Coup played part in stagnant economy, says Abhisit

[JAG]

I disagree with electing who they want.. guess your not a supporter of democracy... (snip).

What an utterly confused, yet oh so revealing statement.

There we have it though, in black and white, "I disagree with people electing who they want".

[Becker]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

 

What an utterly confused, yet oh so revealing statement.

There we have it though, in black and white, "I disagree with people electing who they want".

And I was utterly confused by the sentence.

@Robblock: Please elaborate.

[wakeupplease]

On 15/04/2017 at 3:57 AM, robblok said:

That is your vision.. thankfully many don't agree with it and see YL and hers as the problem. 

 

Thank god we live in a free world where we can decide what we think. 

I do live in a free world, here I do not have to give a fingerprint to get a sim card or worry about the CCa knocking on my door because I said what I feel about scum people who should be in jail and would be in the free world.  I am not told who I can read on FB or threatened with prison and courts for sharing the truth on line. I have human rights the government here respect. Free world in your neck of the worlds is a dream for the majority and hated by the yellows that just care for one thing money in their pockets and the power to put people in jail. If you have money like the Redbull idiot you can run and hide and not have to face the laws. My god they will not issue an arrest warrant so we can call for our PM to kick him out as the drunk is a danger to our people.

 

Today A Thai lady came to visit my wife as she is over from Patt, I was shocked to hear her comments on how bad the place is, today. She owns a business there and tells of the corruption she faces every day from those around her thinking she has money so should give it to others who got jobs in the Bib and above. I did not comment to her but got wife to translate so I could understand. From what she implied the gangsters have control. We also had those sort of people and they where real nasty back in the 60/70's, today very few, seems they all came your way. But hardnocks no. I nicked a few and cowards on their own, unlike the lot there who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

Before your time (10 years only) it was a nice place, today full of bullSh>> and idiots with me myself and I on their mind

 

Free World, yes here ish there never, stop telling yourself lies its pure nastiness these days.

 

On  ending, I hope you had a great time over Songkran and fingers cross for the drive back, we hope will see less deaths this year as its looking good. Drive safe my man speak soon.

 

Ps please do not try saying I am a liar as by now you should know I do not tell lies, I am big enough to admit when I am wrong (and do) and friends of which I have over 1000 in your area will tell you the same. But if you think different not a problem, have a happy new year.

[Khun Han]

On 4/15/2017 at 7:06 AM, elgordo38 said:

Sounds like a pre election speech if I ever heard one. Seems the junta have informally started the one horse race. No worries about jockeying for position everybody else is still at the starting gate. 

 

Nail squarely on head. What a grotty little man he has turned out to be: The Man Who Sold His Soul.

[wakeupplease]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

The coup was widely supported.. why because of the amnesty and other abusue of power of YL the puppet PM. Had this not been the case there would not have been widespread support. It would not have been as easy as it has been now. YL and Thaksin enabled this if you dont want to admit it your too much in love with them. 

Oh my 50k max paid support, Suthep look at this man with dark glasses on and you will see the lies and who is he mates with? 3 0f yours by the look of it, i might be wrong on that but your posts say different K&A&PM. I know a few Dutch guys, one next door but one, so now we are doing a bit of research as something here is not right mate is it?

 

Dutch are like the English, they can forgive and forget, but you do not seem to be able to. never mind.

 

Its Easter here, time to relax and enjoy, hope you are enjoying the holiday too, keep well

[wakeupplease]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

 

What an utterly confused, yet oh so revealing statement.

There we have it though, in black and white, "I disagree with people electing who they want".

Jag well done as you saw what I did months ago, how was your Songkran, I hope you had a good one

[wakeupplease]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

The junta was forced into action.. Thaksin was not he broke the law.. bribed judges and has a whole load of other charges including one where co defendants got up to 18 years in jail waiting for him.

 

How can you without feeling really foolish defend such a criminal and accept a government that is his puppet giving him such an amnesty. 

 

The coup was also widely supported outside Bangkok.. the red dogs of war killed quite a few people and some kids in Trad where there also was an meeting against the government. Just mentioning it so you don't forget that there were other places where they supported the disposal of the YL government.

 

Wanted to answer this but there is a bull on my front lawn and he is Sh>>>>> have to go and chase him away, back soon I hope.

[robblok]

10 hours ago, JAG said:

 

What an utterly confused, yet oh so revealing statement.

There we have it though, in black and white, "I disagree with people electing who they want".

 

Thanks for taking things out of context JAG (leaving away the next part of the text where I explain that people who don't play by the laws can't be elected, in any country there are those that can't be elected legally)

 

I did not expect that from you.

 

I disagree with the people being able to elect convicted criminals and others who are disqualified like those convicted of huge frauds and other big crimes. For people who have  no criminal convictions I have absolutely no problems with anyone. There are rules JAG to elections that some people are not electable, just think of the US where people can't elect a president more then a few times in a row. In most countries there are rules about who can be elected and who cannot be elected its part of democracy . 

Edited April 17, 2017 by robblok

[robblok]

7 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

Wanted to answer this but there is a bull on my front lawn and he is Sh>>>>> have to go and chase him away, back soon I hope.

 

Yes... you see things different.. i know so be it. 

[chainarong]

One would have to agree, putting the cards on the table , primary the Coup has been a financial disaster , there is never any prizes for lowering sovereign risk, with the previous Coup of 06 they handed over to a caretaker civilian Government as soon as they could, which Abhisit was PM , mainly because they knew the heat in the kitchen would rise to stratosphere proportions, making up to China to deflect criticism from the UN, the US and the International community has back fired , nobody has coming running begging Thailand to stay with the West, Thailand is fast becoming a basket case, poor leadership , poor education are a recipe for third world status, and worst of all,  at the end of the day the Coup has changed nothing and achieved nothing, in this day n age they never do  .............................

[chainarong]

7 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

Wanted to answer this but there is a bull on my front lawn and he is Sh>>>>> have to go and chase him away, back soon I hope.

The topic from Abhisit , did the Coup cause a stagnate economy, not whether it was warranted , that is a different subject , I understand and agree , it basically was the devil U do ,the devil U don't, poor leadership is abound in the land of Thailand, however as it stands, Thailand now suffers , as maybe it would have done under continuous  a civilian rule

[JAG]

58 minutes ago, robblok said:

Thanks for taking things out of context JAG (leaving away the next part of the text where I explain that people who don't play by the laws can't be elected, in any country there are those that can't be elected legally)

 

I did not expect that from you.

 

I disagree with the people being able to elect convicted criminals and others who are disqualified like those convicted of huge frauds and other big crimes. For people who have  no criminal convictions I have absolutely no problems with anyone. There are rules JAG to elections that some people are not electable, just think of the US where people can't elect a president more then a few times in a row. In most countries there are rules about who can be elected and who cannot be elected its part of democracy . 

OK,then, the quote in full: "I disagree with electing who they want.. guess your not a supporter of democracy.  People need to play by the rules of law.. if you don't do that they can't elect you. You also can't use an election to clear a criminal of crimes. ".

 

Since he was convicted, Thaksin has not stood for election. The law could not prevent either Samak in 2008 or Yingluck in 2011 from being elected, there were no legal grounds. Both of them won their respective elections, within the terms of what was then the law. (A law which has incidentally been torn up by the unelected regime which ousted the latter). In both cases the people elected who they wanted. The elections took place in accordance with the rules of law - they" play ed by the rules of law". In both cases the electoral process, legal as it was was overturned and another government was installed, not the one which the people wanted.

 

 Yingluck's  government was overturned by a coup whilst it was in the process of holding another election - to give the people the chance to elect who they wanted. Your statement is lent even further irony by this wouldn't you say?

 

I don't think my point is out of context. I think you have, perhaps inadvertently, let slip a precis of what drives your view on Thai politics.

Edited April 17, 2017 by JAG

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, JAG said:

OK,then, the quote in full: "I disagree with electing who they want.. guess your not a supporter of democracy.  People need to play by the rules of law.. if you don't do that they can't elect you. You also can't use an election to clear a criminal of crimes. ".

 

Since he was convicted, Thaksin has not stood for election. The law could not prevent either Samak in 2008 or Yingluck in 2011 from being elected, there were no legal grounds. Both of them won their respective elections, within the terms of what was then the law. (A law which has incidentally been torn up by the unelected regime which ousted the latter). In both cases the people elected who they wanted. The elections took place in accordance with the rules of law - they" play ed by the rules of law". In both cases the electoral process, legal as it was was overturned and another government was installed, not the one which the people wanted.

 

 Yingluck's  government was overturned by a coup whilst it was in the process of holding another election - to give the people the chance to elect who they wanted. Your statement is lent even further irony by this wouldn't you say?

 

I don't think my point is out of context. I think you have, perhaps inadvertently, let slip a precis of what drives your view on Thai politics.

No JAG.. i guess that is what you want to believe.

 

I just don't believe everyone can be elected, people the law has disqualified should not be elected. 

 

If you followed the context in what the post was made the poster to who i replied to was talking about the devil himself and Thaksin. I replied on that post. I felt that those disqualified by law should not be electable. 

 

But believe what you want, I could start believing you support terrorists with you deny too. Has about as much grounds as what your now saying. 

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

No JAG.. i guess that is what you want to believe.

 

I just don't believe everyone can be elected, people the law has disqualified should not be elected. 

 

If you followed the context in what the post was made the poster to who i replied to was talking about the devil himself and Thaksin. I replied on that post. I felt that those disqualified by law should not be electable. 

 

But believe what you want, I could start believing you support terrorists with you deny too. Has about as much grounds as what your now saying. 

I have never said, in any"context" that I support terrorism.

 

You have said, in black and white, that you disagree with people electing who they want.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

I have never said, in any"context" that I support terrorism.

 

You have said, in black and white, that you disagree with people electing who they want.

If you believe in lies so can I.

 

Yes I stated that.. its the law that certain people are excluded.. its so in my country.. in the US and probably also in the Uk

Edited April 17, 2017 by robblok

[JAG]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

If you believe in lies so can I.

 

Yes I stated that.. its the law that certain people are excluded.. its so in my country.. in the US and probably also in the Uk

 post#72.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by JAG

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, JAG said:

 post#72.

 

post#75 

[robblok]

I guess the PTP and red supports have to toe the party line that everyone should be electable.. even if the law has disqualified them.

 

If they don't they are in hot water as they can't excuse someone who cant stand in election like Thaksin led the country by proxy (skype mainly) 

 

 

[nong38]

Elections are being muted in about 18 months time so it will interesting to see what happens. I dont think that things have changed that much since the last Yingluck win time, what I mean by that is that the Democrats are string in Bangkok and he south whilst Yinglucks supporters are stronger up north, there seem to be more voters north of Bangkok so I would not expect a Democrat win, The Democrats found it hard to even canvas up north at the last election and are not trusted by the look of things, if Phue Thai put an elephant it would likely win. It will, therefore, be interesting to see how the new constitution handles the result. A Northern win is the most likely but it would also be abrasive with Military involvement in running things which might very well end up with the elected new Government being removed at Abhisit being installed at point in the future, would not surprise me and Abhisit is clever man no matter whether you like him or not, he just might be clever enough to out fox the military an change the course of the country.

All speculation of course, it will not affect me one way or the other I guess, I am just an interested observer hoping for a good and lasting future for the country.

[Thechook]

On 4/14/2017 at 11:41 PM, 3NUMBAS said:

Junta is a red flag to a bull...

Absolutely

[tomta]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:07 AM, robblok said:

Thanks for taking things out of context JAG (leaving away the next part of the text where I explain that people who don't play by the laws can't be elected, in any country there are those that can't be elected legally)

 

I did not expect that from you.

 

I disagree with the people being able to elect convicted criminals and others who are disqualified like those convicted of huge frauds and other big crimes. For people who have  no criminal convictions I have absolutely no problems with anyone. There are rules JAG to elections that some people are not electable, just think of the US where people can't elect a president more then a few times in a row. In most countries there are rules about who can be elected and who cannot be elected its part of democracy . 

For the record, in the 2011 election Thaksin was not elected and was not a candidate. I'm sure you know thatSure, maybe his thinking, ideas and advice dominated the government - but they were elected and can get their thinking, advice, policy and ideas from wherever they want. Thaksin was elected in 2001 and 2005 - not in 2011. I'm not sure what sort of rules could be put in place to stop elected representatives  from getting their ideas from anywhere they want.

 

 

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, tomta said:

For the record, in the 2011 election Thaksin was not elected and was not a candidate. I'm sure you know thatSure, maybe his thinking, ideas and advice dominated the government - but they were elected and can get their thinking, advice, policy and ideas from wherever they want. Thaksin was elected in 2001 and 2005 - not in 2011. I'm not sure what sort of rules could be put in place to stop elected representatives  from getting their ideas from anywhere they want.

 

 

Can't imagine that ruling by proxy is looked upon favorably in a way to get around a ban. Getting advice somewhere and being led by proxy are 2 different things. This went far further then asking for advice.  

[kaorop]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Can't imagine that ruling by proxy is looked upon favorably in a way to get around a ban. Getting advice somewhere and being led by proxy are 2 different things. This went far further then asking for advice.  

Most every thai who voted for yingy knew that, and they will continue to snub the ruling elite no matter what, given the chance. they knew what taky was up to, but again they'd rather him (or the like) than the others, who in no doubt see them as inferior in every possible way. only guns have changed the natural order.

AND then may i add

Is not Cha Cha a form of proxy?

[pentap]

Again, and in my opinion only, a Thai national, educated in a much more, democratic society than it presently is here, namely Eaton college, UK, is making a very good point.

But then again, who or what am I to pass such comment?

Oh, I forgot! I'm a low life foreigner. What could I possibly know or understand?

[pentap]

Wikipedia the name of the present, and unelected Government leader of Thailand.

It puts into prospective, well at least or me, the sad affairs of the current ruling party.

Thailand! Land of the free?

Maybe not!?