Bangkok No Fun any more
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:20:21 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:
On 15 Mar 2006 05:17:17 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:
maxwell wrote:
What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.
Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to.
Which law? The one that was changed 2 days beforehand? Mere coincidence to
your buffalo mentality! :-)
And you also neglect to remember that his son/proxy DID get caught breaking
the law.
Dave
The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?
Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....
His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.
Which helps prove he was guilty, and it's common knowledge that he's only a
proxy for his father.
Dave
|