On 1/11/2017 at 11:31 AM, CGW said:

They certainly are! why don't they just give democracy a chance to work!

 

Easy answer - the red / udd leaders are on the payroll of a billionaire convicted self exiled criminal, who became wealthy through gaining a monopoly handed to him on a plate by a thug nasty general. 

22 hours ago, smedly said:

you are wasting your time, the person you are trying to convince is not just an ordinary farang posting an opinion on a message forum - I suspect he is an active member of the Thaksin inner circle and has been posting these propaganda lies on here for a considerable time 

Hmm I believe posts like this should not be allowed, you are accusing a fellow member without even a shred of evidence. In turn, when I read your posts, I cannot help thinking you either are naieve and belief the propaganda you keep repeating, or..

 

Nope I will not make the same mistake.

 

,your posts, which are factual incorrect at times are good for a chuckle here and there...

19 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

1. Diversion....

 

2. So you list PAD and PDRC. Why didn't you add PT, UDD, red shirts, shin family political company?

In fact none of them are upstanding fine examples of democracy. 

And for a laugh i'll add the several statements of ys (your angel) 'I have to stay to protect democracy', when in reality her gang of thieves had made made progress towards being a dictator government. 

 

You are confused. YS government operated under the 2007 constitution (which incidentially was a direct result of the 2006 coup, and which already had measures in place to limit power of any elected government via a 50% appointed senate)

 

There is no factual evidence to suggest they made any progress in becoming a dictator government, and were already in care taker status when the coup was excecuted.

 

Quite a few people who did see events clearly have warned people like you to be carefull what you wish for, because the dictator government you speak off is the actual reality right now, and plenty of hard evidence to support that claim.

 

To make matters worse, the constitution approved in an 'election' that violated pretty much every democratic principle, will ensure they keep pulling the strings.

 

 

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm I believe posts like this should not be allowed, you are accusing a fellow member without even a shred of evidence. In turn, when I read your posts, I cannot help thinking you either are naieve and belief the propaganda you keep repeating, or..

 

Nope I will not make the same mistake.

 

,your posts, which are factual incorrect at times are good for a chuckle here and there...

 

I read his post and if he want to go low, I will stay high. I pride myself in researching my answers before posting and dont expect replies based on innuedos and non-factual. I am like every ordinary posters here and has no agenda but has an opinion. 

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

I read his post and if he want to go low, I will stay high. I pride myself in researching my answers before posting and dont expect replies based on innuedos and non-factual. I am like every ordinary posters here and has no agenda but has an opinion. 

 

I don't often agree with Eric but I do appreciate that he does research his posts and takes time over them.

 

Eric 

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

I read his post and if he want to go low, I will stay high. I pride myself in researching my answers before posting and dont expect replies based on innuedos and non-factual. I am like every ordinary posters here and has no agenda but has an opinion. 

Your telling me there is no proof for the red killing the kids.. but at the same time your accusing Suthep to be on the army payroll. I find my claim far more believable (especially as false flag operations are real hard to hide and the trad attack was immediately welcomed by a red shirt leader on that meeting, so he knew it was going to happen.. not really a false flag hint at all)

 

Now Suthep (i dislike the guy you can look up my posts often said the same thing before) could have some friends that protect him but army payroll (meaning direct payments from the army) is a bit too much. So you have no problem making claims that are even wilder as mine and then tell me I have no proof while mine are far more credible (not that the Suthep one is without complete merit). Seems you hold double standards just like many others do (im sure I have done so in the past too)

Edited January 14, 20179 yr by robblok

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Easy answer - the red / udd leaders are on the payroll of a billionaire convicted self exiled criminal, who became wealthy through gaining a monopoly handed to him on a plate by a thug nasty general. 

Do you mean the guy who was democratically elected with a vast majority and was the first and only Thai to have served a full term in office without being "booted" out?

he also got voted back for a second term...then got booted out.

2 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

You are confused. YS government operated under the 2007 constitution (which incidentially was a direct result of the 2006 coup, and which already had measures in place to limit power of any elected government via a 50% appointed senate)

 

There is no factual evidence to suggest they made any progress in becoming a dictator government, and were already in care taker status when the coup was excecuted.

 

Quite a few people who did see events clearly have warned people like you to be carefull what you wish for, because the dictator government you speak off is the actual reality right now, and plenty of hard evidence to support that claim.

 

To make matters worse, the constitution approved in an 'election' that violated pretty much every democratic principle, will ensure they keep pulling the strings.

 

 

 

Has el changed his username?

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I don't often agree with Eric but I do appreciate that he does research his posts and takes time over them.

 

Eric 

 

I also contend that he is fed info / details whatever, to develop his twists, negatives, untruths, and content strategies, including a regular return to ancient untruths, all for a cause. 

23 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

Loh could well be a Chinese surname, it's also well used by Caucasian families, at least in my original country.

 

In any event Chinese or whatever is not really the point.  

 

I really don't care whether Eric is of Chinese ethicity or not. That was not my point.

 

I had two points to suggest:

 

1. That the Thaksin clan is overwhelmingly ethic Chinese, and that this might be relevant to Eric's association with the clan, especially Yingluck ("Congratulations Madame Yingluck').

 

2. That I don't like the misuse of the term 'Farang' as a catch-all for foreigner.

 

I certainly have nothing against China or people of Chinese descent - I spent 4 years at university studying Chinese language and culture.

Edited January 14, 20179 yr by dru2

2 hours ago, johng said:

he also got voted back for a second term...then got booted out.

"Booted out"? is that a new name for a "coup"

3 hours ago, johng said:

he also got voted back for a second term...then got booted out.

 

1 hour ago, CGW said:

"Booted out"? is that a new name for a "coup"

 

Lets finish the story shall we - just to put things into a bit of context as it where.

 

His proxy Samak then got voted in, and they booted him out.

 

Samak was replaced by Wongsawat. They booted him out too.

 

 

He was replaced by Abhisit  (the chap who lost the election which resulted in Samak and then Wongsawat becoming Prime Ministers ),  legitimately as one poster here trenchantly insists; yet funnily enough he cannot accept that Thaksin, his proxy or Yingluck had any legitimacy, despite their significant electoral victories. Something which has consistently eluded the "legitimate" Abhisit.

 

Abhisit was replaced by Yingluck (who won a clear election victory). She was booted out....

 

Anyway, back to Jutaporn.....

Edited January 14, 20179 yr by JAG

On ‎14‎-‎1‎-‎2017 at 8:32 AM, scorecard said:

 

Has el changed his username?

No. Too bad you don't bother to react on the actual message, but I guess you don't because it was all factual....