Supreme Court Jails Redshirt Leader Jatuporn For Defaming Former PM

[Baerboxer]

10 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

Not shin defender. Fact defender. I have time and inclination for make sure fact before talk. Cannot have idea about logic. Logic is logic cannot pick and choose. How you decide when to have time and inclination for check if something true? I know when you not have time and inclination. You not have when fact not agree with you belief.

 

So far you haven't presented any facts. Just your opinions. What drives those opinions, well only you know.

 

So if you have facts, not opinions to show your assertion that less than 1% of red shirt members are involved in terrorist or criminal activities then please show us. Or your assertion that Thaksin is innocent of all outstanding charges against him, then please provide the evidence.

 

The rest of us will continue to read and examine the evidence as reported, and make our own conclusions. 

[Pridilives]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So far you haven't presented any facts. Just your opinions. What drives those opinions, well only you know.

 

So if you have facts, not opinions to show your assertion that less than 1% of red shirt members are involved in terrorist or criminal activities then please show us. Or your assertion that Thaksin is innocent of all outstanding charges against him, then please provide the evidence.

 

The rest of us will continue to read and examine the evidence as reported, and make our own conclusions. 

I give fact you say not have time and inclination to read.

you clearly not  one of the rest of us and won't be until you find the time and inclination to read and examine evidence. 

You appear to make own conclusion sans evidence (probably because you don't have time and inclination enough)

Edited July 21, 2017 by Pridilives

[Baerboxer]

Just now, JAG said:

 

Umh, Baerboxer, you did say "You can vote a government out, but some governments don't go easily, especially ones who don't accept the law."
This was in a post explaining your take on the Thaksin/Shinawatra approach to the law when in government. Can I suggest that "Pridilives" makes a fair point?

 

 

Really. 

 

Do you remember when a certain PM dissolved parliament, then resigned from the caretaker PM role, then after a few weeks decided to depose the new appointed caretaker PM and take the position back? On no authority but his own? And then was prevaricating on the new election? 

 

Now, imagine if that party was in power, reducing the effectiveness of checks & balances, threatening courts to only issue verdicts that favored themselves, changing procedures and rules to suit themselves, avoiding accountability, constantly lying, ignoring parliamentary procedures and the law whenever they pleased. Imagine if that party did loose an election imagine how they'd react?

 

Do you think they'd accept the result in good spirit? 

 

 

 

 

[JAG]

Not sure.. that you even have to think about comparing them and placing them at the same level tells me enough. 

 

Its a gross insult to the likes of Ghandi and Mandela to be compared with Thaksin or Jattuporn. 

 

I read it that they were compared in respect to the political position in which they find/found themselves, rather than on their various merits.

 

To deny that comparison on the grounds that you consider it a gross insult dismisses the argument because it offends your sensibilities rather than because it fails as a comparison...

 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

I give fact you say not have time and inclination to read.

you clearly not  one of the rest of us and won't be until you find the time and inclination to read and examine evidence. 

You appear to make own conclusion sans evidence (probably because you don't have time and inclination enough)

 

No you haven't given any facts about anything - none. 

 

You aren't in a position to dictate to me. 

 

If you are so  passionate about your opinion then you read the FB post (from a young Thai expat) and you precis the pertinent parts that support your views and opinions and provide it for me.

 

Evidence, btw, isn't finding someone else who shares your opinion.

 

So off you go. You come back with some real facts. Be the first time.

[Pridilives]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Really. 

 

Do you remember when a certain PM dissolved parliament, then resigned from the caretaker PM role, then after a few weeks decided to depose the new appointed caretaker PM and take the position back? On no authority but his own? And then was prevaricating on the new election? 

 

Now, imagine if that party was in power, reducing the effectiveness of checks & balances, threatening courts to only issue verdicts that favored themselves, changing procedures and rules to suit themselves, avoiding accountability, constantly lying, ignoring parliamentary procedures and the law whenever they pleased. Imagine if that party did loose an election imagine how they'd react?

 

Do you think they'd accept the result in good spirit? 

 

 

 

 

Keep on imagining because reality is not your forte.

[SheungWan]

26 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

Not shin defender. Fact defender. I have time and inclination for make sure fact before talk. Cannot have idea about logic. Logic is logic cannot pick and choose. How you decide when to have time and inclination for check if something true? I know when you not have time and inclination. You not have when fact not agree with you belief.

Its all about Thaksin. Everything else is just a part of that jigsaw.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

I read it that they were compared in respect to the political position in which they find/found themselves, rather than on their various merits.

 

To deny that comparison on the grounds that you consider it a gross insult dismisses the argument because it offends your sensibilities rather than because it fails as a comparison...

 

Gandi and Mandela were of almost unspoken behavior.. the same cannot be said from the ones your comparing them with. Its an insult. But hey I understand you see this different, can't speak bad of your hero's. 

[Pridilives]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No you haven't given any facts about anything - none. 

 

You aren't in a position to dictate to me. 

 

If you are so  passionate about your opinion then you read the FB post (from a young Thai expat) and you precis the pertinent parts that support your views and opinions and provide it for me.

 

Evidence, btw, isn't finding someone else who shares your opinion.

 

So off you go. You come back with some real facts. Be the first time.

The Thai lawyer cover all issue and give fact for all issue. If you ever want fact. If you ever have time and inclination you know where to find.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

I read it that they were compared in respect to the political position in which they find/found themselves, rather than on their various merits.

 

To deny that comparison on the grounds that you consider it a gross insult dismisses the argument because it offends your sensibilities rather than because it fails as a comparison...

 

 

Of course you could equally say that Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, Stalin and quite a few other  could be compared in respect to having been in a similar political position.

 

 

[JAG]

 
Really. 
 
Do you remember when a certain PM dissolved parliament, then resigned from the caretaker PM role, then after a few weeks decided to depose the new appointed caretaker PM and take the position back? On no authority but his own? And then was prevaricating on the new election? 
 
Now, imagine if that party was in power, reducing the effectiveness of checks & balances, threatening courts to only issue verdicts that favored themselves, changing procedures and rules to suit themselves, avoiding accountability, constantly lying, ignoring parliamentary procedures and the law whenever they pleased. Imagine if that party did loose an election imagine how they'd react?
 
Do you think they'd accept the result in good spirit? 
 
 
 
 

That's not the point - you've suggested it again, having previously taken him to task for raising the matter!

[Pridilives]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

Its all about Thaksin. Everything else is just a part of that jigsaw.

No. Wrong. When thaksin die already Thailand still have same problem. Just blind people think all about thaksin because junta want to divert.

[LannaGuy]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not sure.. that you even have to think about comparing them and placing them at the same level tells me enough. 

 

Its a gross insult to the likes of Ghandi and Mandela to be compared with Thaksin or Jattuporn. 

hey dude... didn't i just say I DON'T compare them?  

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

No. Wrong. When thaksin die already Thailand still have same problem. Just blind people think all about thaksin because junta want to divert.

 

"The greatest trick of the devil is to convince everyone he doesn't exist"

[Pridilives]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

"The greatest trick of the devil is to convince everyone he doesn't exist"

Devil doesn't have to do trick because some people don't have time and inclination so can be convince any silly thing easily.

[Baerboxer]

9 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

The Thai lawyer cover all issue and give fact for all issue. If you ever want fact. If you ever have time and inclination you know where to find.

 

And the same applies to you.

 

You make sweeping assertions but offer no facts to support them.

 

Maybe those facts are only in your imagination.

[Eric Loh]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

 

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?

I look ok but for those you support military suppression, better look twice. 

[Pridilives]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And the same applies to you.

 

You make sweeping assertions but offer no facts to support them.

 

Maybe those facts are only in your imagination.

I always have time and inclination

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Pridilives said:

I always have time and inclination

 

Excellent.

 

So we await your precis of the FB post you linked with supporting references and citations, that confirm your assertions on Thaksin, the red shirts and their leaders total innocence.

 

In your own time.

[Baerboxer]

15 minutes ago, JAG said:

That's not the point - you've suggested it again, having previously taken him to task for raising the matter!

 

What?

 

No idea what you mean. Please be specific.

[CharlieH]

Discuss debate the topic do not make personal remarks.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[Artisi]

6 hours ago, aslimversgwm said:

As a Caucasian farang I wish I could express my opinion as well in Thai as you do in English - thank you for making such a thoughtful response in English. Good on you sir!

Think you might find someone is actually farang. 

Play silly bugger, funny much having piss. 

[gummy]

On 7/20/2017 at 7:20 AM, smedly said:

armed red terrorists fled into the grounds of the WAT after attacking security forces while they were trying restore order in the city, the army returned fire and some people who were strongly advised many times to leave the danger zone were unfortunately caught up in the exchange, in my book that was their choice to put themselves in danger when they were well aware they were in a live fire zone and refused to take advice and leave.

And what comics did you read ? 58 people shot in the back ( by the army ?) from the postmortems. You must have a pretty perverse sense of human rights to condone that.

[bangrak]

24 minutes ago, gummy said:

And what comics did you read ? 58 people shot in the back ( by the army ?) from the postmortems. You must have a pretty perverse sense of human rights to condone that.

I don't know which propaganda works you read, but '58 people shot in the back', 'from the postmortems', are you sure that's what happened at that Wat? Which are your credible sources to write such stuff, may I ask?

[metisdead]

A number of off topic bickering posts and replies have been removed. 

[SheungWan]

13 hours ago, gummy said:

And what comics did you read ? 58 people shot in the back ( by the army ?) from the postmortems. You must have a pretty perverse sense of human rights to condone that.

 

13 hours ago, bangrak said:

I don't know which propaganda works you read, but '58 people shot in the back', 'from the postmortems', are you sure that's what happened at that Wat? Which are your credible sources to write such stuff, may I ask?

Repetition is the only Thaksinista source.

[rosst]

18 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You provide no facts to support your assertion that 1% do crime (is that the top 1% by the way?) and 99% don't. If you have facts please post them - or is it just your opinion which you make up as you go along

 

Your habit is to insult all who criticize the Shiniwattras and their political party as liars, being blind (please don't use blindness as an insult) and insist they must be junta fans.

 

Thaksin was convicted by a court for something he doesn't deny doing. He also faces many more serious charges, like the Krungthai Bank fraud. His lawyer was convicted of trying to bribe judges. He chose to flee rather than fight in court when the bribe failed.

 

Do you really believe the Shniniwattras are any different to the other elites? Or are they just another self serving group trying to wrangle control of the trough for themselves. Which you think?

 

 

 

 

And here you have it, he said she said, politics is fine until the violence starts and the impartiality of the judiciary is tainted, how sad for Thailand.