Boonsong suffers the fate of the ‘hired gun’

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Squeegee said:

None of that matters.

 

So now you show very clearly your bias, well done.

[scorecard]

On 9/3/2017 at 3:59 PM, Squeegee said:

 

Posting bad things about the Shins whilst overlooking the junta - who are actually in government, wrongly by any law in any land - shows your bias and lack of reason. Not much to be taken seriously there, I'm afraid. On the contrary, you alienate people by calling them 'reds' and it makes you look silly. The implication is you can't maintain a position without deflecting or misrepresenting.

 

'...overlook...'

 

Your guilty of the same, you overlook why the junta came into the whole mess.

 

[wakeupplease]

Boonsong 42 years yet others go free on murder like the magpie and Suthep Now that's corruption

[Squeegee]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

'...overlook...'

 

Your guilty of the same, you overlook why the junta came into the whole mess.

 

 

[Aside, to the peanut gallery]:

 

See? Time-wasting nonsense posts that go round and round. Here I am obliged to point out the flippin' obvious (what I really think of why they snatched power and how it is everywhere across the forums) or he somehow thinks he scored a point. Might as well argue with a chimpanzee, and thus it's preferable just to point and laugh.

[Squeegee]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

So now you show very clearly your bias, well done.

 

You have no intelligent answer to my point:

 

What matters is for Thai people to have a democratic process so they can remove corrupt people themselves. If the Thai people choose Thaksin or Prayuth it's up to them. If they get cleaned up or not, it's up to them.

 

[Rimmer]

A flame/slur removed

[pornprong]

13 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

'...overlook...'

 

Your guilty of the same, you overlook why the junta came into the whole mess.

 

And why do you think the Junta came in?

(Before you start with the but, but , but Thaksin - remember, Junta's have been "coming in" for over 80 years, well before Thaksin ever was a player)

[robblok]

 
You have no intelligent answer to my point:
 
What matters is for Thai people to have a democratic process so they can remove corrupt people themselves. If the Thai people choose Thaksin or Prayuth it's up to them. If they get cleaned up or not, it's up to them.
 

That is not what voting is for corruption should be punished in a court of law.

That is the normal procedure. I guess your one of those guys that thinks a government can do as they want break the law as long as they are voted in.

Maybe if a party has enough support they could make corruption legal. But until that day its still a punishable offence and should not be forgiven if one is popular.

These guys are criminals and deserve all they get i hope they impound all the ill gotten gains too.

[Squeegee]

18 hours ago, robblok said:

I guess your one of those guys that thinks a government can do as they want break the law as long as they are voted in.

 

You guess wrong, that would be silly.

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, Squeegee said:

 

You guess wrong, that would be silly.

Then why the comments about the people removing corrupt officials in votes while this clearly is the job of the judiciary. Only when corruption cannot be proven in a court of law but is highly likely the people might think about it in the election and get rid of those officials. But that has nothing to do with this case where the guy was caught red handed by the judiciary and the evidence is overwhelming.  Unless you mean he should not be prosecuted because he was voted in and popular. 

[halloween]

59 minutes ago, robblok said:

Then why the comments about the people removing corrupt officials in votes while this clearly is the job of the judiciary. Only when corruption cannot be proven in a court of law but is highly likely the people might think about it in the election and get rid of those officials. But that has nothing to do with this case where the guy was caught red handed by the judiciary and the evidence is overwhelming.  Unless you mean he should not be prosecuted because he was voted in and popular. 

Actually, he wasn't voted in, he was appointed by a fugitive criminal. As for popular.........

[pornprong]

31 minutes ago, halloween said:

Actually, he wasn't voted in, he was appointed by a fugitive criminal. As for popular.........

Clearly, he was voted in, by the people of Thailand. As for popular, well, all we can know for sure, is that he as at least more popular than whoever it was that stood against him in the election.

[pornprong]

On 9/4/2017 at 1:36 PM, halloween said:

I guess we all have our own idea of what is important in life. For you it seems to be the temporary and rather mild oppression of political rights as some remedy is sought to the governmental disasters foisted on the minority of voters.

Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin.

 

Care to give your views on the decades of governmental disasters foisted on the majority of Thais by past governments made up of your minority elites, or do you think the massive underdevelopment and poverty of all of Thailand outside Bangkok is the fault of the dreaded electoral majority?

 

Quote

Others consider that keeping the peace, prosecuting those who have betrayed the trust put in them, and reducing the opportunities for corruption as more important.

Wrong on all three counts here:

 

1. Those that caused the violence of 2013/14 do not deserve praise for peace simply because they have stopped being violent, they should be condemned for being violent in the first place.

2. The only ones being prosecuted are the ones who win elections. Do you think participating in a coup against an elected government is a betrayal of trust?

3. Corruption has increased under the Junta and the system the Junta have created ensures corruption in perpetuity

 

Quote

I suppose what really makes you sick to the stomach is the acceptance by Thais of the current regime. tough TIT.

Hahahah, yeah Thais are so accepting of the current regime Prayuth can barely get through a day without resorting to Section 44 and I'd love to hear your explanation for the attitude adjustment camps.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by pornprong

[pornprong]

On 9/4/2017 at 3:26 PM, halloween said:

 Is that a surprise that the citizens that didn't vote for a government still have rights? Oh that's right, you'd rather change the subject to the junta.

Not a single Thai voted for the Junta, why aren't you complaining about the entire nations loss of rights the same way you complain about the minorities rites under the previous government?

 

49% of the people allegedly lose their rights and you're outraged, 100% of people actually lose their rights and... not a peep from Halloween.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be consistent.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

Clearly, he was voted in, by the people of Thailand. As for popular, well, all we can know for sure, is that he as at least more popular than whoever it was that stood against him in the election.

Clearly you have a strange concept of "voted in". Boonsong did not appear as commerce Minister in the first Yingluk cabinet, so even if the cabinet had been announced BEFORE the election, nobody would have been voting for him.

Portfolio	Minister		Deputy Minister
Prime Minister		Yingluck Shinawatra
Deputy Prime Minister		Yongyuth Wichaidit
Deputy Prime Minister		Pol. Capt Chalerm Yubamrung
Deputy Prime Minister		Pol. Gen Kowit Wattana
Deputy Prime Minister		Kittiratt Na-Ranong
Deputy Prime Minister		Chumpol Silpa-archa
The Office of the Prime Minister		Surawit Khonsomboon
		Kritsana Sihalak
Ministry of Interior		Yongyuth Wichaidit		Chuchat Hansawat
				Thanit Thienthong
Ministry of Justice		Pol. Gen Pracha Promnok
Ministry of Defence		Gen Yuthasak Sasiprapha
Ministry of Finance		Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala		Boonsong Teriyapirom
				Wirun Techapaiboon
Ministry of Foreign Affairs		Surapong Towijakchaikul
Ministry of Social Development and Human Security		Santi Prompat
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives		Theera Wongsamut		Pornsak Charoenprasert
Ministry of Transport		ACM Sukampol Suwannathat		Pol. Lt Gen Chat Kuldilok
				Kittisak Hatthasongkhro
Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment		Preecha Rengsomboonsuk
Ministry of Information and Communication Technology		Grp Cpt Anudith Nakornthap
Ministry of Energy		Pichai Naripthaphan
Ministry of Commerce		Kittiratt Na-Ranong		Phum Saraphol
				Siriwat Kachornprasart
Ministry of Labour		Padermchai Sasomsap
Ministry of Culture		Sukumol Kunplome
Ministry of Science and Technology		Dr. Plodprasop Suraswadi
Ministry of Education		Worawat Ua-apinyakul		Boonruen Srithares
				Suraphong Ueng-amphonwilai
Ministry of Public Health		Witthaya Buranasiri		Torpong Chaiyasarn
Ministry of Industry		Wannarat Channukul
Ministry of Tourism and Sports		Chumpol Silpa-archa

Edited September 6, 2017 by halloween

[halloween]

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

Not a single Thai voted for the Junta, why aren't you complaining about the entire nations loss of rights the same way you complain about the minorities rites under the previous government?

 

49% of the people allegedly lose their rights and you're outraged, 100% of people actually lose their rights and... not a peep from Halloween.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be consistent.

No, you have to understand that one government declared itself to be a democracy, the other has no such pretensions. More to the point, the junta is a temporary measure, Thaksin and his sycophants intended to remain in office as long as the people would tolerate their corruption.

[pornprong]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Clearly you have a strange concept of "voted in". Boonsong did not appear as commerce Minister in the first Yingluk cabinet, so even if the cabinet had been announced BEFORE the election, nobody would have been voting for him.

A strange concept of voted in - how exactly did Boonsong end up in parliament?

 

Why do you try so hard to deny PTP were popularly elected and never mention the complete unaccountability of the Junta?

Why does every minor detail of diversion from democratic perfection bother you so much when it is PTP but the complete and total lack of democracy by the Junta always goes unmentioned?

 

Some people might start to think you are a bit of a hypocrite.

[pornprong]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

No, you have to understand that one government declared itself to be a democracy, the other has no such pretensions. More to the point, the junta is a temporary measure, Thaksin

and his sycophants intended to remain in office as long as the people would tolerate their corruption.

Could it be that government was actually elected and the other wasn't is the reason why they have different views as to whether they were/are democratic governments?

 

Thaksin and his "sycophants" most likely did want to remain in government as long as possible - the only sticking point, without the support of the majority of voters at every election, they couldn't remain in government. Isn't democracy wonderful, Juntas on the other hand need not worry in the slightest about the people because they don't remain in government by votes but instead, via guns.

 

Why is it, when it comes to living standards and quality of life, all of the most successful countries in the world are democracies and not military Juntas?

Edited September 6, 2017 by pornprong

[mike324]

On 8/31/2017 at 5:08 AM, webfact said:

“In politics, some stories must ‘die with us’.

 

In politics, you die sooner or later, most chose a longer life even though it means being in jail. Pawns of the game have no choice.

[Squeegee]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

Then why the comments about the people removing corrupt officials in votes while this clearly is the job of the judiciary. Only when corruption cannot be proven in a court of law but is highly likely the people might think about it in the election and get rid of those officials. But that has nothing to do with this case where the guy was caught red handed by the judiciary and the evidence is overwhelming.  Unless you mean he should not be prosecuted because he was voted in and popular. 

 

They must have a vote to choose who governs them. If they don't like someone because they think they are corrupt they can use their vote.

 

These silly, time-wasting strawman comments are boring. Supporters of an oppressive military government consistantly do this: they talk about now with no context with regards to underlying issues. They treat everything as though it is as simple as prosecuting the bad people who are 'clean-able'... it's an extention of junta propaganda that doesn't want questions beyond their chosen bugbears.

 

"I guess you think this...." - putting words into people's mouths - is just one of the games they have to play.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Squeegee said:

 

They must have a vote to choose who governs them. If they don't like someone because they think they are corrupt they can use their vote.

 

These silly, time-wasting strawman comments are boring. Supporters of an oppressive military government consistantly do this: they talk about now with no context with regards to underlying issues. They treat everything as though it is as simple as prosecuting the bad people who are 'clean-able'... it's an extention of junta propaganda that doesn't want questions beyond their chosen bugbears.

 

"I guess you think this...." - putting words into people's mouths - is just one of the games they have to play.

You play them too, calling people who dislike the shins junta supporters, while that is not always the case. I have had my belly full of the junta, but that does not mean I don't support some of their actions, others I don't. 

 

Again your avoiding the whole argument that its the duty of the judiciary to go after the corrupt and not that of the people voting. Because only being voted out of office is hardly a punishment for corruption. 

 

So typical, avoiding that corrupt people should be convicted and punished (junta or democrats too). I have often said that and mean it I hate corruption from any side. I have cheered when they brought a democrats down for corruption and I will cheer (if it ever happens i know its hard but I do hope it will) bring army people down for corruption.

 

I guess its hard to understand that people can dislike corruption from any side. Go check the Prayuts nephew topics... and look what I said there... no support there from me for corruption. Go look at what i said about his brother not showing up but getting a salary....

Edited September 6, 2017 by robblok

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

Could it be that government was actually elected and the other wasn't is the reason why they have different views as to whether they were/are democratic governments?

 

Thaksin and his "sycophants" most likely did want to remain in government as long as possible - the only sticking point, without the support of the majority of voters at every election, they couldn't remain in government. Isn't democracy wonderful, Juntas on the other hand need not worry in the slightest about the people because they don't remain in government by votes but instead, via guns.

 

Why is it, when it comes to living standards and quality of life, all of the most successful countries in the world are democracies and not military Juntas?

 

Big yawn...

[piersbeckett]

On 8/31/2017 at 9:37 AM, halloween said:

They have a word for it, omerta. I'm not sure if there is a Thai equivalent, my dictionary doesn't have it and the g/f app looks confused.

Hasn't that been mentioned by Baerboxer in post no. 6?

Edited September 6, 2017 by piersbeckett

[halloween]

2 hours ago, pornprong said:

A strange concept of voted in - how exactly did Boonsong end up in parliament?

 

Why do you try so hard to deny PTP were popularly elected and never mention the complete unaccountability of the Junta?

Why does every minor detail of diversion from democratic perfection bother you so much when it is PTP but the complete and total lack of democracy by the Junta always goes unmentioned?

 

Some people might start to think you are a bit of a hypocrite.

Do you have no idea how Thai democracy worked? Boonsong was NOT an MP AFAIK, he was an appointed cabinet minister. But if you have proof that he was, please show it.

[pornprong]

59 minutes ago, halloween said:

Do you have no idea how Thai democracy worked? Boonsong was NOT an MP AFAIK, he was an appointed cabinet minister. But if you have proof that he was, please show it.

Looks like somebody has no idea how Thai democracy works.

Who would have though that pro-junta posters base their anti democracy views on biased assumptions without bothering to look for easily available proof?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_Thai_general_election,_2011

 

[tomta]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

 More to the point, the junta is a temporary measure, 

Three years, five months and counting

[scorecard]

15 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Looks like somebody has no idea how Thai democracy works.

Who would have though that pro-junta posters base their anti democracy views on biased assumptions without bothering to look for easily available proof?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_Thai_general_election,_2011

 

 

 

Biased ...

 

assumptions ....

 

biased assumptions...

 

The bias in your posts is as obvious as the nose on your face, and becoming boring in terms of your frequent repetition, and your lack of balance.

 

Many posters (me included sometimes), post biased comments / biased assumptions from time to time and you and the folks with your flavor are just as guilty as anybody.

 

Enough...

 

[tomta]

On 9/4/2017 at 3:26 PM, halloween said:

 

The junta is putting a system in place to limit the power, and the corruption, of an elected government. The CURRENT situation is temporary.

 

 

How much time must expire before we can call  a temporary situation a permanent one? I guess that's why you use the screaming capitals of CURRENT. Don't forget the 20 years during which whatever government emerges must adhere to the policies of some nameless, unelected "reform" bureaucrats. Even Stalin only had five  year plans. I suppose we must be thankful they didn't go for the 1000 year plan

Edited September 6, 2017 by tomta
wrong word choice

[tomta]

On 9/3/2017 at 9:49 AM, Ricardo said:

 

I would certainly have hoped that there would have been an election before now.

 

However a certain major-event last autumn has surely changed their plans, whatever they were, and right now their focus is on maintaining internal-stability until that has fully worked-through ? 

Are you quite sure that the possibility of this event did not enter into their planning? And even so, how does this event give the military the right to deny elections? The Thai people are quite capable of having democracy even when events happen as they always do . "British prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked what was the most difficult thing about his job. ‘Events, dear boy, events’ was his now famous reply." (The Guardian). He still managed to hold elections.

[Siripon]

15 minutes ago, tomta said:

How much time must expire before we can call  a temporary situation a permanent one? I guess that's why you use the screaming capitals of CURRENT. Don't forget the 20 years during which whatever government emerges must adhere to the policies of some nameless, unelected "reform" bureaucrats. Even Stalin only had five  year plans. I suppose we must be thankful they didn't go for the 1000 year plan

After the Royal cremation and the official coronation of the new King next year, the junta will be under increasing pressure, both domestically and from the international arena, to hold an election. They will have no reason to delay one.