Dave Baker wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:05 +0800, "....lobert...." wrote:
>
> >Dave Baker wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:07 +0800, "....lobert...." wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dave Baker wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:27:17 +0800, "....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 shit & smells like shit....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Are you saying that the constitution, the election and the people who
> >>>>> stand for election and the people who went to vote in the election are
> >>>>> all shit? Now one shit is trying to throw shit at another shit in Thailand?
> >>>> The election was BEFORE this incident. Get your timeline straight.
> >>>>
> >>> Did I said the election is after this case.
> >>
> >> In that case what has the election got to do with the case we are talking
> >> about? Do you always fly off at tangents?
> >>
> >>> What is wrong to amend the
> >>> law if you are in the government with majority.
> >>
> >> Everything, if it is to benefit you - it goes against the whole ideals of
> >> democracy. I suppose if Thaksin brought in a law naming himself
> >> Dictator-For-Life that would be fine by you as well?
> >>
> >Did he do that (Dictator-For-Life)? No
>
> 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.
>
> >he dissolve the parliament and call for new election.
>
> Only after a lot of pressure.
>
> >> Please - what was done was illegal - his son took the fall for him. We have
> >> already established that. The law was NOT changed to allow him to get rid of
> >> his business - the law was changed to allow him to get rid of his business
> >> without paying tax.
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
>
> >> Seems that you are unable to think rationally - if Thaksin brought in a law
> >> saying all people named lobert should be lined up & shot, would that be ok by
> >> you? After all, he is in the majority!
>
> >He only terminated the drug pest and terrorists.
>
> 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.
>
> You'd be singing a different tune if you got caught in the cross-fire.
>
> I guess the 16 month old baby was a major drug pusher?
> http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/84/
It never ceases to amaze me about that guy lobert - you can kill and
deal - as long as you change the law for yourself. But what this
Sillypore moron don't know: there is no law written in Thailand that
you can accuse and shoot people BEFORE they were processed by the
court. Same this moron don't mind that our PM changed his money from
driver to maid to kids and skimms it and still is able to be PM?
I gave up on that Sillypore Idiot - he's either too dumb or a criminal
at heart.
Chabby
|