Military Coup in the offing

.....lobert.... wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:25:50 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:

It just goes to show how stupid & easily bribed the majority of ANY
country
is. Promise them 1 million baht per village & 30 baht medical & of
course you
will get a landslide victory. Whether it totally wrecks the country 2
generations down the road isn't on the minds of most voters.

which statement pretty much sums up what you think of democracy, right?

Most thinking people do.

The only problem is - there isn't anything better.

People who are easily satified may not be stupid, they are happy people.
On the other hand, if they are stupid as you said, are you also saying that
they don't deserved to cast the vote and elect their own government.

That is the point, isn't it? People of a certain political persuasion
have long taken the stance that the people are too stupid to make their
own decisions. In the US, for example, the Conservatives have long been
calling for government assistance in paying health insurance premiums
(so the people can choose who they want to run their health care) while
the Left has been calling for a government takeover because the people
can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Same with the argument
about Social Security. The Left is sincerely convinced that people will
not be able to survive retirement unless the government runs it for
them.

There's a term for all of this and it is "Elitism". That being the
belief that most people can't be trusted to control their own lives and
the Intellectual Elite should compassionately take over control of
everyone's lives for them and the world would be better off.

It is the polar opposite of democracy.

When Thaksin called for the election and the opposition said that they
would boycott and demanded that Thaksin step down they showed their
true colors.

On 2 Mar 2006 05:48:05 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Noi wrote:

1. It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was
VERY popular)

*****Only the shameless liberals would claim received a mere 24% votes
of the total eligible voters as very popular!

More importantly, during that period of Clinton's administration his
approval rating was roughly where Bush's approval rating is now. Very
low. He was *not* popular during that period.

In Feb or March of 1998?

"The poll of 1,013 adults, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, gave Clinton a 69
percent approval rating. That's the highest of Clinton's presidency
and better than Ronald Reagan's highest approval rating."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/01/clinton.poll/

maxwell wrote:
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On 2 Mar 2006 05:48:05 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Noi wrote:

1. It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was
VERY popular)

*****Only the shameless liberals would claim received a mere 24% votes
of the total eligible voters as very popular!

More importantly, during that period of Clinton's administration
hisapproval rating was roughly where Bush's approval rating is now. Very
low. He was *not* popular during that period.

In Feb or March of 1998?

"The poll of 1,013 adults, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, gave Clinton a 69
percent approval rating. That's the highest of Clinton's presidency
and better than Ronald Reagan's highest approval rating."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/01/clinton.poll/

(I figured "VERY popular" was a VERY fair description ;~)
Thank you for confirming the fact of Clinton's popularity.
It's unfortunate that Tchiowa and Noi have such an aversion to truth.

That is why they are Tchiowa and Noi....

maxwell wrote:
"Noi" wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
1. It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was
VERY popular)

*****Only the shameless liberals would claim received a mere 24% votes of
the total eligible voters as very popular!

Surely even you could make the point that winners are more popular than
losers without having to call names.
Have you been taking lessons from Tchiowa, or does having a weak argument
make you feel like cursing? ;~)

You should learn to take it as well as you dish it out! Perhaps, you
are confuse between fact and cursing, then, that's not my problem.

Noi

"Noi" wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Noi" wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
1. It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was
VERY popular)

*****Only the shameless liberals would claim received a mere 24% votes
of the total eligible voters as very popular!

Surely even you could make the point that winners are more popular than
losers without having to call names.
Have you been taking lessons from Tchiowa, or does having a weak
argument make you feel like cursing? ;~)

You should learn to take it as well as you dish it out!
Perhaps, you are confuse between fact and cursing, then, that's not my
problem.

Noi, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (not a ONE of which is a liberal
organization) cited in

by Spehro (2 posts away in the thread)
and linking to
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/01/clinton.poll/
besides noting that it was NOT 'The Public' who favored impeachment:
q Should Congress Start Impeachment Hearings? Yes 13% No 85% /q
and that an over-zealous hatchetman did NOT represent the PUBLIC interest:
q Starr's Investigation Fair 39% Unfair 55 %/q
also showed a 69% approval rating for Bill Clinton.

So, your argument is as weak as Clinton's popularity was strong, and SHOWS
the LIE of your "only shameless liberals would claim . . . (Clinton to be)
popular"
Thus, it is not *I* who has facts confused.
.. . but don't let YOUR lack of TRUTH get in the way of your contentions--or
further name calling.
Thank you! ;~)
-maxwell

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:58:56 +0800, "....lobert...."
wrote:


"Dave Baker" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:25:50 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:

It just goes to show how stupid & easily bribed the majority of ANY
country
is. Promise them 1 million baht per village & 30 baht medical & of
course you
will get a landslide victory. Whether it totally wrecks the country 2
generations down the road isn't on the minds of most voters.

which statement pretty much sums up what you think of democracy, right?

Most thinking people do.

The only problem is - there isn't anything better.



People who are easily satified may not be stupid, they are happy people.
On the other hand, if they are stupid as you said, are you also saying that
they don't deserved to cast the vote and elect their own government.

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.

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.

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:58:56 +0800, "....lobert...."
wrote:


"Dave Baker" wrote in message

will get a landslide victory. Whether it totally wrecks the country 2
generations down the road isn't on the minds of most voters.

which statement pretty much sums up what you think of democracy, right?

Most thinking people do.

The only problem is - there isn't anything better.

People who are easily satified may not be stupid, they are happy people.

My point was - will their grandchildren be happy? Politicians & far too
many
voters can't see past the next 3 years & the next carrot dangled in front
of
them. Singapore is giving away how much cash away this election year -
mere
coincidence? :-) Surely elections should be based on who can do the job
best
(given equal opportunity), not

On the other hand, if they are stupid as you said, are you also saying
that
they don't deserved to cast the vote and elect their own government.

As I also said - although it's a crap system, any alternatives are more
crap.
One could say that a dictatorship stops the stupid people from influencing
the vote, but the problem comes when you get a stupid dictator. At least
with
stupid voters, they tend to cancel each other out somewhat, or eventually
come to their senses - usually a few years too late.



Will the Thais know whether their grandchilren will be happy, even if
another Thai became PM. In Singapore case, can anyone say for sure their
grandchildren will be happier if government do not give cash for this
election?

What is the alternative for Thai then? Are there any opposition better that
Thaksin?

"Pan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:58:56 +0800, "....lobert...."
wrote:


"Dave Baker" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:25:50 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:

It just goes to show how stupid & easily bribed the majority of ANY
country
is. Promise them 1 million baht per village & 30 baht medical & of
course you
will get a landslide victory. Whether it totally wrecks the country 2
generations down the road isn't on the minds of most voters.

which statement pretty much sums up what you think of democracy, right?

Most thinking people do.

The only problem is - there isn't anything better.



People who are easily satified may not be stupid, they are happy people.
On the other hand, if they are stupid as you said, are you also saying
that
they don't deserved to cast the vote and elect their own government.

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 ?
There are also people who believe US voters are stupid to re-elect Bush to
power.

As you and Dave said, what if you get a stupid dictator?
So what is your suggestion ?
Don't vote?
No election?
Let UN takes over ?
Let US appoint an Administrator like in Iraq and Afghanistan?
or what ?

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.

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.

"maxwell" wrote in message
news:7PDNf.39629$pE4.25456@trnddc04...

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On 2 Mar 2006 05:48:05 -0800, the renowned "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Noi wrote:

1. It was not the people of the US who fought against Clinton (he was
VERY popular)

*****Only the shameless liberals would claim received a mere 24% votes
of the total eligible voters as very popular!

More importantly, during that period of Clinton's administration
hisapproval rating was roughly where Bush's approval rating is now. Very
low. He was *not* popular during that period.

In Feb or March of 1998?

"The poll of 1,013 adults, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, gave Clinton a 69
percent approval rating. That's the highest of Clinton's presidency
and better than Ronald Reagan's highest approval rating."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/01/clinton.poll/

(I figured "VERY popular" was a VERY fair description ;~)
Thank you for confirming the fact of Clinton's popularity.
It's unfortunate that Tchiowa and Noi have such an aversion to truth.


Puting is even more popular than Clinton 69%. Puting approval rating at one
time jumped to 89%.
The Public Opinion Foundation asked 1,500 people in a nationwide poll to
name their choice for president if elections were today, and 49 percent said
they would vote for Putin.

In March 2000, Putin - hand-picked and endorsed by his predecessor, Boris
Yeltsin, in Dec. 31, 1999 - received nearly 53 percent of the vote, avoiding
a run-off against Zyuganov.

Since then, his approval rating had jumped to 86 percent before falling back
as the country remains mired in the bloody conflict in separatist Chechnya
and economic reforms stall amid a jump in inflation