If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
"maxwell" wrote in message news:CG0Of.59$%I.11@trnddc03... "....lobert...." wrote interesting information about Putin Thank you. Might I assume you've no real interest in further discussing the topic of this thread? --maxwell any prizes to win ? hahaha! I just write something if I happen to find something interesting in the thread. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:17:27 +0800, "....lobert...." wrote:
There is nothing outsiders can do if the people are willing to elect their own leader, good or bad, in a free election. You'll also notice that I didn't say that outsiders SHOULD do anything. However, I do have an opinion - we have an office in Bangkok & I live & work there regularly, so I believe I am entitled to one. Dave |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:17:27 +0800, "....lobert...." wrote: There is nothing outsiders can do if the people are willing to elect their own leader, good or bad, in a free election. You'll also notice that I didn't say that outsiders SHOULD do anything. However, I do have an opinion - we have an office in Bangkok & I live & work there regularly, so I believe I am entitled to one. So you are going to join that Sondhi Limthongkul this Sunday to protest against Thaksin. Some outsiders just cannot see countries like Thailand remain peaceful and make a little progress. They prefer these countries to chaos and exploit the situation. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
maxwell wrote: "Tchiowa" wrote in message oups.com... That came after the scandal started and the Republicans started the impeachment process. Reagan's popularity was highest right after the assasination attempt. Sympathy surge. Clinton's was highest right after the impeachment process started. Sympathy surge. So what? So what is that it proves your claim wrong. Besides the fact that Clinton was *NOT* a "VERY popular" president, your claim that it wasn't the people opposing him is disproven by the fact that it was the people's elected representatives following a very specific constitutional procedure defeats that claim. 1998 found his popularity all of 9 points higher than in September 1996. Pre-election mud slinging dragged his approval rating down--that's politics as usual, but YOUR claim has him popular solely from 'sympathy' CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL October 26-29, 1996. Clinton Approval Rating Now September 54% 60% Election results: 49%. Not a poll. Actual count. Oooops. But look at the statement this was in response to: "It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was VERY popular)". Yeah, that's correct. That implies he was popular with the people and that the Congress fought against him anyway. In fact he was quite unpopular when this started. Bull****. See above--or more likely, weasel and attempt to mislead. The popularity surge came *after* Congress began fighting against him over the Lewinsky affair. He was originally elected with 43% of the vote. He was re-elected with 49% of the vote. His popularity during most of was in the 40s. Rant on. Facts really **** you off, don't they? The last 2 polls taken in late 2000 and early 2001 (at the end of his presidency) were 42% and 39%. CNN again--January 10, 2001: How do you think President Clinton will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor? Outstanding 15% Above average 32 Average 30 Below average 11 Poor 11 Job approval ratings for outgoing presidents Clinton 65% Reagan 63 Eisenhower 59 Bush 56 Ford 53 Johnson 49 Carter 34 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI....poll.clinton/ http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...on.popularity/ "In a poll conducted Monday through Wednesday of this week, only 39 percent of respondents said they have a favorable opinion of the former president, while 59 percent said they have an unfavorable opinion of him. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Clinton's previous low favorable rating was 42 percent, reached in early August 2000 and matched in a poll taken February 19-21, the Gallup Organization said. His previous high unfavorable rating was 55 percent in the February poll." 39% and 42%, just as I said. Oooops. Does that meet your definition of "VERY popular" (with the accent on "VERY")? He was not a popular president and only got high ratings *after* the people felt sorry for him because of the impeachment process and those quickly disappeared. Yeah, like back in 1996--SO unpopular! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781448.html 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Just as I said. Not an opinion poll, actual votes. Ooooops. SO unpopular that he had a higher outgoing president's approval rating than Eisenhower, Bush, and Reagan. You're quite the joke, and I caught you lying again, Tchiowa. Oooops. Wrong yet again,uB. No shame, punk? "Punk"??? What are you, 14? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:52:22 +0800, "....lobert...."
wrote: "Pan" wrote in message .. . Saying that people are stupid is not the same as saying they don't deserve to vote. But of course, if they vote stupidly, they get stupid results. At least it's their responsibility, though. As Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator? And that's not the worst. What if you get an evil insane dictator like Stalin or Hitler? It's better to have a limited government subject to regular elections. Saying that they are stupid is not the same as saying they are not deserved to vote, so what is it ? An opinion about the voting public, of course. There are also people who believe US voters are stupid to re-elect Bush Re-elect? [laugh] to power. I think that most of the people who voted for Bush did something extremely stupid -- bad for the country, bad for the World, bad for their well-being. As you and Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator? So what is your suggestion ? Don't vote? No election? [snip] Oh, come on! Reread my unsnipped post above. I very clearly told you what my suggestion is. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:37:43 +0800, "....lobert...."
wrote: [snip] Some outsiders just cannot see countries like Thailand remain peaceful [snip] Peaceful? Is that what Thailand is? I don't think I want that kind of "peace" to break out all over! Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:06:31 +0800, alex®
wrote: Pan wrote: Saying that people are stupid is not the same as saying they don't deserve to vote. But of course, if they vote stupidly, they get stupid results. At least it's their responsibility, though. As Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator? And that's not the worst. What if you get an evil insane dictator like Stalin or Hitler? It's better to have a limited government subject to regular elections. But it's infuriating when you know Estrada is going to win the elections when the opinion polls come in. Imagine how Ramos must have felt...all his good work down the drain and Phillipines set back another decade or two. How do you think I felt with returns coming in for G.W. Bush, whether based on fraud or not? But the only thing worse than letting an evil or criminally incompetent leader win an election is to destroy the integrity of the process, and had it been Gore and not Bush who won through all of that crap in Florida and the Supreme Court, I would have been just as livid. Then again, when Bush was selected by the Supreme Court in 2000, I only thought I knew how bad he would be; in 2004, I already knew that he is way, way worse than I could have possibly imagined. Yes, elections are deeply frustrating and infuriating. But who is ultimately more qualified to choose their leaders than the electorate? Democracy means "the people rule." That's what it's all about. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
"Pan" wrote ...
"....lobert...." wrote: "Pan" wrote ... Saying that people are stupid is not the same as saying they don't deserve to vote. But of course, if they vote stupidly, they get stupid results. At least it's their responsibility, though. As Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator? And that's not the worst. What if you get an evil insane dictator like Stalin or Hitler? It's better to have a limited government subject to regular elections. Saying that they are stupid is not the same as saying they are not deserved to vote, so what is it ? An opinion about the voting public, of course. Similarly, saying they are insufficiently well-informed *by design* (of a PM and cronies) is also not saying they are undeserving of the vote, but apparently it's 'the thing' among a few on this board to foist off the 'undeserving' presumption as a suitable straw man. There are also people who believe US voters are stupid to re-elect Bush Re-elect? [laugh] to power. I think that most of the people who voted for Bush did something extremely stupid -- bad for the country, bad for the World, bad for their well-being. Agreed--most. Certainly some directly benefited. As you and Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator? So what is your suggestion ? Don't vote? No election? [snip] Oh, come on! Reread my unsnipped post above. I very clearly told you what my suggestion is. Michael q It's better to have a limited government subject to regular elections/q It's also better to have a fully-informed electorate and an uncorrupted judiciary--both of which are necessary for true democracy under law, and both of which are falsely implied as present by defenders of TRT intrigues, who cite 'the will of the People'--better stated as 'the will of *some* people.' -maxwell |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:06:31 +0800, alex® wrote: But it's infuriating when you know Estrada is going to win the elections when the opinion polls come in. Imagine how Ramos must have felt...all his good work down the drain and Phillipines set back another decade or two. How do you think I felt with returns coming in for G.W. Bush, whether based on fraud or not? But the only thing worse than letting an evil or criminally incompetent leader win an election is to destroy the integrity of the process, and had it been Gore and not Bush who won through all of that crap in Florida and the Supreme Court, I would have been just as livid. Then again, when Bush was selected by the Supreme Court in 2000, I only thought I knew how bad he would be; in 2004, I already knew that he is way, way worse than I could have possibly imagined. Yes, elections are deeply frustrating and infuriating. But who is ultimately more qualified to choose their leaders than the electorate? Democracy means "the people rule." That's what it's all about. Whatever faults Bush might have, I think it's grossly unfair to compare him to that nincompoop Estrada. And another difference was that the race between Bush and Kerry was the closest in the history presidential elections so the agony only began after the results, unlike in the case of Estrada where you already knew he was going to win months in advance. I mostly agree with the things you say about democracy, but frustrating and infuriating pretty much sums up what I think about democracy when it comes to SE Asia. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:37:43 +0800, "....lobert...." wrote: [snip] Some outsiders just cannot see countries like Thailand remain peaceful [snip] Peaceful? Is that what Thailand is? I don't think I want that kind of "peace" to break out all over! Of course you don't want Thailand to be peaceful. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's True: Burma's Generals Suddenly Shift Capital | Burma Action Group | Asia | 0 | November 8th, 2005 12:39 AM |
Is an attack on Venezueala Imminent? | destiny | Latin America | 10 | September 30th, 2005 04:58 PM |
AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SPEAKS - More on BILLY Meier - Henoch Prophecies - UFOs - Space - Universe... | Ed Conrad | Europe | 4 | August 6th, 2005 08:56 PM |
Irish European Attitudes towards George Bush | Gerald Horgan | Europe | 37 | June 23rd, 2004 10:06 PM |
Detained at the whim of the president | Polybus | Air travel | 143 | December 28th, 2003 08:54 PM |