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.

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.