Thaksin warns on democracy, economy in New Year message

[rixalex]

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

The only unpleasant thing about this is the exploitation of the poor with lies and your continuing support of that practice.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

Incidentally if the PTP or its other incarnations just relied on the votes of the poor they would never win an election.

Nothing to be embarrassed about.

Making straw man arguments as you have done in the above should embarrass you.

[jayboy]

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

The only unpleasant thing about this is the exploitation of the poor with lies and your continuing support of that practice.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

Incidentally if the PTP or its other incarnations just relied on the votes of the poor they would never win an election.

Nothing to be embarrassed about.

That's not for you to judge.The evidence speaks rather eloquently.

[heybruce]

You made this up:

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Show me where anyone has offered this as proof.

Didn't make anything up.

tbthailand stated that, "were there such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant."

His proof therefore that no laws were broken comes from the fact that PTP were not taken to court and disbanded.

Ok, I overlooked that. It is a very convincing argument.

[heybruce]

You have not specified any laws, broken or otherwise. In fact, in your post immediately preceding the above reply, you excused yourself from specifically citing a law on the grounds that you aren't a Thai lawyer. I assume this means you don't know the Thai legal system, yet you insist that there are specific unspecified laws on this matter. You really should give up on this one.

I have specified the laws broken very clearly. No i can't cite them from the law books, because like you, i'm not a Thai lawyer, and like you, i don't have a library of Thai legal books to quote from. If you think there is nothing illegal about having a convicted on the run criminal from running a political party in Thailand and all of the denials that the PTP made about Thaksin's role were not made for fear of legal repercussions but simply made for the fun of it, then up to you.

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

[phoenixdoglover]

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

The only unpleasant thing about this is the exploitation of the poor with lies and your continuing support of that practice.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

Incidentally if the PTP or its other incarnations just relied on the votes of the poor they would never win an election.

Nothing to be embarrassed about.

Making straw man arguments as you have done in the above should embarrass you.

I too doubt there is a law specifically covering the Thaksin influence situation.

Back out the extra elements of "convicted and on the run" for a moment. This leaves us with the question of whether it is permissible for a sitting PM to have an advisor who essentially proposes, but does not execute, many critical government actions. I think, without question, this would be legal.

Now add the aspect of convicted and jailed on a felony charge. There is ample precedent for people running things from jail. May a brother issue strong suggestions to his sister while he sits in jail? Of course he can.

The "on the run" aspect compounds his transgressions, but I don't see how this changes the basic logic.

What is lacking of course, is prima facie evidence Thaksin actually ran the government. That would be executive orders from Thaksin directly to permanent Ministers. At that level of function, the orders would come from the actual PM. So if everything came fro Yingluck, it would be legal.

I understand the moral repugnancy of Thaksin influence. However there is a world of difference between immoral and illegal.

Besides, I do think if a law had been passed covering the Thaksin circumstances, it would have been a major point of debate over the past decade. But it was not.

[rixalex]

I too doubt there is a law specifically covering the Thaksin influence situation.

Back out the extra elements of "convicted and on the run" for a moment. This leaves us with the question of whether it is permissible for a sitting PM to have an advisor who essentially proposes, but does not execute, many critical government actions. I think, without question, this would be legal.

Now add the aspect of convicted and jailed on a felony charge. There is ample precedent for people running things from jail. May a brother issue strong suggestions to his sister while he sits in jail? Of course he can.

The "on the run" aspect compounds his transgressions, but I don't see how this changes the basic logic.

What is lacking of course, is prima facie evidence Thaksin actually ran the government. That would be executive orders from Thaksin directly to permanent Ministers. At that level of function, the orders would come from the actual PM. So if everything came fro Yingluck, it would be legal.

I understand the moral repugnancy of Thaksin influence. However there is a world of difference between immoral and illegal.

Besides, I do think if a law had been passed covering the Thaksin circumstances, it would have been a major point of debate over the past decade. But it was not.

What is lacking of course, is prima facie evidence Thaksin actually ran the government. That would be executive orders from Thaksin directly to permanent Ministers. At that level of function, the orders would come from the actual PM. So if everything came fro Yingluck, it would be legal.

And if it didn't?

This is my point. If Thaksin was simply advising and making suggestions, then it is legal. If he was actually the one making the decisions, then it wasn't.

Heybruce and his chums above clearly were not in Thailand at the time this was going on, because had they of been, they would know that there was a big debate going on at the time concerning exactly how much string pulling was going on via Skype. The PTP were having to constantly defend his role, and reiterate that Yingluck was the one in control, not Thaksin, and the reason why they were doing that was because they knew there could be legal repercussions were someone able to prove that Thaksin was calling the shots.

Excluding those aforementioned Shinawatra fanaticals above who blindly persist on with their line of, "no matter what Thaksin's role was, there was nothing whatsoever illegal going on", for saner minds it all comes down to whether or not you believe that Thaksin was simply an advisor or whether you think he was actually in control.

But, as you say, whatever you do believe, it is hard to prove, and that is why no legal action was forthcoming.

[rixalex]

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties. If you want to know precisely which laws, go and employ a Thai lawyer.

[rixalex]

That's not for you to judge.The evidence speaks rather eloquently.

Let's just say, your judgement of me carries i imagine about the same weight for me, as my judgement of you carries for you.

[MZurf]

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties. If you want to know precisely which laws, go and employ a Thai lawyer.

There are no such laws. As has been pointed out repeatedly if there were then the opponents of Thaksin would have had him/PTP charged years ago.

I'm beginning to believe we are feeding a troll.

Edited April 13, 2016 by MZurf

[rixalex]

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties. If you want to know precisely which laws, go and employ a Thai lawyer.

There are no such laws. As has been pointed out repeatedly if there were then the opponents of Thaksin would have had him/PTP charged years ago.

I'm beginning to believe we are feeding a troll.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you why the opponents of Thaksin did not have him charged - because proving the difference between advising and instructing is very difficult, without being privy to private conversations.

If you seriously believe there are no laws that would prevent not only someone who doesn't live in the country, but someone who is a wanted and convicted felon, from leading a political party and running the country, then it is you who are the troll, because nobody in their sane mind would believe such a thing.

[MZurf]

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties. If you want to know precisely which laws, go and employ a Thai lawyer.

There are no such laws. As has been pointed out repeatedly if there were then the opponents of Thaksin would have had him/PTP charged years ago.

I'm beginning to believe we are feeding a troll.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you why the opponents of Thaksin did not have him charged - because proving the difference between advising and instructing is very difficult, without being privy to private conversations.

If you seriously believe there are no laws that would prevent not only someone who doesn't live in the country, but someone who is a wanted and convicted felon, from leading a political party and running the country, then it is you who are the troll, because nobody in their sane mind would believe such a thing.

You do know that you are pretty much alone in believing that nonsense, right?

Damn, I fed the troll again!

Edited April 13, 2016 by MZurf

[rixalex]

You do know that you are pretty much alone in believing that nonsense, right?

Damn, I fed the troll again!

Do you seriously think that just because you, tbthailand and heybruce, don't believe there are laws that prevent overseas on the run felons from running political parties, that that means anything at all?

In the company of extremist fanatics, i'm very happy to be alone in my beliefs.

[MZurf]

You do know that you are pretty much alone in believing that nonsense, right?

Damn, I fed the troll again!

Do you seriously think that just because you, tbthailand and heybruce, don't believe there are laws that prevent overseas on the run felons from running political parties, that that means anything at all?

In the company of extremist fanatics, i'm very happy to be alone in my beliefs.

"...extremist fanatics...."

5555555555! Good one! Now get back under the bridge.

[heybruce]

I too doubt there is a law specifically covering the Thaksin influence situation.

Back out the extra elements of "convicted and on the run" for a moment. This leaves us with the question of whether it is permissible for a sitting PM to have an advisor who essentially proposes, but does not execute, many critical government actions. I think, without question, this would be legal.

Now add the aspect of convicted and jailed on a felony charge. There is ample precedent for people running things from jail. May a brother issue strong suggestions to his sister while he sits in jail? Of course he can.

The "on the run" aspect compounds his transgressions, but I don't see how this changes the basic logic.

What is lacking of course, is prima facie evidence Thaksin actually ran the government. That would be executive orders from Thaksin directly to permanent Ministers. At that level of function, the orders would come from the actual PM. So if everything came fro Yingluck, it would be legal.

I understand the moral repugnancy of Thaksin influence. However there is a world of difference between immoral and illegal.

Besides, I do think if a law had been passed covering the Thaksin circumstances, it would have been a major point of debate over the past decade. But it was not.

What is lacking of course, is prima facie evidence Thaksin actually ran the government. That would be executive orders from Thaksin directly to permanent Ministers. At that level of function, the orders would come from the actual PM. So if everything came fro Yingluck, it would be legal.

And if it didn't?

This is my point. If Thaksin was simply advising and making suggestions, then it is legal. If he was actually the one making the decisions, then it wasn't.

Heybruce and his chums above clearly were not in Thailand at the time this was going on, because had they of been, they would know that there was a big debate going on at the time concerning exactly how much string pulling was going on via Skype. The PTP were having to constantly defend his role, and reiterate that Yingluck was the one in control, not Thaksin, and the reason why they were doing that was because they knew there could be legal repercussions were someone able to prove that Thaksin was calling the shots.

Excluding those aforementioned Shinawatra fanaticals above who blindly persist on with their line of, "no matter what Thaksin's role was, there was nothing whatsoever illegal going on", for saner minds it all comes down to whether or not you believe that Thaksin was simply an advisor or whether you think he was actually in control.

But, as you say, whatever you do believe, it is hard to prove, and that is why no legal action was forthcoming.

I've been in Thailand for ten years, and visited Thailand before that, and beforeThaksin came to power. I assume that the PTP was financed by Shinawatra money, I know that Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be Thaksin's clone, that the PTP was frequently communicating with Thaksin, and that some of the Skype calls were public.

I also know that Thaksin was far away and the levers of power were in Thailand. Thaksin could advise, but had no way to force the government to follow his advice. I don't know how closely his advice was followed, but even if it was always followed that was a choice made by the PTP government, and the fulfillment of a promise made to the voters during the election. Nobody challenged the legality of the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP in court. To my knowledge, the only people claiming it was illegal are Thai Visa expats who acknowledge they don't know Thai law.

Once again, your only "evidence", actually just speculation, that a law was broken was "The PTP were having to constantly defend his role....". You don't give specific examples of this defense so it can be evaluated in context. There are many reasons other than legality to defend a relationship with a controversial figure such as Thaksin..

So, in summary:

Nobody challenged the legality of the PTP's relationship with Thaksin, even though many influential people were outraged by it. This indicates there was nothing illegal with the relationship.

You have no evidence that a law was broken, or that the law you reference exists.

You continue to maintain the law must exist in spite of lack of evidence that it does, and strong evidence that it does not.

Clearly the existence of this law is a matter of faith for you.

[LannaGuy]

You do know that you are pretty much alone in believing that nonsense, right?

Damn, I fed the troll again!

Do you seriously think that just because you, tbthailand and heybruce, don't believe there are laws that prevent overseas on the run felons from running political parties, that that means anything at all?

In the company of extremist fanatics, i'm very happy to be alone in my beliefs.

yup we are all 'extremist fanatics' just like the millions of Thais who don't believe in the old deference anymore nor the elite dinosaurs you so admire

nor do we believe in the gulags being set up

nor the silencing of politicians on ALL sides

nor the "do you understand the word POWER" type of threat from the unelected PM

it's not your country, it's not my country so let the Thais DECIDE with free will, free debate and free press but that can't happen can it? No because the side you so abhore, the people's side, would WIN

[heybruce]

You can not cite the laws yet you maintain you have specified the laws very clearly. You use English in a very peculiar manner.

It seems your only evidence, to use the term very loosely, is your claim that the PTP denied that Thaksin was leading the party. You do not substantiate your claim by referencing anything specific, so it can not be evaluated in context. Even if you can cite specific denials of Thaksin's leadership, that hardly constitutes proof that a law was broken.

However it is clear that you very much wish to believe that the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP was illegal, in spite of the absence of substantiating evidence. Continue to believe what you will, I will go with what is supported by evidence.

As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties. If you want to know precisely which laws, go and employ a Thai lawyer.

Now you are challenging me to prove a nonentity. No. I'm not the one who continues to maintain this laws exists. If you want people to believe you then you hire the lawyer.

However there are no doubt TV members who have knowledge of the Thai legal system, as well and contacts with Thai lawyers. Strangely enough, none of them have spoken up with information about this mystery law.

[rixalex]

I've been in Thailand for ten years, and visited Thailand before that, and beforeThaksin came to power. I assume that the PTP was financed by Shinawatra money, I know that Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be Thaksin's clone, that the PTP was frequently communicating with Thaksin, and that some of the Skype calls were public.

I also know that Thaksin was far away and the levers of power were in Thailand. Thaksin could advise, but had no way to force the government to follow his advice. I don't know how closely his advice was followed, but even if it was always followed that was a choice made by the PTP government, and the fulfillment of a promise made to the voters during the election. Nobody challenged the legality of the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP in court. To my knowledge, the only people claiming it was illegal are Thai Visa expats who acknowledge they don't know Thai law.

Once again, your only "evidence", actually just speculation, that a law was broken was "The PTP were having to constantly defend his role....". You don't give specific examples of this defense so it can be evaluated in context. There are many reasons other than legality to defend a relationship with a controversial figure such as Thaksin..

So, in summary:

Nobody challenged the legality of the PTP's relationship with Thaksin, even though many influential people were outraged by it. This indicates there was nothing illegal with the relationship.

You have no evidence that a law was broken, or that the law you reference exists.

You continue to maintain the law must exist in spite of lack of evidence that it does, and strong evidence that it does not.

Clearly the existence of this law is a matter of faith for you.

The first part of your argument, the one in which you try to pretend that Thaksin wasn't actually in control, could not force PTP government to do the things he requested, is of course laughable and ridiculous, at least to anyone with the slightest understanding of Thai politics, but it is at least an argument which is hard to refute, because evidence that would prove the tosh that it is, is unobtainable without access to private meetings that were going on. This is why PTP were making this precise argument at the time. They knew they could spout this nonsense and nobody would be able to do anything about it.

The second part of your argument in which you try to pretend that there are no laws that prevent overseas on the run criminals from running political parties is just plain stupid, and completely contradictory to the first argument, which attempts to distance Thaksin from decision making for the precise reason that there are such laws.

[rixalex]

Now you are challenging me to prove a nonentity. No. I'm not the one who continues to maintain this laws exists. If you want people to believe you then you hire the lawyer.

I'm not a Thai lawyer, as nor are you, and i can't recite every Thai law that exists, as nor can you, but i do follow Thai political news closely, and i do recall the big debate that took place when Yingluck became Prime Minister, about whether or not she was the one running the country, and whether Thaksin was actually the one calling the shots, and the reason why this debate was taking place and why PTP were so keen to stress that Thaksin was merely an advisor, not leader, was because there could have been a legal challenge if it was proven otherwise. If there was no legal complication with having an overseas convicted on the run criminal from being in charge, PTP would not have been so coy about it all - indeed they probably would have been the ones shouting that Thaksin was in charge the loudest.

Anyway, I'm not here to persuade people - at least certainly not blinkered people like you and your chums - to believe me. Believe what you like if it makes you happy.

[rixalex]

yup we are all 'extremist fanatics' just like the millions of Thais who don't believe in the old deference anymore nor the elite dinosaurs you so admire

nor do we believe in the gulags being set up

nor the silencing of politicians on ALL sides

nor the "do you understand the word POWER" type of threat from the unelected PM

it's not your country, it's not my country so let the Thais DECIDE with free will, free debate and free press but that can't happen can it? No because the side you so abhore, the people's side, would WIN

Stick to writing about what you believe, not what you think i believe, because that is trolling, especially when you deliberately misrepresent..

[heybruce]

I've been in Thailand for ten years, and visited Thailand before that, and beforeThaksin came to power. I assume that the PTP was financed by Shinawatra money, I know that Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be Thaksin's clone, that the PTP was frequently communicating with Thaksin, and that some of the Skype calls were public.

I also know that Thaksin was far away and the levers of power were in Thailand. Thaksin could advise, but had no way to force the government to follow his advice. I don't know how closely his advice was followed, but even if it was always followed that was a choice made by the PTP government, and the fulfillment of a promise made to the voters during the election. Nobody challenged the legality of the relationship between Thaksin and the PTP in court. To my knowledge, the only people claiming it was illegal are Thai Visa expats who acknowledge they don't know Thai law.

Once again, your only "evidence", actually just speculation, that a law was broken was "The PTP were having to constantly defend his role....". You don't give specific examples of this defense so it can be evaluated in context. There are many reasons other than legality to defend a relationship with a controversial figure such as Thaksin..

So, in summary:

Nobody challenged the legality of the PTP's relationship with Thaksin, even though many influential people were outraged by it. This indicates there was nothing illegal with the relationship.

You have no evidence that a law was broken, or that the law you reference exists.

You continue to maintain the law must exist in spite of lack of evidence that it does, and strong evidence that it does not.

Clearly the existence of this law is a matter of faith for you.

The first part of your argument, the one in which you try to pretend that Thaksin wasn't actually in control, could not force PTP government to do the things he requested, is of course laughable and ridiculous, at least to anyone with the slightest understanding of Thai politics, but it is at least an argument which is hard to refute, because evidence that would prove the tosh that it is, is unobtainable without access to private meetings that were going on. This is why PTP were making this precise argument at the time. They knew they could spout this nonsense and nobody would be able to do anything about it.

The second part of your argument in which you try to pretend that there are no laws that prevent overseas on the run criminals from running political parties is just plain stupid, and completely contradictory to the first argument, which attempts to distance Thaksin from decision making for the precise reason that there are such laws.

The first part of your argument, that Thaksin was definitely in charge even though you don't have any evidence to support this claim, I'll let stand on its own merits.

The second part of your argument, that the law exists even though you can't say what it is, once again demonstrates that you are acting on faith, not evidence.

Resorting to saying that not believing this law exists "is just plain stupid" indicates a level of discourse in the style and intellectual level of Donald Trump. You're not providing evidence, you're just being persistent and emphatic, and you clearly resent being challenged on your lack of evidence.

Edited April 14, 2016 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Now you are challenging me to prove a nonentity. No. I'm not the one who continues to maintain this laws exists. If you want people to believe you then you hire the lawyer.

I'm not a Thai lawyer, as nor are you, and i can't recite every Thai law that exists, as nor can you, but i do follow Thai political news closely, and i do recall the big debate that took place when Yingluck became Prime Minister, about whether or not she was the one running the country, and whether Thaksin was actually the one calling the shots, and the reason why this debate was taking place and why PTP were so keen to stress that Thaksin was merely an advisor, not leader, was because there could have been a legal challenge if it was proven otherwise. If there was no legal complication with having an overseas convicted on the run criminal from being in charge, PTP would not have been so coy about it all - indeed they probably would have been the ones shouting that Thaksin was in charge the loudest.

Anyway, I'm not here to persuade people - at least certainly not blinkered people like you and your chums - to believe me. Believe what you like if it makes you happy.

Now you're editing my posts to eliminate the parts you can't deal with. That says a lot about your argument.

You then follow with "I remember when" claims, with no sources cited so your memory can be checked for accuracy and context. In other words; "Trust me, I'm posting the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again, so it must be correct."

It's good you're not here to persuade people.

[rixalex]

The first part of your argument, that Thaksin was definitely in charge even though you don't have any evidence to support this claim, I'll let stand on its own merits.

The second part of your argument, that the law exists even though you can't say what it is, once again demonstrates that you are acting on faith, not evidence.

Resorting to saying that not believing this law exists "is just plain stupid" indicates a level of discourse in the style and intellectual level of Donald Trump. You're not providing evidence, you're just being persistent and emphatic, and you clearly resent being challenged on your lack of evidence.

The fact that you don't think Thaksin was in charge speaks volumes.

You keep on demanding evidence... well, this isn't a court of law, this is an exchange of opinion, but if you are going to demand evidence of others, let's see yours then - you think that people who don't live in the country can still lead political parties and run the country. Prove it then. You think that people who are on the run from criminal convictions can still lead political parties and run the country, prove it. Let's see the evidence.

[rixalex]

Now you are challenging me to prove a nonentity. No. I'm not the one who continues to maintain this laws exists. If you want people to believe you then you hire the lawyer.

I'm not a Thai lawyer, as nor are you, and i can't recite every Thai law that exists, as nor can you, but i do follow Thai political news closely, and i do recall the big debate that took place when Yingluck became Prime Minister, about whether or not she was the one running the country, and whether Thaksin was actually the one calling the shots, and the reason why this debate was taking place and why PTP were so keen to stress that Thaksin was merely an advisor, not leader, was because there could have been a legal challenge if it was proven otherwise. If there was no legal complication with having an overseas convicted on the run criminal from being in charge, PTP would not have been so coy about it all - indeed they probably would have been the ones shouting that Thaksin was in charge the loudest.

Anyway, I'm not here to persuade people - at least certainly not blinkered people like you and your chums - to believe me. Believe what you like if it makes you happy.

Now you're editing my posts to eliminate the parts you can't deal with. That says a lot about your argument.

You then follow with "I remember when" claims, with no sources cited so your memory can be checked for accuracy and context. In other words; "Trust me, I'm posting the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again, so it must be correct."

It's good you're not here to persuade people.

Can't deal with this?! Please get over yourself.

However there are no doubt TV members who have knowledge of the Thai legal system, as well and contacts with Thai lawyers. Strangely enough, none of them have spoken up with information about this mystery law.

Well i don't see any of these mystery thaivisa forum legal gurus jumping in to agree with you. Let's wait until they present themselves before assuming who they happen to agree with.

As i say, i'm certainly not here to persuade people blinkered enough to believe things like the PTP party being able to listen to Thaksin's advice, and then decide for itself.

[jerojero]

Most politicians love their power and accumulated wealth as politicians, not their people. BS being spouted again from a hi-so.

[heybruce]

The first part of your argument, that Thaksin was definitely in charge even though you don't have any evidence to support this claim, I'll let stand on its own merits.

The second part of your argument, that the law exists even though you can't say what it is, once again demonstrates that you are acting on faith, not evidence.

Resorting to saying that not believing this law exists "is just plain stupid" indicates a level of discourse in the style and intellectual level of Donald Trump. You're not providing evidence, you're just being persistent and emphatic, and you clearly resent being challenged on your lack of evidence.

The fact that you don't think Thaksin was in charge speaks volumes.

You keep on demanding evidence... well, this isn't a court of law, this is an exchange of opinion, but if you are going to demand evidence of others, let's see yours then - you think that people who don't live in the country can still lead political parties and run the country. Prove it then. You think that people who are on the run from criminal convictions can still lead political parties and run the country, prove it. Let's see the evidence.

Yes! Thank you! You have no evidence. We can end this now.

All you have is your general recollection of events and your interpretation of these events. You have been repeatedly challenged to come up with more and have repeatedly failed to do so.

I'm happy to let others interpret your arguments based on the merits of your unsubstantiated recollections. I'm also happy to let you express your opinion that the PTP government was illegal, provided you make it clear that it is only your opinion. Don't misrepresent your opinions as facts.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think you confused your position with mine. I'm the one who argued that a person far from the levers of power could advise but not lead, you are the one who argued the opposite. You prove the opposite.

Edited April 14, 2016 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Now you are challenging me to prove a nonentity. No. I'm not the one who continues to maintain this laws exists. If you want people to believe you then you hire the lawyer.

I'm not a Thai lawyer, as nor are you, and i can't recite every Thai law that exists, as nor can you, but i do follow Thai political news closely, and i do recall the big debate that took place when Yingluck became Prime Minister, about whether or not she was the one running the country, and whether Thaksin was actually the one calling the shots, and the reason why this debate was taking place and why PTP were so keen to stress that Thaksin was merely an advisor, not leader, was because there could have been a legal challenge if it was proven otherwise. If there was no legal complication with having an overseas convicted on the run criminal from being in charge, PTP would not have been so coy about it all - indeed they probably would have been the ones shouting that Thaksin was in charge the loudest.

Anyway, I'm not here to persuade people - at least certainly not blinkered people like you and your chums - to believe me. Believe what you like if it makes you happy.

Now you're editing my posts to eliminate the parts you can't deal with. That says a lot about your argument.

You then follow with "I remember when" claims, with no sources cited so your memory can be checked for accuracy and context. In other words; "Trust me, I'm posting the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again, so it must be correct."

It's good you're not here to persuade people.

Can't deal with this?! Please get over yourself.

However there are no doubt TV members who have knowledge of the Thai legal system, as well and contacts with Thai lawyers. Strangely enough, none of them have spoken up with information about this mystery law.

Well i don't see any of these mystery thaivisa forum legal gurus jumping in to agree with you. Let's wait until they present themselves before assuming who they happen to agree with.

As i say, i'm certainly not here to persuade people blinkered enough to believe things like the PTP party being able to listen to Thaksin's advice, and then decide for itself.

TV legal gurus, as you call them, have not jumped in to prove a nonentity, and you think this is significant. How many other conspiracy theories shall we insist are true until definitely proven to not be so? How does one prove Bigfoot, space aliens, and the Illuminati don't exist?

[rixalex]

Yes! Thank you! You have no evidence. We can end this now.

All you have is your general recollection of events and your interpretation of these events. You have been repeatedly challenged to come up with more and have repeatedly failed to do so.

I'm happy to let others interpret your arguments based on the merits of your unsubstantiated recollections. I'm also happy to let you express your opinion that the PTP government was illegal, provided you make it clear that it is only your opinion. Don't misrepresent your opinions as facts.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think you confused your position with mine. I'm the one who argued that a person far from the levers of power could advise but not lead, you are the one who argued the opposite. You prove the opposite.

I'm not sure why you are jumping up and down all excited about the fact that i don't have evidence, when i never claimed to have it, and when you have zero evidence for your opinion either.

Regarding being confused, i think that accurately describes your position.

Your argument has been that overseas on the run criminals can run political parties in Thailand and can lead the country. My argument has been the opposite of that: there are laws that prohibit overseas on the run criminals from running political parties and from leading the country, but that enforcement of those laws is difficult because the parties involved can simply claim advice was given rather than instructions.

Had you simply been arguing, much as Thaksin, Yingluck and PTP did at the time, that they were doing nothing illegal because Thaksin wasn't leading the party, i would have disagreed with your opinion, but would have accepted it. But you weren't. You were arguing that there were no laws that would prevent an overseas on the run criminal from leading a political party. That is what i don't accept. And no, i can't cite the precise law that such an act would contravene, but i can't cite precisely any Thai laws, not being a lawyer, as nor i suspect can you - that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

[heybruce]

Yes! Thank you! You have no evidence. We can end this now.

All you have is your general recollection of events and your interpretation of these events. You have been repeatedly challenged to come up with more and have repeatedly failed to do so.

I'm happy to let others interpret your arguments based on the merits of your unsubstantiated recollections. I'm also happy to let you express your opinion that the PTP government was illegal, provided you make it clear that it is only your opinion. Don't misrepresent your opinions as facts.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think you confused your position with mine. I'm the one who argued that a person far from the levers of power could advise but not lead, you are the one who argued the opposite. You prove the opposite.

I'm not sure why you are jumping up and down all excited about the fact that i don't have evidence, when i never claimed to have it, and when you have zero evidence for your opinion either.

Regarding being confused, i think that accurately describes your position.

Your argument has been that overseas on the run criminals can run political parties in Thailand and can lead the country. My argument has been the opposite of that: there are laws that prohibit overseas on the run criminals from running political parties and from leading the country, but that enforcement of those laws is difficult because the parties involved can simply claim advice was given rather than instructions.

Had you simply been arguing, much as Thaksin, Yingluck and PTP did at the time, that they were doing nothing illegal because Thaksin wasn't leading the party, i would have disagreed with your opinion, but would have accepted it. But you weren't. You were arguing that there were no laws that would prevent an overseas on the run criminal from leading a political party. That is what i don't accept. And no, i can't cite the precise law that such an act would contravene, but i can't cite precisely any Thai laws, not being a lawyer, as nor i suspect can you - that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

You don't have evidence, you now claim you were only presenting an opinion, yet you express your opinions with statements such as:

"As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties." post #157

"If you seriously believe there are no laws that would prevent not only someone who doesn't live in the country, but someone who is a wanted and convicted felon, from leading a political party and running the country, then it is you who are the troll, because nobody in their sane mind would believe such a thing." post #160

"Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country." post #131

I could continue, but that is enough to establish the obvious: you have been consistently presenting your opinion as an indisputable fact, in spite of having no evidence. That is what I object to; don't misrepresent opinions as facts then insist you don't need evidence to support these "facts".

Regarding your being confused, you stated "you think that people who don't live in the country can still lead political parties and run the country." I never posted that, I argued that Thaksin could do nothing more than advise, if the party chose to ignore his advice there was nothing he could do about it. In addition, I argued that no one had identified any laws that were broken.

You were the one constantly arguing, as if it were in indisputable fact, that he was running the party and the country from overseas. Of course you couldn't support this claim with evidence, and you never identified any laws that were broken.

[MZurf]

Yes! Thank you! You have no evidence. We can end this now.

All you have is your general recollection of events and your interpretation of these events. You have been repeatedly challenged to come up with more and have repeatedly failed to do so.

I'm happy to let others interpret your arguments based on the merits of your unsubstantiated recollections. I'm also happy to let you express your opinion that the PTP government was illegal, provided you make it clear that it is only your opinion. Don't misrepresent your opinions as facts.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think you confused your position with mine. I'm the one who argued that a person far from the levers of power could advise but not lead, you are the one who argued the opposite. You prove the opposite.

I'm not sure why you are jumping up and down all excited about the fact that i don't have evidence, when i never claimed to have it, and when you have zero evidence for your opinion either.

Regarding being confused, i think that accurately describes your position.

Your argument has been that overseas on the run criminals can run political parties in Thailand and can lead the country. My argument has been the opposite of that: there are laws that prohibit overseas on the run criminals from running political parties and from leading the country, but that enforcement of those laws is difficult because the parties involved can simply claim advice was given rather than instructions.

Had you simply been arguing, much as Thaksin, Yingluck and PTP did at the time, that they were doing nothing illegal because Thaksin wasn't leading the party, i would have disagreed with your opinion, but would have accepted it. But you weren't. You were arguing that there were no laws that would prevent an overseas on the run criminal from leading a political party. That is what i don't accept. And no, i can't cite the precise law that such an act would contravene, but i can't cite precisely any Thai laws, not being a lawyer, as nor i suspect can you - that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

You don't have evidence, you now claim you were only presenting an opinion, yet you express your opinions with statements such as:

"As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties." post #157

"If you seriously believe there are no laws that would prevent not only someone who doesn't live in the country, but someone who is a wanted and convicted felon, from leading a political party and running the country, then it is you who are the troll, because nobody in their sane mind would believe such a thing." post #160

"Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country." post #131

I could continue, but that is enough to establish the obvious: you have been consistently presenting your opinion as an indisputable fact, in spite of having no evidence. That is what I object to; don't misrepresent opinions as facts then insist you don't need evidence to support these "facts".

Regarding your being confused, you stated "you think that people who don't live in the country can still lead political parties and run the country." I never posted that, I argued that Thaksin could do nothing more than advise, if the party chose to ignore his advice there was nothing he could do about it. In addition, I argued that no one had identified any laws that were broken.

You were the one constantly arguing, as if it were in indisputable fact, that he was running the party and the country from overseas. Of course you couldn't support this claim with evidence, and you never identified any laws that were broken.

Some people don't handle well egg on their face and a prime example is rixalex. It is obvious that there are no laws specifically forbidding criminal fugitives influencing governments. There are also no laws forbidding children, grandmothers (dead or alive), unicorns or aliens to influence decisions.

Case closed.

[fusion58]

LOL.

Thaksin lecturing on democracy is like Pol Pot lecturing on human rights.

Thanks for that thigh slapper.