| |
poskat
|
Red shirt leaders have responded positively to Abhisit's speech last night calling for elections in November.
they plan to reveal their official stance on the PM's plan around noon.
this would be just in time for the Coronation Day holiday tomorrow, and would allow both sides to claim a victory of sorts.
the reds can say we got the early elections, and the government can say we recognize there are problems with the poor which need to be addressed, and end this iteration of Mob Rule without further violence.
the only sticking point could be amnesty demands by the red leaders on terrorist/treason type charges.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:29 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
koolbreez
|
There have been 2 elections since the 2006 coup. Both elections were found to be corrupt, and not just by one individual acting on his own. The whole of the party was found to have committed election fraud, hence all of the executives of the party were banned for 5 years from taking part in future elections. Without any executives the party is disbanded.
In both cases those elected didn't even take the time to fill their cabinet posts before they were trying to get laws changed to exonorate Thaksin for abuse of power, and corruption charges. His conviction on the first charge was carried out while his brother-in-law was PM.
Thaksin was first elected because he took vote buying to a new level. Before he ran for office the going rate of buying a vote was bt100 - bt200. With many voters taking money from both sides then voting for who the village chief told them to vote for. Thaksin came in, and set the level of vote buying at bt500, no other candidate could compete with that amount of money, not counting the amount that went to the village chiefs, so his MP's were elected because of direct vote buying. Nothing Democratic about it at all.
One element about Thaksin's supposed helping of the poor was his low interest loans to the different tambons. Those loans came due last year. Thaksin would have still been in office, and the tambons were not able to repay the loans. Thaksin, being the good businessman he is would have foreclosed on those loans, thus putting the majority of the land in the NorthEast under the control of the government. Then he would have leased out the land to the farmers at a fee that would keep them poor. You can not compete on the world market if your labor costs go up. That's pure business understanding.
The current government forgave those loans last year, so the farmers wouldn't loose their land. Was Thaksin really looking out for the poor? He gave them shiny baubles, but kept them poor. He gave children computers for school, but didn't put in the electric infrastucture so they could use them. He put in the bt30 health care plan, but didn't upgrade the clinics, or hospitals so the people could take advantage of it. I know people that died waiting in line to see a doctor.
He reminded me of the traders that bought Manhatton Island from the Indians for a handful of shiny beads.
There can be absolutely no defense for the principles of Democracy when you take into consideration how Thaksin came into power, and how he was taken out of power.
Technically he was just the caretaker PM, that he appointed himself as, while new elections were being scheduled because of wide spread election fraud, when the coup happened. He was not the elected PM when he was eliminated from the scene by the coup.
Under Thai law he has to physically be in court to answer the other charges that are still hanging over his head. 3 involve the airport, where it is questionable about his actual involvement in the corruption. The other charge involves the loan to Myanmar to upgrade their telecommunications infrastructure. The parlement approved an amount of, I believe it was 300millionUS. Thaksin on his own raised the loan amount to $600millionUS, and added the stipulation that they could only buy product from Shin corporation for the upgrades. This charge is the serious one because it is his signature on all the paperwork approving these loans. He could face 20 years to life for this charge alone, and it's an airtight case.
That is why he doesn't come back, and lead his supposed people. He comes back, and all the truths about how he gained the name "square Face" come to light.
He took corruption to a whole new level, and to let slide that element as insignificant is totally un-Democratic. To acknowledge that he was freely elected is idiotic.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 3:48 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from koolbreez on 3:48 am on May 4, 2010
He [Thaksin] reminded me of the traders that bought Manhatton (sic) Island from the Indians for a handful of shiny beads.
It is not Manhatton, it is Manhattan. The rest of your diatribe is equally incorrect
Peter Minuit acquired Manhattan in 1626 from Native American Lenape people in exchange for trade goods worth 60 Dutch guilders, often said to be worth 24 dollars, though (by comparing the price of bread and other goods) actually amounts to around $1000 in modern currency (Calculation by the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam).
If one invested $1000 in 1626 at an annual rate of return of 5%, that amount would grow to about $137 billion dollars in 2010.
Some historians believe that the tribe Peter Minuit paid—the Canarsies—actually lived on Long Island and just happened to be passing through Manhattan on a trading expedition. In which case, they sold land that they didn’t even own.
As a result, the white guys later had to buy part of the island all over again from the tribes who actually lived there. Still, they were better off than some—the Raritan tribe sold Staten Island to various groups of settlers no less than six times.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 5:08 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
|
|
poskat
|
Red leaders announce tentatively possibly maybe in favor of PM's roadmap.
Say "bring on the terrorist charges, we dont want amnesty, see you in court!!!"
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:52 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
koolbreez
|
Mr. Alan, whether I spelled it correctly, and didn't list the actual cost, it was still a handful of shiny beads, and my point is still valid concerning Thaksin. There is no confusion about my meaning because I happened to misspell a word, or 2.........lolol. To come up with such a trivial defense actually reenforces the points I've made....lol.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:29 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Mr Alan
Your hubristic drivel is laughable. Through all your posts you exhibit a singular purpose to obfuscate or completely ignore the crimes, excesses and abuses of a regime while pigheadedly defending their democratic right not to be kicked out by force. Tell me, is there anything else you bring to this discussion other than your overbearing defence of a criminal.
You presume so arrogantly that I don't understand the difference between banning a company and banning a political party, and therefore must be from a banana republic, without pausing to realise that you keep sliding comically on that banana peel you refuse to step off.
Seriously now, I was only making an analogy, as you yourself admit. But you make a big hue and cry over that and use it as your central theme to dismiss everything else. Hey, here is the dictionary meaning of an analogy :
"Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Is that so difficult for you to grasp ?
It is, I realise, because you are so stuck on your repetitive theme that you view all the arguments made here through your tunnel vision.
You claim so piously you want to save cyber space by not quoting extensively from my drivel, yet you waste so much space to point out somebody's typo error on Manhattan and ignore everything else he said. Then you devote four paragraphs to flaunt your knowledge of history of Manhattan when we are discussing Thaksin here. How I missed Dr.Love and his classic "What has this got to do with Thailand ?"
By the way, it is "banning" not "baning" And then if you go back further to your "shear lunacy" it is "sheer."
Before you hit on the idea of firing Dr.Love's classic back at me, let me say that I am saying all this only because you are attempting to shield your pets from all attacks by making nonsense of all arguments so that at the end of the day you have the last word.
Look at your specious contention : "There is no legal or moral requirement that a political party select their candidates via democratic means. The only requirement is that the election run by the government be democratic."
What you are saying, in other words, is that if the thugs that you exhibit a big admiration for manage to just get elected through proper democratic means it matters little how they run their party. Since you have been consistently deflecting debate away from their crimes of corruption, subversion and totalitarianism, you are also saying in effect that it matters little how they run the government. So the country be damned, so long as your "democratically elected" party remains in power ?
I see it makes no sense to engage intellectually with you.
PS: Here's the rest of that Manhattan theme that you appropriated :-
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/715/how-much-would-the-24-paid-for-manhattan-be-worth-in-todays-money
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:29 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
poskat
|
BTS announces from May 5th service to all stations 6am-midnight.
thank christ, I was getting sick of taxis across town at 9pm!!!
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:29 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from Kaymanx on 9:29 am on May 4, 2010
Look at your specious contention : "There is no legal or moral requirement that a political party select their candidates via democratic means. The only requirement is that the election run by the government be democratic."
What you are saying, in other words, is that if the thugs that you exhibit a big admiration for manage to just get elected through proper democratic means it matters little how they run their party. Since you have been consistently deflecting debate away from their crimes of corruption, subversion and totalitarianism, you are also saying in effect that it matters little how they run the government. So the country be damned, so long as your "democratically elected" party remains in power ?
I have not deflected any discussion of crimes of corruption. If you want to ban Thaksin from holding public office because he was convicted of corruption, that is OK with me. But no civilized society would ban his entire political party because of the corruption of its leader (having to do with his private communications company).
The problem with your assertion about "country be damned, so long as your [my] 'democratically elected' party remains in power" is as follows:
1. I am fairly conservative, and therefor probably do not agree much with Thaksin's or his party's political agenda, so it is not my party.
2. You may think that the country will be damned, and therefore you may be willing to dispense with democracy, but that is what all dictators think. Every one of them from Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc decided that the electorate is not smart enough, and therefore they will have dispense with democracy. I think that is very bad position to defend, and I will take my chances with democracy (even when it elects someone who I do not like) than with a dictator.
3. Even though you may think the country is damned with Thaksin's party running the country, there are plenty of other people who think otherwise (maybe even the majority).
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 11:14 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from koolbreez on 8:29 am on May 4, 2010
Mr. Alan, whether I spelled it correctly, and didn't list the actual cost, it was still a handful of shiny beads, and my point is still valid concerning Thaksin. There is no confusion about my meaning because I happened to misspell a word, or 2.........lolol. To come up with such a trivial defense actually reenforces the points I've made....lol.
You may think they were only a handful of beads, but in today's dollars they are worth about $137 billion. What is it that you think the Dutch should have given the Indians in 1626 ? Maybe a Mercedes Benz, or large flat panel HD TV set with Home Theater System?
Maybe they should have just given the Indians 60 Dutch guilders (worth $137 billion today) and they could have gone to a bank and exchanged it to Indian currency?
I don't think these comments are trivial. The weakness of your facts and conclusions are pervasive.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:22 am on May 4, 2010
|
|
| |
|
