Your attempt at deceiving other forum members is duly noted.

.

I mentioned that it has been widely reported, and Heybruce's recommendation comes up with one of the reports, albeit not what I referenced.

The D&B reference is to a D&B report.

As said, if you're not willing to provide a link to a quote, it becomes an unverified quote and best to not bother quoting ANY OF IT in the first place.

Seems very straight forward and it seems all the other forum members comply with this basic tenet of forum etiquette.

Perhaps you see yourself as special and don't need to follow what all others do.

quack

Fair enough.

You have nothing to justify your obfuscation and dishonesty.

In the future, probably best for others to just report your posts of unlinked quotes at first posting and have them deleted as per forum protocol.

Thus avoid your obfuscating followed by nonsensical quacking.

.

Edited February 17, 2015 by uppo

[tbthailand]

As said, if you're not willing to provide a link to a quote, it becomes an unverified quote and best to not bother quoting ANY OF IT in the first place.

Seems very straight forward and it seems all the other forum members comply with this basic tenet of forum etiquette.

Perhaps you see yourself as special and don't need to follow what all others do.

quack

Fair enough.

You have nothing to justify your obfuscation and dishonesty.

In the future, probably best for others to just report your posts of unlinked quotes at first posting and have them deleted as per forum protocol.

Thus avoid your obfuscating followed by nonsensical quacking.

.

since you've been banned at least once already, I am hopeful that your trolling nonsense will disappear again soon.

[heybruce]

in a long period democracy always leads to socialism, because any society consists of 80% losers and 20% winners (Pareto principle) so majority will vote for robbing the minority and sharing, as soon as any populist will promise this.

so martial law is bad for democracy but good for economy.

what is more important for you? your own prosperity or absence of individuals richer than you? freedom or equality? 80% choose the second option because they are slaves of there ego

Thailand chose freedom, but "masters in pith helmets" from the West still believe they know it better how other nations should live. and keep trying to indoctrinate Thais with there sick left-liberal dogma...

progressive humanity should unite to fight against left-liberal fundamentalists

Your argument might have some credibility if you could give examples of countries that prospered under military rule and/or martial law.

Chile, Taiwan, South Korea for example

Right, why don't you demonstrate the junta's tolerance of dissent by publicly calling for elections and a full and transparent investigation of the wealth of all those generals?

here it is, a voice of envy! why don't you call for "fair distribution of wealth"?

this what I am talking about!

Chile, Taiwan, South Korea--societies in which an authoritarian government helped the countries get started after war or revolution, but which didn't really take off until some semblance of freedom was allowed. Communism, another authoritarian system, was also good at rebuilding the Soviet Union and eastern European countries after World War II, but unable to keep up with the free world after reaching a middle-income level. The Korea's are interesting examples; it seems to me that the democratic free South Korea is doing quite a bit better than the authoritarian North Korea. Do you disagree?

I ridiculed djjamie's pro-junta claim that repression isn't all that bad, and you somehow interpret it as a voice of envy and a call for redistributing wealth. Since you've established the precedent of liberal interpretation of posts--are you a fascist, a communist, a monarchist, or just an opponent of democracy?

Edited February 17, 2015 by heybruce

[Nickymaster]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I find the article heading humorous. I think democracy eroded along time ago and that is why the military was able to took over.

The article is hardly any kind of an analysis but more of a generalization about any situation. Sure it will affect something in the long term negatively, but it will affect other things in a positive way. Depending which business you are in. So we have to weigh the out come. I don't know what other junta have this much autonomy to the people.

The only thing that I see affected are the very people who created this mess and caused the military to take over, The politicians.

Indeed, I don't see anyone anywhere I go that is affected by martial law, but then I don't associate with politicians or trouble makers.

The OP says there are 20 people detained......Out of 65 million.

While the other 64.9999, whatever million go about their normal business.

20 , 200, 2000, Its still people being detained without trial for what they believe in.

The war on drugs killed 2500 people. NOBODY had a trial. Extra judiciary killings by a democratically elected PM. So please stop the drama.

[MrPerfect]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

Big bad Junta is bad enough for your home country of Australia to ban them from setting foot on its shores. Oh how it must feel to be so out of touch with the entire population of your native land. Australia and Australians despise the coup and are filled with disgust at the mere mention of the anti-democratic and oppressive antics of these thugs you love so dearly. You are an aberration.

[MrPerfect]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I find the article heading humorous. I think democracy eroded along time ago and that is why the military was able to took over.

The article is hardly any kind of an analysis but more of a generalization about any situation. Sure it will affect something in the long term negatively, but it will affect other things in a positive way. Depending which business you are in. So we have to weigh the out come. I don't know what other junta have this much autonomy to the people.

The only thing that I see affected are the very people who created this mess and caused the military to take over, The politicians.

Indeed, I don't see anyone anywhere I go that is affected by martial law, but then I don't associate with politicians or trouble makers.

The OP says there are 20 people detained......Out of 65 million.

While the other 64.9999, whatever million go about their normal business.

20 , 200, 2000, Its still people being detained without trial for what they believe in.

The war on drugs killed 2500 people. NOBODY had a trial. Extra judiciary killings by a democratically elected PM. So please stop the drama.

Why has nobody been charged over the deaths? Why do the Thais opposed to Thaksin never raise this issue? Why? More to the story my friend.

[Nickymaster]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Indeed, I don't see anyone anywhere I go that is affected by martial law, but then I don't associate with politicians or trouble makers.

The OP says there are 20 people detained......Out of 65 million.

While the other 64.9999, whatever million go about their normal business.

20 , 200, 2000, Its still people being detained without trial for what they believe in.

The war on drugs killed 2500 people. NOBODY had a trial. Extra judiciary killings by a democratically elected PM. So please stop the drama.

Why has nobody been charged over the deaths? Why do the Thais opposed to Thaksin never raise this issue? Why? More to the story my friend.

My friends now what they are talking about...

After Thaksin was ousted in September 2006, the junta that took power ordered an investigation into the War on Drugs. It concluded that as many as 1,400 of the 2,500 killed had no link to narcotics.

But..., the problem was that 90% of Thai people approved of it. Same as with martial law (a high percentage/vast majority of Thais agree) Does that make it right?

While most readers will presumably find the idea of extra-judicial killings of drug dealers abhorrent, the policy was wildly popular at the time. A Suan Dusit poll of 10,000 people showed 90 per cent were in favour of the campaign

Get the point?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

Big bad Junta is bad enough for your home country of Australia to ban them from setting foot on its shores. Oh how it must feel to be so out of touch with the entire population of your native land. Australia and Australians despise the coup and are filled with disgust at the mere mention of the anti-democratic and oppressive antics of these thugs you love so dearly. You are an aberration.

That is why only 835,517 Australians visited Thailand in 2014?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Thailand#Top_20_arrivals_by_nationality

[Jeffreyake]

Chile, Taiwan, South Korea--societies in which an authoritarian government helped the countries get started after war or revolution, but which didn't really take off until some semblance of freedom was allowed. Communism, another authoritarian system, was also good at rebuilding the Soviet Union and eastern European countries after World War II, but unable to keep up with the free world after reaching a middle-income level. The Korea's are interesting examples; it seems to me that the democratic free South Korea is doing quite a bit better than the authoritarian North Korea. Do you disagree?

I ridiculed djjamie's pro-junta claim that repression isn't all that bad, and you somehow interpret it as a voice of envy and a call for redistributing wealth. Since you've established the precedent of liberal interpretation of posts--are you a fascist, a communist, a monarchist, or just an opponent of democracy?

there were no war or revolution in Chile - just an democratically elected president Allende, who happened to be a communist. Taiwan and S. Korea made that famous economic jump during there 50 years authoritarian rule (this is what China is doing now), there economic growth slowed down after "democratic reforms" pushed by US left-liberal fundamentalists

Soviet Union collapes not because they reached "middle-income level" but because of

1) uncompetitive planned economy

2) 8$ per barrel oil prices

3) war in Afghanistan

in fact Soviet economy was in collapse when Gorbachev took power in 1985. But modern "new-lefts" would never admit this

and for sure S Korea is doing better than N Korea, but because N Korea has a truly socialist economy which leads to hunger, and S Korea actually is still far from real democracy and people there are scared of communism which on some level protects there politics from populists. With true democracy and without N Korea as an enemy - S Korea would drift to socialism within a few decades or even years.

US is partly protected from socialism because there is no real democracy there - any candidate for presidency has to pass anti-populist filter of Democratic or Republican party, which are, in fact, one party, split about 200 years ago to protect the political environment from true competition (and populists). and notwithstanding aforementioned, every next US president drifts to left. Obama is a perfect example. after Obama republican president will make one step back from left - then next democratic president will make two steps further.

in Thailand Taksin is a perfect example of populist

in Venezuela - Chaves and Maduro

Zimbabwe - Mugabe

etc etc

as for me, I just understand that true democracy leads to socialism, so humanity should develop something different.

for my idea the main problem of democracy is universal suffrage. from history we know that all things start to get wrong after any country (with real democracy) adopts universal suffrage.

only citizens who pay more taxes than they get back from state budget should have a right to vote.

all kinds of social parasites (whose one and only idea is to rob and share) should be exempted.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jeffreyake

[billd766]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

Big bad Junta is bad enough for your home country of Australia to ban them from setting foot on its shores. Oh how it must feel to be so out of touch with the entire population of your native land. Australia and Australians despise the coup and are filled with disgust at the mere mention of the anti-democratic and oppressive antics of these thugs you love so dearly. You are an aberration.

Are you SURE that all of the Australians and Americans are against the coup and not just their governments?

Have you done a personal survey or read the surveys online and can provide the links for people to check them out?

If you have no source, references or links then it is only your word against anybody elses .

Perhaps you should find real life examples before posting.

[MrPerfect]

Being eroded…?

Not one hour ago I was watching the accused terrorist, Nattawut, on "Peace TV" in Bangkok spouting his rhetoric...

Big bad Junta's don't allow accused terrorists to spout rhetoric do they?

Seems they are actually not as big or bad as the biter and twisted make them out to be.

Big bad Junta is bad enough for your home country of Australia to ban them from setting foot on its shores. Oh how it must feel to be so out of touch with the entire population of your native land. Australia and Australians despise the coup and are filled with disgust at the mere mention of the anti-democratic and oppressive antics of these thugs you love so dearly. You are an aberration.

Are you SURE that all of the Australians and Americans are against the coup and not just their governments?

Have you done a personal survey or read the surveys online and can provide the links for people to check them out?

If you have no source, references or links then it is only your word against anybody elses .

Perhaps you should find real life examples before posting.

Australia's measures against the Juntas are the harshest of any Western nations and yet not a single protest against the Australian government for leading the way by any Australian individuals or lobby groups - the governments response was met by full support from all sectors of Australian society.

Face up to reality, you expat coup lovers are out of touch with the overwheliming majority of Western countries and the citizens of those countries, your values, morals and ethics are sub par, sub human and unacceptable to decent folk.