Bangkok No Fun any more

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 04:45:25 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject.

And you are a dickhead who thinks that billions of dollars that should have
gone to the Thai people including your girlfriends & their buffalos has now
gone into the pocket of 1 man is a GOOD thing. If you can't see that the law
was changed to expressly allow this, then you are a fool, but then again, we
all knew that.
http://groups.google.com.my/groups?h...ol&sa=N&tab=wg
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=e...owa+fool&meta=


Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand?

2 days before, the profits would have been taxable, and therefore would have
gone to the Thai Tax Department, which is in Thailand, for those
geographically challenged.

You use the word "dickhead" now, you must have lost your cool !

No, just stating a fact. You are ignoring blatant profiteering & even
condoning killing of innocent people in your other posting. Only a dickhead
would do that in my opinion. Certainly you appear to lack thinking
capability.

some experts are giving the same view as elitists and some have
different agenda.

Yeah, right - anyone who doesn't support you has "a different agenda". My
agenda, as someone who invests in Thailand is to have a government that plays
by the rules, not one who changes them to suit themselves.

Dave

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:23:18 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Seems like you are avoiding the question - first you start off with the
assertation that he can amend any law if he has a majority, so I put forward
an example - you try to wriggle out of it.

Yes, what is wrong if the people give you the mandate to do it. What is
more important is whether the country is better than before or worst off.

Rubbish - this is utter bull****. If I steal billions but also happen to
preside over a time when the economy is doing well (even if not by my own
doing), then it's ok by you? THINK, for goodness sake - how can you survive
in Singapore without even being able to put 2 & 2 together?

As for having the mandate - we have already settled the fact that the
election was BEFORE his manipulations. As has now been show, enough people
are making noises that he has called for elections & is even talking about
stepping down. So, you are putting the cart before the horse, and it seems
even Thaksin is less confident than you.

Of course I'm of the opinion he will win, largely because too many of the
population of Thailand are rural, have no access to outside information & are
not educated well enough to realise that getting a t-shirt & 3 baht medical
today isn't a good deal in the long run while billions are being siphoned off
the top.

Whether his son or his maid took the fall for him, so long as the court
did not convict him, what is wrong with that.

Obviously nothing in your mind. Shows what a sense of morality you have.

What morality in a war against pest, do you pick up the pest one by one
to check which one carry disease ?

We aren't talking insects here.

You don't pay tax for capital gain anyway.

Are you even keeping up with what is going on? Seems you don't even
understand the subject.

What subject are you talking about?

I don't know how to reply to that. You can't possibly be that thick.

Ah, more avoiding the question and unwittingly let slip another glimpse of
your sense of morality - I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven
guilty? As none of the 2000 or so killed in 3 months ever got a trial, none
of them were proven guilty. Not to mention the fact that the exercise did
NOTHING to improve the drug situation in Thailand.

When you conduct operation like that, it is unavoidable.

In that case, did you ask the question about why an operation like that
should have been conducted? Can you find ANY evidence that it did any good at
all?

The drug dealers will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace.
Who cares?

Obviously not you, and it would take having one of your family caught in the
cross-fire to knock some sense into you. I'm amazed at your lack of morality.
You fail to recognise that NONE of the 2000 people killed was a convicted
drug dealer. Courts & judges are what separate us from animals. Otherwise
what is to stop me from wandering around your house & putting a bullet
through your brain saying "he was only a drug dealer"?

I guess the 16 month old baby was a major drug pusher?
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/84/

No answer to this one? Just collateral damage? No sympathy for you - just one
of those people that meanders through life thinking that everything bad will
only happen to someone else.

Dave

Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:23:18 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Yes, what is wrong if the people give you the mandate to do it. What is
more important is whether the country is better than before or worst off.

Rubbish - this is utter bull****. If I steal billions but also happen to
preside over a time when the economy is doing well (even if not by my own
doing), then it's ok by you? THINK, for goodness sake - how can you survive
in Singapore without even being able to put 2 & 2 together?


Did Thaksin steal billions or the business that he had started developed
and make money? He sold it to a foreign comapny and made the billions
not from the Thai people.

As for having the mandate - we have already settled the fact that the
election was BEFORE his manipulations. As has now been show, enough people
are making noises that he has called for elections & is even talking about
stepping down. So, you are putting the cart before the horse, and it seems
even Thaksin is less confident than you.

He is legitimately elected twice with absolute majority. Did he changed
the laws (like GRC in Singapore) to get his party elected again with
absolute majority? No, he won by his popularity through democratic system.

Of course I'm of the opinion he will win, largely because too many of the
population of Thailand are rural, have no access to outside information & are
not educated well enough to realise that getting a t-shirt & 3 baht medical
today isn't a good deal in the long run while billions are being siphoned off
the top.

And you again talk about rural area, so what if the people in rural area
who are the majority of the country are happy with the whatever
improvement he had made for them ?


What morality in a war against pest, do you pick up the pest one by one
to check which one carry disease ?

We aren't talking insects here.

Drug pest are just like insect.


What subject are you talking about?

I don't know how to reply to that. You can't possibly be that thick.

Then, this settled here.

When you conduct operation like that, it is unavoidable.

In that case, did you ask the question about why an operation like that
should have been conducted? Can you find ANY evidence that it did any good at
all?

Do you not understand the drug problem there, may be Thaksin should also
take action against foreigners like what the Indonesian taking action at
Bali.

The drug dealers will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace.
Who cares?

Obviously not you, and it would take having one of your family caught in the
cross-fire to knock some sense into you. I'm amazed at your lack of morality.
You fail to recognise that NONE of the 2000 people killed was a convicted
drug dealer. Courts & judges are what separate us from animals. Otherwise
what is to stop me from wandering around your house & putting a bullet
through your brain saying "he was only a drug dealer"?

What would you do if you are caught in cross-fire in Southern Thailand?
Leave as soon as possible before you are killed, right!


No answer to this one? Just collateral damage? No sympathy for you - just one
of those people that meanders through life thinking that everything bad will
only happen to someone else.

In any war, children and women are always caught in cross-fire. Now The
people from the north are in Bangkok to show their support for Thaksin.
Thailand don't belong to the small group of ruffians in Bangkok.

Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand?

2 days before, the profits would have been taxable, and therefore would have
gone to the Thai Tax Department, which is in Thailand, for those
geographically challenged.

So what, Thaksin don't make the money from the Thais, he sold his
company to a foreign country and made money from them.

You use the word "dickhead" now, you must have lost your cool !

No, just stating a fact. You are ignoring blatant profiteering & even
condoning killing of innocent people in your other posting. Only a dickhead
would do that in my opinion. Certainly you appear to lack thinking
capability.

You are losing your cool.

some experts are giving the same view as elitists and some have
different agenda.

Yeah, right - anyone who doesn't support you has "a different agenda". My
agenda, as someone who invests in Thailand is to have a government that plays
by the rules, not one who changes them to suit themselves.

What rules, did Thaksin go against the constitution or was he convicted
by the court. No. He was a legitimate elected leader thru' democratic
system. Did he manipulated the election? No!

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:33:17 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Rubbish - this is utter bull****. If I steal billions but also happen to
preside over a time when the economy is doing well (even if not by my own
doing), then it's ok by you? THINK, for goodness sake - how can you survive
in Singapore without even being able to put 2 & 2 together?


Did Thaksin steal billions or the business that he had started developed
and make money? He sold it to a foreign comapny and made the billions
not from the Thai people.

Irrelevant - companies pay tax. Except his...

He is legitimately elected twice with absolute majority. Did he changed
the laws

Yes, that's what this conversation is all about!

And you again talk about rural area, so what if the people in rural area
who are the majority of the country are happy with the whatever
improvement he had made for them ?

Does EVERYONE HAVE to be happy? I certainly have the right to be unhappy
about it, as do the hundreds of thousands that disagree with his methods.

What morality in a war against pest, do you pick up the pest one by one
to check which one carry disease ?

We aren't talking insects here.

Drug pest are just like insect.

None convicted of ANY drug crimes. Certainly some that were killed were
proven NOT to be into drugs at all.

Do you not understand the drug problem there, may be Thaksin should also
take action against foreigners like what the Indonesian taking action at
Bali.

What, like taking them to court? Of COURSE he should have - that's what the
law says. Extra-judicial killings are illegal.

In any war, children and women are always caught in cross-fire.

You are devoid of morality.

Dave

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:38:54 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand?

2 days before, the profits would have been taxable, and therefore would have
gone to the Thai Tax Department, which is in Thailand, for those
geographically challenged.

So what, Thaksin don't make the money from the Thais,

Bugger all to do with anything - he should still pay tax.

You use the word "dickhead" now, you must have lost your cool !

No, just stating a fact. You are ignoring blatant profiteering & even
condoning killing of innocent people in your other posting. Only a dickhead
would do that in my opinion. Certainly you appear to lack thinking
capability.

You are losing your cool.

In your dreams. I'm just stating facts.

What rules, did Thaksin go against the constitution or was he convicted
by the court.

He got his son to take the fall.

Dave

Chris Blunt wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 04:45:25 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:20:21 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:


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 ****....

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject.

It would be the end of the subject if you consider just the purely
legal aspect of it, but most people's judgments of whether a person is
doing something wrong extend way beyond that.

I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, but if Thaksin did
indeed use his party's majority in parliament to implement a law which
enabled him to personally save billions in taxes just two days later,
then that's wrong in my view, and an abuse of power. Of course that's
only my personal opinion, others may make judgments about right and
wrong according to a more relaxed set of standards.

The deal was a stock sale. The law was that capital gains from stock
sales are exempt from tax. That's a very, very common law around the
world.

Had the sale been subject to tax he would have, in fact, been liable
for billions in taxes. Billions of *baht*. The total deal was less than
$2bn US. I don't know how much of that was considered capital gains.

Was it unethical? Was it a misuse of his power to push through a law
that he benefitted from? Probably. But that's not really the issue. The
issue is whether or not you use Constitutional means to remove him or
mob rule. Also the issue is whether or not this is the reason that they
want him removed or the excuse. My wife says flat out that she believes
the claim that Sondhi wants him out because Thaksin refused to help
Sondhi duck out of some personal debts so this is just a personal
vendetta against Thaksin by Sondhi.

Whoever is telling the truth I still stand by my position that there is
a democratic process in place in Thailand and that any use of street
violence and thuggery to change the leadership of the country is wrong.
Period.

His opponents oppose elections for one simple reason: they know he is
popular and will win the election. Therefore his opponents, by
definition, are fighting against the people's right to choose their
leader. Or, to put it more simply, they are fighting against democracy.

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:38:54 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand?

Only half.
Since you've already seen my post in reply to you earlier in this thread:
news:ObqRf.770$Rb.88@trndny05
q
lobert: What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the
telecommunication business in Thailand.

maxwell: Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the
money from Thai banks?
/q

.. then it's OBVIOUS you're either a dishonest debater, have no concern
for the facts, or are trolling.
Care to say which it is?

Oh, and as for Thai banks lending Temasek billions to enable the deal, do
you suppose it's the People of Thailand who benefit from this, lobert?
(or ignore the issue again, as you did when first I presented it to
you--surprise me! ;~)

2 days before, the profits would have been taxable, and therefore would
have gone to the Thai Tax Department, which is in Thailand, for those
geographically challenged.

So what, Thaksin don't make the money from the Thais,

SOMEHOW to you the tax money Thaksin/TRT cheated Thailand out of is
unimportant.
To you, the 'Rak' in TRT is a very special kind of 'love,' no?
I guess the REAL meaning of TRT translates as (corrupt powerful Thais Love
(the billions they can filch from the)Thai People--and that's of course okay
by you because it is 'good business.'
BTW, whose money was taken by monopolistic practices employed by Thaksin and
cronies to enrich Shin over the years to be valued well over and beyond what
free market profits would have net for it--Singapore's?

Bugger all to do with anything - he should still pay tax.

Surely so, just as surely as he should have been made to resign after using
the 'transfer' of Shin to his household staff, and further when using
offshore intra-familial shares transfers, all of which enabled his
maintaining illicit control under the guise of disengagement.

maxwell wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:38:54 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:
Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand?

Only half.
Since you've already seen my post in reply to you earlier in this thread:
news:ObqRf.770$Rb.88@trndny05
q
lobert: What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the
telecommunication business in Thailand.

maxwell: Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the
money from Thai banks?
/q

.. then it's OBVIOUS you're either a dishonest debater, have no concern
for the facts, or are trolling.
Care to say which it is?

Oh, and as for Thai banks lending Temasek billions to enable the deal, do
you suppose it's the People of Thailand who benefit from this, lobert?
(or ignore the issue again, as you did when first I presented it to
you--surprise me! ;~)


So what 1/2 or 2/3, is it a free loan that Temasek don't have to repaid?
No! Temasek is going to pay for it.


2 days before, the profits would have been taxable, and therefore would
have gone to the Thai Tax Department, which is in Thailand, for those
geographically challenged.
So what, Thaksin don't make the money from the Thais,

SOMEHOW to you the tax money Thaksin/TRT cheated Thailand out of is
unimportant.
To you, the 'Rak' in TRT is a very special kind of 'love,' no?
I guess the REAL meaning of TRT translates as (corrupt powerful Thais Love
(the billions they can filch from the)Thai People--and that's of course okay
by you because it is 'good business.'
BTW, whose money was taken by monopolistic practices employed by Thaksin and
cronies to enrich Shin over the years to be valued well over and beyond what
free market profits would have net for it--Singapore's?


Then stand for election, elect another government, change the law,
arrest him, why go on to the street like ruffians? Is he an army general
and using the military to rule the country? NO!

Bugger all to do with anything - he should still pay tax.

Surely so, just as surely as he should have been made to resign after using
the 'transfer' of Shin to his household staff, and further when using
offshore intra-familial shares transfers, all of which enabled his
maintaining illicit control under the guise of disengagement.


What have the court said? What is the court doing?

On 17 Mar 2006 05:00:04 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Baker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:23:18 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Rubbish - this is utter bull****. If I steal billions

"Steal"? By definition he didn't steal anything.

Which is why I didn't write HE, I wrote I. Wake up.

He got the law changed so he didn't have to.

Thank you - my point exactly.

I can. There is dramatically less drug use in the area of Isaan where
my family lives.

From what I've read on the Net, your family lives in the alley behind Nana
Plaza. Show me some statistics, not your usual bull****.

Dave