Mr Perfect, what was your nic before you were kicked out of TVF?

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.

I don't think you will be around for long. At least not under this name. You make it too personal and you clearly can't control your emotions.

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.

I should let this rambling, incoherent post stand on it's own merits, but I'll point out a couple of obvious flaws:

As I indicated before, authoritarian command economies are good at lifting countries from chaos and very low levels of development, sometimes quite rapidly, but then struggle to rise above middle income levels.

You credit an authoritarian communist leader with Chile's rapid development, but then state the problem with democracy is that it leads to socialism. Are you pro-communist but anti-socialist?

You seem to be advocating a modified democracy in which people's votes are determined by the amount of taxes they pay. That may be appealing or appalling at first glance, depending on your perspective, but regardless I can see a number of ways that it can go wrong. It's also straying from a topic about students protesting for elections, but I can see how someone opposed to democracy would like to seize on any opportunity to explain why it doesn't work. Care to explain what system of government you favor?

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.

I wish i could care as much about one thing as you do about everything. Why bother,hair today, bald tomorrow.

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.

today must be my birthday.

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?

Actually, I suspect that is behind rather a lot of his posts!

Nattawut is not a terrorist. He was a minister of parliment. BS will get you nowhere.

By not being able to critic any one by law then there is no point in having democracy ,may as well stay with the fudel system and let the kamnam tell them what to say.

Nattawut is not a terrorist. He was a minister of parliment. BS will get you nowhere.

Right!

He is also an articulate rabble rouser who led the main elements on stage in 2010!

Edited due to auto correct

articulate rabble trousers. R u on tablets. Take care, nursey will be back soon to tuck you back into your straight jacket.

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.

I should let this rambling, incoherent post stand on it's own merits, but I'll point out a couple of obvious flaws:

As I indicated before, authoritarian command economies are good at lifting countries from chaos and very low levels of development, sometimes quite rapidly, but then struggle to rise above middle income levels.

You credit an authoritarian communist leader with Chile's rapid development, but then state the problem with democracy is that it leads to socialism. Are you pro-communist but anti-socialist?

You seem to be advocating a modified democracy in which people's votes are determined by the amount of taxes they pay. That may be appealing or appalling at first glance, depending on your perspective, but regardless I can see a number of ways that it can go wrong. It's also straying from a topic about students protesting for elections, but I can see how someone opposed to democracy would like to seize on any opportunity to explain why it doesn't work. Care to explain what system of government you favor?

I am anti-commusint and ant-socialist. Salvador Allende was a communist, elected by people, and he destroyed the economy of Chile, then after the coup general Pinochet took power. He got rid of communists and cured the economy. All modern Chile prosperity was made by him.

I am advocating authoritarian rule + free market economy. Like in China or Singapore. or in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan in there best years.

or

elections with tax census. this system can't be find in the modern world but it worked perfectly for British empire, for example

old slogan in US was "no taxation without representation"

modern slogan of the progressive humanity should be "no representation without taxation"

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.

I should let this rambling, incoherent post stand on it's own merits, but I'll point out a couple of obvious flaws:

As I indicated before, authoritarian command economies are good at lifting countries from chaos and very low levels of development, sometimes quite rapidly, but then struggle to rise above middle income levels.

You credit an authoritarian communist leader with Chile's rapid development, but then state the problem with democracy is that it leads to socialism. Are you pro-communist but anti-socialist?

You seem to be advocating a modified democracy in which people's votes are determined by the amount of taxes they pay. That may be appealing or appalling at first glance, depending on your perspective, but regardless I can see a number of ways that it can go wrong. It's also straying from a topic about students protesting for elections, but I can see how someone opposed to democracy would like to seize on any opportunity to explain why it doesn't work. Care to explain what system of government you favor?

I am anti-commusint and ant-socialist. Salvador Allende was a communist, elected by people, and he destroyed the economy of Chile, then after the coup general Pinochet took power. He got rid of communists and cured the economy. All modern Chile prosperity was made by him.

I am advocating authoritarian rule + free market economy. Like in China or Singapore. or in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan in there best years.

or

elections with tax census. this system can't be find in the modern world but it worked perfectly for British empire, for example

old slogan in US was "no taxation without representation"

modern slogan of the progressive humanity should be "no representation without taxation"

Pinochet was good? Insane! Pray to god Thailand doesn't come anywhere close to emulating that murderous thug.

Human rights violations during the military government of Chile refer to the acts of human rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression and state terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the Police, government agents and civilians in the service of security agencies, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile since September 11, 1973, until March 11, 1990.

According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile, it accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28.000 were tortured, 2.279 were executed and around 1.248 continued as Disappeared. In addition some of 200,000 people have suffered exile and an unknown number would have gone through clandestine centers and illegal detention.

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.

I should let this rambling, incoherent post stand on it's own merits, but I'll point out a couple of obvious flaws:

As I indicated before, authoritarian command economies are good at lifting countries from chaos and very low levels of development, sometimes quite rapidly, but then struggle to rise above middle income levels.

You credit an authoritarian communist leader with Chile's rapid development, but then state the problem with democracy is that it leads to socialism. Are you pro-communist but anti-socialist?

You seem to be advocating a modified democracy in which people's votes are determined by the amount of taxes they pay. That may be appealing or appalling at first glance, depending on your perspective, but regardless I can see a number of ways that it can go wrong. It's also straying from a topic about students protesting for elections, but I can see how someone opposed to democracy would like to seize on any opportunity to explain why it doesn't work. Care to explain what system of government you favor?

I am anti-commusint and ant-socialist. Salvador Allende was a communist, elected by people, and he destroyed the economy of Chile, then after the coup general Pinochet took power. He got rid of communists and cured the economy. All modern Chile prosperity was made by him.

I am advocating authoritarian rule + free market economy. Like in China or Singapore. or in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan in there best years.

or

elections with tax census. this system can't be find in the modern world but it worked perfectly for British empire, for example

old slogan in US was "no taxation without representation"

modern slogan of the progressive humanity should be "no representation without taxation"

MrPerfect took care of one obvious flaw in your argument. I could compare GDP per person between large modern democratic economies and countries like China (comparing city-state economies like Singapore or the Vatican wouldn't be valid), or question how many people in Japan, South Korea or Taiwan want to roll back the clock to their more authoritarian past, but I'll take a different route:

A common complaint against US democracy often posted here is that it's bought by the rich--people like the Koch use their wealth to influence elections in a manner far out of proportion to their individual votes. It seems that this is close to your idea of votes being proportional to wealth and taxes, the mechanism is not the same but the outcome broadly is.

Do you approve or disapprove of the democracy (partially) for sell aspect of the US system?

Pinochet was good? Insane! Pray to god Thailand doesn't come anywhere close to emulating that murderous thug.

Human rights violations during the military government of Chile refer to the acts of human rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression and state terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the Police, government agents and civilians in the service of security agencies, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile since September 11, 1973, until March 11, 1990.

According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile, it accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28.000 were tortured, 2.279 were executed and around 1.248 continued as Disappeared. In addition some of 200,000 people have suffered exile and an unknown number would have gone through clandestine centers and illegal detention.

this is a manipulation. this commission shows data about victims of both sides - military junta and communists.

MrPerfect took care of one obvious flaw in your argument. I could compare GDP per person between large modern democratic economies and countries like China (comparing city-state economies like Singapore or the Vatican wouldn't be valid), or question how many people in Japan, South Korea or Taiwan want to roll back the clock to their more authoritarian past, but I'll take a different route:

A common complaint against US democracy often posted here is that it's bought by the rich--people like the Koch use their wealth to influence elections in a manner far out of proportion to their individual votes. It seems that this is close to your idea of votes being proportional to wealth and taxes, the mechanism is not the same but the outcome broadly is.

Do you approve or disapprove of the democracy (partially) for sell aspect of the US system?

yes, for sure elections are manipulated by a group of rich citizens. and this is the only thing which protects America from communism

Pinochet was good? Insane! Pray to god Thailand doesn't come anywhere close to emulating that murderous thug.

Human rights violations during the military government of Chile refer to the acts of human rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression and state terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the Police, government agents and civilians in the service of security agencies, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile since September 11, 1973, until March 11, 1990.

According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile, it accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28.000 were tortured, 2.279 were executed and around 1.248 continued as Disappeared. In addition some of 200,000 people have suffered exile and an unknown number would have gone through clandestine centers and illegal detention.

this is a manipulation. this commission shows data about victims of both sides - military junta and communists.

MrPerfect took care of one obvious flaw in your argument. I could compare GDP per person between large modern democratic economies and countries like China (comparing city-state economies like Singapore or the Vatican wouldn't be valid), or question how many people in Japan, South Korea or Taiwan want to roll back the clock to their more authoritarian past, but I'll take a different route:

A common complaint against US democracy often posted here is that it's bought by the rich--people like the Koch use their wealth to influence elections in a manner far out of proportion to their individual votes. It seems that this is close to your idea of votes being proportional to wealth and taxes, the mechanism is not the same but the outcome broadly is.

Do you approve or disapprove of the democracy (partially) for sell aspect of the US system?

yes, for sure elections are manipulated by a group of rich citizens. and this is the only thing which protects America from communism

Got it--you are a fan of authoritarian rule combined with what you perceive to be free market economies, in spite of the fact that every successful (in your eyes) example of a large economy you've cited has significant protected state owned businesses, state regulation of business and manipulation of the monetary systems, and GDP per head that is a fraction of that in modern democratic countries. Good luck selling your vision to the rest of the world.

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.

I don't think you will be around for long. At least not under this name. You make it too personal and you clearly can't control your emotions.

Truth hurts?

Pinochet was good? Insane! Pray to god Thailand doesn't come anywhere close to emulating that murderous thug.

Human rights violations during the military government of Chile refer to the acts of human rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression and state terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the Police, government agents and civilians in the service of security agencies, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile since September 11, 1973, until March 11, 1990.

According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile, it accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28.000 were tortured, 2.279 were executed and around 1.248 continued as Disappeared. In addition some of 200,000 people have suffered exile and an unknown number would have gone through clandestine centers and illegal detention.

this is a manipulation. this commission shows data about victims of both sides - military junta and communists.

MrPerfect took care of one obvious flaw in your argument. I could compare GDP per person between large modern democratic economies and countries like China (comparing city-state economies like Singapore or the Vatican wouldn't be valid), or question how many people in Japan, South Korea or Taiwan want to roll back the clock to their more authoritarian past, but I'll take a different route:

A common complaint against US democracy often posted here is that it's bought by the rich--people like the Koch use their wealth to influence elections in a manner far out of proportion to their individual votes. It seems that this is close to your idea of votes being proportional to wealth and taxes, the mechanism is not the same but the outcome broadly is.

Do you approve or disapprove of the democracy (partially) for sell aspect of the US system?

yes, for sure elections are manipulated by a group of rich citizens. and this is the only thing which protects America from communism

Oh please! That's the saddest excuse ever.

I don't see the point of 'going on about it'. I am assuming the vast majority on TVF are ex-pats like myself so we have no dog in the hunt. And we who are from Western countries were democracy has cast it's shadow for decades or longer see democracy differently to Thai's and other Asian's.

Democracy or the lack of it means different things to different people. But when 99.999% of the population are not effected, why worry.

Its always funny to see people of the old reginme calling it democratic.. it certainly was not.. it had an armed wing of terrorist. It constantly broke the rules of true democracies. I am ok with how it is now this bunch of rules is less worse as the previous ones. These are a bit less corrupt.

Yes, maybe, but it doesn't fix the real problem that Thailand is facing.

Pinochet was good? Insane! Pray to god Thailand doesn't come anywhere close to emulating that murderous thug.

Human rights violations during the military government of Chile refer to the acts of human rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression and state terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the Police, government agents and civilians in the service of security agencies, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile since September 11, 1973, until March 11, 1990.

According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile, it accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28.000 were tortured, 2.279 were executed and around 1.248 continued as Disappeared. In addition some of 200,000 people have suffered exile and an unknown number would have gone through clandestine centers and illegal detention.

this is a manipulation. this commission shows data about victims of both sides - military junta and communists.

MrPerfect took care of one obvious flaw in your argument. I could compare GDP per person between large modern democratic economies and countries like China (comparing city-state economies like Singapore or the Vatican wouldn't be valid), or question how many people in Japan, South Korea or Taiwan want to roll back the clock to their more authoritarian past, but I'll take a different route:

A common complaint against US democracy often posted here is that it's bought by the rich--people like the Koch use their wealth to influence elections in a manner far out of proportion to their individual votes. It seems that this is close to your idea of votes being proportional to wealth and taxes, the mechanism is not the same but the outcome broadly is.

Do you approve or disapprove of the democracy (partially) for sell aspect of the US system?

yes, for sure elections are manipulated by a group of rich citizens. and this is the only thing which protects America from communism

you have a phobia about reds under the bed, have you been left over from the McCarthy era.

This Sakdina discussion is valid. In the West there has been a mechanism for right wing politics to be occasionally balanced by left wing at the desire of the people. Look at the changing of leading parties in the USA, Europe and UK. In Thailand, there have been a continual succession of right wing parties modified by right wing military for 70 years. No left wing or socially minded parties around.

So, the left wing hasn't had any day ever and the ammart, wealthy business and military have kept it like that until, thaksin came along and stole the show. It was inevitable. A revolution of sorts as corrupt as Maos was.

The resistance and corruption of the top of Thai society to continually prevent the lower echelons of having a voice or any influence created thaksin and now the change has happened.

Thaksin didn't care for the poor, but realised they were seriously under represented and ignored.

More fool the wealthy and supposedly enlightened and educated