Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksin's support.

Tchiowa <tchiowa2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1177575628.891683.187750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Apr 25, 7:58 pm, Nick <nicknom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tchiowa <tchio...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1177375818.575209.90730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

snipped

Very nice why no direct quotes of Maxwell's words as of that point
here but some summary by you?!?!

You mean like the direct quote above mocking the loan program because
Thai people thought it was good? Or do you want me to quote everything
he's said in this thread because the entirety of it was trying to show
that the belief of the Thai poor that Thaksin helped them was wrong.

I mean like the quotes I had presented before which you snipped and were
directly related to your challenge: "Name the locality that is doing badly.
Go ahead.........."

This was said before:
Tchiowa: The fact is that Thaksin was and is incredibly popular among the
poor.
Why? Because he helped them. He is incredibly UNpopular among the
elites. Why? Because he helped the poor.

Maxwell:
Keep pumpping that propaganda.
Getting the poor deeper into debt is to 'tchiowa' "helping the poor"?

Tchiowa: "Yes. Enabling them to borrow money to improve their businesses
and way
of life."

Maxwell: You don't know that as a general fact, but rather as a hope, now
do you?

Tchiowa: "No, I know that as actual experience and knowledge of Thai
people. I
know people in my wife's village who have benefited greatly.

Maxwell: "Righto. You'd like to generalize the experience of a few you know
of to
extend to all."

Tchiowa: "The rather clear vote of the Thai people in the last couple of
elections bears out that experience."

Maxwell: You report ONE locality doing well as if ALL are.


Tchiowa: "Name the locality that is doing badly. Go ahead.........."
(Snipped unrelated remarks between the quotes for clarity).

One locality "doing badly", doesn't equal a locality where Thaksin is/was
or isn't/wasn't popular.

You however wrote this:
"Here's the summary. The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. In
particular the majority of the poor support Thaksin because they
believe he has made their lives better. That is borne out by polls and
elections. I supported that with a specific example of a specific
village. Maxwell denied that so since I was able to come up with a
specific example to support the general statement that is widely
accepted I asked him for a specific contradictory example. He can't
come up with even one. And neither can you."
http://groups.google.nl/group/soc.culture.thai/msg/454f698106150e49?hl=nl&;
http://tinyurl.com/3dpgsn

You asked for a locality "doing badly", not for a locality where Thaksin
wasn't popular amongst the poor. That's why I'm maintaining that your
summary is a distortion.

Are you seriously denying that or are you just using a stall tactic?

Look who's asking, are you completely shameless?

snipped


Anyway I've already been clear that I oppose the coup, only you were
too stubborn to understand that, it seems you still are.
The fact that he was popular or not with the poor has nothing to do
with a possible "theft of democracy".

Excuse me??? It has *EVERYTHING* to do with theft of democracy. If he
was, in fact, elected by a popular majority then removing him from
office with guns is a "theft of democracy".

So you don't understand anything of what I have written directly above or
below?!?!

If he would have been highly unpopular with the poor and highly
popular with the rich a coup wouldn't be justified either in my
opinion. To me the crux in general if there was a functioning
democracy in a nation and if not would a coup bring a functioning
democracy.

If he was popularly elected then there was, indeed, a functioning
democracy.

Sure at the moment of election (popularly elected meaning majority
elected), but did you never hear of an electee bringing an end to a
functioning democracy, does the name Chavez ring a bell, would you call
Venezuela a functioning democracy?

As for the poor who you claim are a distinct majority in Thailand,
that's simply not true, is it so difficult to get such a simple fact
right? Have a look a this file (page 12) in 2002 9.8 % of the Thai
population lived below the poverty
line.http://www.nectec.or.th/pub/book/itforpovertyreduction.pdf

Do I really have to take the time to explain to you the difference
between being poor and being below the poverty line?

You need not bother, I realize there's a difference as there are other
factors than a poverty line that can play a role, it also matters whose
perspective you're using. I can understand that especially under
circumstances of growing wealth/income inequality people might feel poorer.
I must admit I was shooting a bit quickly from the hip, still I seriously
doubt that a majority of ALL Thais should be called poor.

Are you really trying to claim that the majority of Thai people who
live off the land are *NOT* mostly poor?

You made a claim that the poor are a distinct majority in Thailand, not
that the majority of people who live off the land are poor, to quote you
"pay attention".

snipped

Here's a definition of poor you gave back in December 2006:
"Poor is when you cannot afford to supply yourself and your family
with the basic necessities of life (food and
shelter)."http://groups.google.nl/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/1a37
841536a1b... hl=nl&http://tinyurl.com/yonewe
Do you want to argue now that the majority of Thais cannot afford to
supply themselves and their family with the basic necessities of life
(food and shelter)?

No, they're not quite that bad off. But they are in general poor.

Wow, a definition you gave that isn't some universal truth:)

snipped

You seem to assume I have some trouble acknowledging that Thaksin was
popular with the poor, as I've written before I have never argued
against such a notion. It has never been uneasy for me to acknowledge
the man was popular with the poor.

But now you're saying that the poor don't constitute a majority. Once
again trying to pretend that Thaksin was not popularly elected so you
can duck the primary issue.



That's quite some silly spinning, the fact that the poor do or don't
constitute a majority has nothing to do with the fact if Thaksin was
popularly elected, I'm confident there are others voters than the poor who
voted for Thaksin and helped him in getting a majority.
It's not that only the poor voted for Thaksin and it's not that one can
only be called popularly elected if one enjoys the support of the (majority
of the) poor.
Would you say that in a country like Switzerland in which there are
relatively few poor, that there are no leaders that are popularly elected?

Nick
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... that the belief of the Thai poor that Thaksin helped them was wrong. ... The fact is that Thaksin was and is incredibly popular among the ... The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. ... Thaksin wasn't popular amongst the poor. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... around that probably accounts for Thaksin not doing well in the ... He promised to help the poor. ... people clearly isn't true for all of the Thai people as Thai people ... people" since you didn't speak about the majority of Thai people. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: un-renamed: Re:FAO K. Maxwell: Research Townsend et all.
    ... I said it would not surprise me. ... of helping the poor over an actuality of helping the poor, ... The issue was whether or not the Thai people support Thaksin. ... poor of Thailand, but that's not TRT's interest. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Thai elite in denial over the NEW THAILAND
    ... Thai elite in denial over new Thailand ... Thailand’s poor have decided that docility is a thing of the past. ... benevolent grace and blessings of the Palace and the generosity of big ...
    (soc.culture.thai)