Conflicting theories about Yingluck escape after video of police pickup

[LannaGuy]

3 hours ago, rixalex said:

What's all this? Are you job sharing with LannaGuy?

He's not

[LannaGuy]

22 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Only the willfully ignorant consider the current judiciary as being something out of the ordinary or particularly imperfect as compared to previous incarnations. Most of the current objection and noise to this one, has little or nothing to do with how imperfect the system is, but rather to do with who the current system is seen to be not serving. My heart bleeds. And the same goes for all those you care to mention who have previously worked the system to their advantage. As for those currently working it, these things tend to be cyclical, so i'm sure they'll have their day too.

 

 

This is BS. ANY judiciary serving a non-elected military junta cannot be trusted. All your noise about OJ and Oscar (both results of which I disagreed with) were far more palatable because they were in a democratic system, you know a jury in one?  a free judge in the other?  BOTH televised for OPENNESS?  

 

you know that pesky thing where journalists can report freely and citizens can watch proceedings?  here it's closed doors, no TV, no jury and you claim it's the same?  bizarre!    

 

 

[rixalex]

3 minutes ago, pornprong said:

The courts have become the elites bulwark against democracy (3 elected prime ministers removed by the courts since 2007, 2 election winning political parties disbanded by the courts since 2007 and hundreds of Red politicians banned by the courts since 2007).

You've got the soundbites there down pat, but they don't bear scrutiny. Examine each of those judicial decisions and what you'll find is something far more complex than the simple picture you paint of elite vs democracy.

[rixalex]

11 minutes ago, pornprong said:

The current judiciary is most definitely something out of the ordinary - before they were only corrupted by money, now they are corrupted by politics and money.

Nonsense. Politics has always played a part.

[LannaGuy]

Just now, rixalex said:

Nonsense. Politics has always played a part.

yes but it's all relative dear rixalex it's ALL relative

[pornprong]

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You've got the soundbites there down pat, but they don't bear scrutiny. Examine each of those judicial decisions and what you'll find is something far more complex than the simple picture you paint of elite vs democracy.

The cooking show (filmed before Samak even became PM) is my favourite soundbite.

 

How many PM's removed by the courts prior to 2007?

(clue - it's zero)

[rixalex]

Just now, pornprong said:

The cooking show (filmed before Samak even became PM) is my favourite soundbite.

 

How many PM's removed by the courts prior to 2007?

(clue - it's zero)

Yes, i'm not surprised it's your favourite as it does sound outrageous... but actually when you look at all the details, dig a bit deeper, there is a bit more going on that you either know about or prefer to ignore.

 

Firstly, Samak was found to have lied in court. I think most countries would take it quite seriously for their PM to do that. Secondly, the law is very plain on the matter of PMs having second jobs. He and his team of advisors would have known this and could easily have sorted this matter categorically when he came to power, but he chose not to as he no doubt thought he could simply find a loophole around the law... which is precisely what he did by claiming that money earned was traveling expenses or some such nonsense. Thirdly, he was only made to stand down from his position. His party could have easily voted him back in. They chose not to. Or rather, in the spirit of Shinawatra style democracy, they were instructed not to.

 

Now i'm not saying that politics didn't play any part in that court case, i'm sure it did, but for you to suggest or imply that it was all trumped up charges with no grounds, and that it was all part of some big conspiracy, plotted by the elites against supposed democracy lovers, is misleading in the extreme.

[pornprong]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Yes, i'm not surprised it's your favourite as it does sound outrageous... but actually when you look at all the details, dig a bit deeper, there is a bit more going on that you either know about or prefer to ignore.

What nonsense.

Quote

Firstly, Samak was found to have lied in court. I think most countries would take it quite seriously for their PM to do that. Secondly, the law is very plain on the matter of PMs having second jobs. He and his team of advisors would have known this and could easily have sorted this matter categorically when he came to power, but he chose not to as he no doubt thought he could simply find a loophole around the law... which is precisely what he did by claiming that money earned was traveling expenses or some such nonsense. Thirdly, he was only made to stand down from his position. His party could have easily voted him back in. They chose not to. Or rather, in the spirit of Shinawatra style democracy, they were instructed not to.

This is not the first time a Thaksin proxy government has been brought down by the Constitutional Court on a flimsy pretense. In 2008 the same body ousted Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej for hosting an episode of a commercial TV cooking show. “This court has a tradition for making ridiculous decisions,” says Paul Chambers, director of research at the Institute of South East Asian Affairs at Chiang Mai University. "Thailand has become a juristocracy."

http://time.com/90445/after-six-months-of-fighting-thai-pm-yingluck-is-finally-ousted-by-court/

Quote

Now i'm not saying that politics didn't play any part in that court case, i'm sure it did, but for you to suggest or imply that it was all trumped up charges with no grounds, and that it was all part of some big conspiracy, plotted by the elites against supposed democracy lovers, is misleading in the extreme.

It was a trumped up charge with no grounds and it was all part of a conspiracy plotted by the elites and the military to overthrow democracy and install a government of their choosing.

 

How many PM's removed by the courts prior to 2007?????

Edited September 2, 2017 by pornprong

[Ricardo]

What does this have to do with Yingluck's escape ?

[Joebuzz]

On 8/31/2017 at 5:27 PM, Raymonddiaz said:

Secret can't be kept long in Thailand. We are going to know what happened very rapidly. Thai people can't keep their mouths shut.

Yeah, but they love to lie about everything to embellish OR save face which means that for every situation you'll get a differed story from everyone involved.  

[rixalex]

2 hours ago, pornprong said:

What nonsense.

This is not the first time a Thaksin proxy government has been brought down by the Constitutional Court on a flimsy pretense. In 2008 the same body ousted Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej for hosting an episode of a commercial TV cooking show. “This court has a tradition for making ridiculous decisions,” says Paul Chambers, director of research at the Institute of South East Asian Affairs at Chiang Mai University. "Thailand has become a juristocracy."

http://time.com/90445/after-six-months-of-fighting-thai-pm-yingluck-is-finally-ousted-by-court/

It was a trumped up charge with no grounds and it was all part of a conspiracy plotted by the elites and the military to overthrow democracy and install a government of their choosing.

 

How many PM's removed by the courts prior to 2007?????

It's such nonsense that all you can do is call it nonsense, and post an opinion piece that addresses none of the points i made.

 

 

[pornprong]

9 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It's such nonsense that all you can do is call it nonsense, and post an opinion piece that addresses none of the points i made.

 

 

Correct.

 

How many Thai PM's removed by judges prior to 2007??

Edited September 2, 2017 by pornprong

[fusion58]

Quote

National police chief Chakthip Chaijinda refused to comment on the report, saying he had already assigned his deputy, Pol General Srivara Rangsibhramanakul, to handle the case.

LOL.

 

The buck stops here...NOT.

[rixalex]

10 hours ago, pornprong said:

Correct.

 

How many Thai PM's removed by judges prior to 2007??

You totally ignored the points i made and then asked a question to which you have already supplied the answer.

 

Silly though I guess expecting anything more from a "new" member who signed up less than 24 hours ago and who posts exclusively on one topic.

[pornprong]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You totally ignored the points i made and then asked a question to which you have already supplied the answer.

I ignore nonsense.

Where exactly have you answered how many PM's have been removed by the courts prior to 2007?

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

 

Silly though I guess expecting anything more from a "new" member who signed up less than 24 hours ago and who posts exclusively on one topic.

Again, I ignore nonsense.

[Media1]

This case was pure money extortion the way that Thailand knows. Furthermore no former PM who was  

 illegally removed from power - a legitimate election should be held responsible for any decisions made while in office. Especially via a illegal coup which in other countries is high treason and some face firing squads. Suthep was part of a plot and the RTP allowed him to make problems.  They are not police. There clowns that need to be audited removed and replaced by educated western minds. Prayut gave himself amnesty lol. 

[Media1]

On 9/1/2017 at 6:10 PM, bangkoken said:

The focus on Yingluck for what is considered a fraud charge seems somewhat over publicized and overblown when you consider and compare it to The Red Bull heir globetrotting with  what should be a murder charge over his head for killing an on duty Policeman. Yet is not receiving the attention he deserves and is waiting for the statute of limitations to kick in. The Thai government cannot find him? Hard to believe.Where are the priorities?

Correct but the brain size of this regime believed that we can make our mistakes go away by making her a national promotion. There lack of morals only shines through.  There 0 will to reform anything and form outrageous boards of dummies to further mask any reforms. They are contemptible clowns

Edited September 3, 2017 by Media1

[rixalex]

2 minutes ago, pornprong said:

I ignore nonsense.

Where exactly have you answered how many PM's have been removed by the courts prior to 2007?

Again, I ignore nonsense.

Something isn't nonsense just because you say it's so.

 

Something that is nonsense is easy to argue against. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.

 

You also seem to have reading comprehension issues. Where did i say that i had answered your question? I said that you had asked a question to which you had already supplied the answer.

 

 

[Media1]

12 hours ago, rixalex said:

It's such nonsense that all you can do is call it nonsense, and post an opinion piece that addresses none of the points i made.

 

 

Of course but hardly elites. Just old men that gained approval with who we all know who right. They wanted wealth and power. Asia is the most corrupt place on earth. Not matter which country. This will never change. Only bank account numbers change. These generals couldn't run a pre school 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Media1

[pornprong]

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Something isn't nonsense just because you say it's so.

That is true.

But it is also true that "because I say" something is nonsense, it may well be nonsense.

 

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Something that is nonsense is easy to argue against. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.

It maybe easy to argue against, but it is also a waste of time.

I am sure my avoidance of nonsense surely does speak volumes.

 

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You also seem to have reading comprehension issues. Where did i say that i had answered your question? I said that you had asked a question to which you had already supplied the answer.

OK, so you agree with the answer I provided.

Why do you think it is that after 2007 the courts started removing elected Prime Ministers?

[rixalex]

1 minute ago, pornprong said:

That is true.

But it is also true that "because I say" something is nonsense, it may well be nonsense.

 

It maybe easy to argue against, but it is also a waste of time.

I am sure my avoidance of nonsense surely does speak volumes.

 

OK, so you agree with the answer I provided.

Why do you think it is that after 2007 the courts started removing elected Prime Ministers?

If you are not prepared to argue against points i make, responding simply with "that's nonsense", without any explanation as to why, it's totally pointless replying to anything you say.

 

Explain why what i said was nonsense and i'll answer your question.

[pornprong]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

If you are not prepared to argue against points i make, responding simply with "that's nonsense", without any explanation as to why, it's totally pointless replying to anything you say.

 

Explain why what i said was nonsense and i'll answer your question.

Yes, i'm not surprised it's your favourite as it does sound outrageous... but actually when you look at all the details, dig a bit deeper, there is a bit more going on that you either know about or prefer to ignore.

 

The above is nonsense.

There is no way to defend the sheer stupidity of a Prime Minister being removed from office for participating on a cooking show without resorting to nonsense.

 

You can love the Junta all you want, you can despise democracy all you want but if you want to try to convince others that your views hold any weight then at the very least one cannot defend the indefensible because the foolishness tarnishes all else you may have to say.

[rixalex]

4 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Yes, i'm not surprised it's your favourite as it does sound outrageous... but actually when you look at all the details, dig a bit deeper, there is a bit more going on that you either know about or prefer to ignore.

 

The above is nonsense.

There is no way to defend the sheer stupidity of a Prime Minister being removed from office for participating on a cooking show without resorting to nonsense.

All you have done is find a longer way of calling it nonsense. No reasoning or justification for why it is nonsense. Just that it is.

 

Below are the points i made. You haven't responded to any of them, or explained why they are nonsense.

 

Firstly, Samak was found to have lied in court. I think most countries would take it quite seriously for their PM to do that. Secondly, the law is very plain on the matter of PMs having second jobs. He and his team of advisors would have known this and could easily have sorted this matter categorically when he came to power, but he chose not to as he no doubt thought he could simply find a loophole around the law... which is precisely what he did by claiming that money earned was traveling expenses or some such nonsense. Thirdly, he was only made to stand down from his position. His party could have easily voted him back in. They chose not to. Or rather, in the spirit of Shinawatra style democracy, they were instructed not to.

[rixalex]

32 minutes ago, pornprong said:

You can love the Junta all you want, you can despise democracy all you want but if you want to try to convince others that your views hold any weight then at the very least one cannot defend the indefensible because the foolishness tarnishes all else you may have to say.

Pathetic attempt at trolling. Akin to me calling you a Shinawatra lover and a supporter of corruption.

[pornprong]

7 minutes ago, rixalex said:

All you have done is find a longer way of calling it nonsense. No reasoning or justification for why it is nonsense. Just that it is.

 

Below are the points i made. You haven't responded to any of them, or explained why they are nonsense.

 

Firstly, Samak was found to have lied in court. I think most countries would take it quite seriously for their PM to do that. Secondly, the law is very plain on the matter of PMs having second jobs. He and his team of advisors would have known this and could easily have sorted this matter categorically when he came to power, but he chose not to as he no doubt thought he could simply find a loophole around the law... which is precisely what he did by claiming that money earned was traveling expenses or some such nonsense. Thirdly, he was only made to stand down from his position. His party could have easily voted him back in. They chose not to. Or rather, in the spirit of Shinawatra style democracy, they were instructed not to.

I'm going to have to call nonsense again.

 

Here's a hypothetical question to help you overcome your addiction to nonsense - Do you think if Samak had not participated in the cooking show that he would have been left alone to complete his term as elected Prime Minister of Thailand or do you think the courts would have found some other foolishness to remove him from office?

[pornprong]

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Pathetic attempt at trolling. Akin to me calling you a Shinawatra lover and a supporter of corruption.

No, not pathetic.

We all have different views and the brighter ones amongst us are open to changing their views as the facts change.

Support whatever you want, but back your support with facts and don't defend nonsense with nonsense because when you do stoop, you are only preaching to the converted.

 

I am not so much a Shinawatra lover and supporter of corruption as I am a democracy lover and supporter of individual rights and freedoms.

 

Lets be honest here, any support for any Thai involved in politics involves support of corruption. Or do you believe there is a non corrupt player in this game?

[NanLaew]

On 9/1/2017 at 0:01 PM, CanuckThai said:

What I find interesting, I asked my wife "what do people think about this YL situation at your work?".  She works at a hospital (the most gossip ridden places).....she says "no one talks about politics or military government at hospital, only gossip local government".    Somewhat contradictory for an answer, but bottom line, Thai people don't discuss publicly anything regarding Thailand current affairs....   Most are mushrooms, oblivious.  

We understand, it's your wife and you believe her implicitly. We know where you're coming from.

 

Meanwhile, in our front lounge today as the family (and neighbor) collective squatted on the rush mats and between bouts of shoveling spicy witchety grubs and weeds down their necks...

 

The only mushrooms are the ones they're eating!

[rixalex]

10 minutes ago, pornprong said:

I'm going to have to call nonsense again.

 

And once again, calling something nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

 

Your inability to respond to any of the points i made, says it all. You are a troll. Further discussion pointless.

[pornprong]

50 minutes ago, rixalex said:

And once again, calling something nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

 

Your inability to respond to any of the points i made, says it all. You are a troll. Further discussion pointless.

How exactly would you respond to a post declaring the world is flat?

 

BTW - the hypothetical question still stands

Do you think if Samak had not participated in the cooking show that he would have been left alone to complete his term as elected Prime Minister of Thailand or do you think the courts would have found some other foolishness to remove him from office?

[William C F Pierce]

No-ones yet checked to see if she is still ill at home. Now that would cause a lot of Thai loss faces if found to be true.

Edited September 3, 2017 by William C F Pierce