you completely missed the point I believe, what I meant was, he thinks he is a god/descendent of one and his slaves agree with him, its a notion most of the world got rid of a couple hundred years ago (for the most part, of course, we still have the pope and related maniacs).
about the tickets, doesnt seem to be affecting it much, a few papers sent to the constitutional court have most of them in a standstill, please don't tell me you thought that they were going to be able to collect them with our bureaucratic system
hno: speaking of CR, did it stop raining there? those floods really killed the worldwide production of computer harddrives
Like elected Presidents worldwide, i'd say the King of Thailand's power comes from the people:
"The king's power is limited to being a symbolic figurehead, but the institution commands the respect and reverence of the Thai people.[1]
"The current monarch of Thailand is His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The king has reigned since 9 June 1946, making him the world’s longest reigning current monarch and the world’s longest serving head of state. Most of the king’s powers are exercised by his elected government in accordance with the current post-coup constitution. The king still retains many powers such as: being head of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, the prerogative of royal assent and the power of pardon. He is also the defender of the Buddhist faith in Thailand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_King
"I am regularly in bed at night with little cuties (not gogo / bar girls) as they are on the phone to the boyfriend who calls at 1am or 2am. I keep my mouth shut and play with their pussy while they tell their boyfriend about how they are, what they are doing and how much they love each other."
http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?2677-Bangkok-Reports
-------------
"I go witch you."
http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?2677-Bangkok-Reports
-------------
"I go witch you."
while I am not (obviously) an expert in Thailand
"
Kings of Ayutthaya
The Kingdom of Sukhothai was eventually supplanted by the Kingdom of Ayutthaya, which was founded in 1351 by King Ramathibodhi I. During the Ayutthayan period the idea of kingship changed. Due to ancient Khmer tradition in the region, Hindu concept of kingship was applied for the status of the leader. Brahmins took charge in the royal coronation. The king was believed to be the reincarnation of Hindu gods"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Thailand
(yes I saw its an old idea, however I would have to ask him if he doesnt believe a bit of that )
So ok, to go along with you, he is either a figure head (puppet) of whatever military junta is in power or he thinks he has a direct line to the sky.
How can you possibly say his power comes from the 'people' when the people can be imprisoned if they dare to disagree with the king?????
I am no expert, either, not by a long shot, and perhaps there is no disagreement in what we are saying here.
The United States is often spoken of as a Christian nation and i'm sure many of its citizens believe the president is appointed to his position and powers by god, as it is written in the Christian Scriptures. For all i know, it is plausible most Thai people and even the King himself have a similar belief about the present King. Where does that put Roman Catholic Costa Rica?
Regarding a king's power being given, influenced or even overthrown by the people, i think history is full of examples. Sure, the kings of the past have had many a head removed for speaking against them, but when the people en masse, or just certain key players [e.g. an assassin or hitman], opposed him he may have had a bit of a problem.
"Whatever the rules of succession, there have been many cases of a monarch being overthrown and replaced by a usurper who would then often install his own family as the ruling monarchy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Beyond that, as i am a regular visitor to LOS, and wish to abide by its laws, i think it may be best to steer clear of the subject of les majeste, of which one can find many comments online, even in Thai based newspapers written in the English language.
The United States is often spoken of as a Christian nation and i'm sure many of its citizens believe the president is appointed to his position and powers by god, as it is written in the Christian Scriptures. For all i know, it is plausible most Thai people and even the King himself have a similar belief about the present King. Where does that put Roman Catholic Costa Rica?
Regarding a king's power being given, influenced or even overthrown by the people, i think history is full of examples. Sure, the kings of the past have had many a head removed for speaking against them, but when the people en masse, or just certain key players [e.g. an assassin or hitman], opposed him he may have had a bit of a problem.
"Whatever the rules of succession, there have been many cases of a monarch being overthrown and replaced by a usurper who would then often install his own family as the ruling monarchy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Beyond that, as i am a regular visitor to LOS, and wish to abide by its laws, i think it may be best to steer clear of the subject of les majeste, of which one can find many comments online, even in Thai based newspapers written in the English language.
Unfortunately in CR we are in a minority of countries with an 'official religion' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion), hopefully that will change soon (its been currently debated, I don't have high hopes but at least people are not incarcerated for suggesting that we shouldn't endorse a specific religion as a country)
on this "Regarding a king's power being given, influenced or even overthrown by the people, i think history is full of examples.", I agree its full of examples on how the kings see themselves as chosen by god(s), there is not a "we represent the people" feeling at all , its more of a "we are here because god made it so .....so deal with it" and well yeah, eventually people deal with it when they get fed up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
whatever it is, I am sure it is convenient for the powers that be, to have an 'homogenizing force in place' (king) against who is illegal to speak badly of. (this last part I am sure its terrible grammar but the native English speaker of the house is not 'in' to help me )
and after the political half-time show
, we can return to pictures of thai girls , please? 
on this "Regarding a king's power being given, influenced or even overthrown by the people, i think history is full of examples.", I agree its full of examples on how the kings see themselves as chosen by god(s), there is not a "we represent the people" feeling at all , its more of a "we are here because god made it so .....so deal with it" and well yeah, eventually people deal with it when they get fed up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
whatever it is, I am sure it is convenient for the powers that be, to have an 'homogenizing force in place' (king) against who is illegal to speak badly of. (this last part I am sure its terrible grammar but the native English speaker of the house is not 'in' to help me )
and after the political half-time show
, we can return to pictures of thai girls , please? Personally i wouldn't find religion a hindrance to retiring in Costa Rica, but the problems with crime and inferiorities re women relative to Thailand would be two huge concerns. Of course wherever one is in the world, it is advisable to stay within the laws or risk "incarceration". Most people in their right mind seem to be able to handle that.
I'm sure that history also contains presidents who see themselves as "chosen by god", who while supposedly elected to "represent the people" are busy with their Watergates, sending boys to the ME to die for oil, being pro infanticide, and recieving non sexual fellatio in the White House. The paychecks for being the top dog in the USA are not too bad either.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." [Romans 13:1, KJV, of the Christian Bible]
" Napoleon Bonaparte is considered the first monarch proclaiming himself as an embodiment of the nation, rather than as a divinely-appointed ruler; this interpretation of monarchy is germane to continental constitutional monarchies.
"...Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers whose function is to embody the national character and provide constitutional continuity in times of emergency was reflected in the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and Japan.
"As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament. Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of the president as being an elected constitutional monarch..."
"...The present concept of constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, who had become those who exercised power, with the monarchs voluntarily ceding it and contenting themselves with the titular position. In many cases even the monarchs themselves, while still at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian view.
"...In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy and one that is a republic is sometimes considered more one of detail than of substance. In both cases, the titular head of state - monarch or president - serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation, while the actual governing is carried out by a cabinet composed predominantly of elected Members of Parliament.
"...However, there are three important factors that set aside monarchies such as the United Kingdom from systems where greater power might otherwise rest with Parliament. These are the issue of Royal Prerogative where the reigning monarch may continue to exercise power under certain very limited circumstances, Sovereign Immunity where they are considered to have done no wrong under the law, and may avoid both taxation and planning permission for example, and considerable ceremonial power where the executive, judiciary, police and armed forces owe allegiance to the Crown.
"...Today constitutional monarchies are mostly associated with Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden. However, the two most populous constitutional monarchies in the world are in Asia: Japan and Thailand. In such cases it is the prime minister who holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the King or Queen (or other monarch, such as a Grand Duke, in the case of Luxembourg, or Prince in the case of Monaco and Liechtenstein) retains only residual (but not always minor) powers. The powers of the monarch differ between countries. In the Netherlands, Denmark and in Belgium, for example, the Monarch formally appoints a representative to preside over the creation of a coalition government following a parliamentary election, while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the cabinet.
"In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Only a few monarchies (most notably Japan and Sweden) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is no longer even the nominal chief executive.
"....In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centres around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal, while some political scientists champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians. There are currently 44 monarchies, and most of them are constitutional monarchies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
"...Bhumibol has reigned through several political changes in the Thai government. He has played an influential role in each incident, often acting as mediator between disputing political opponents... Generally, the Thai people are reverent of Bhumibol. Much of his social influence comes from that and the fact that the royal family is often involved in socio-economic improvement efforts.
"...In 1992, Bhumibol played a key role in Thailand's transition to a democratic system. A coup on 23 February 1991 returned Thailand back under military dictatorship. After a general election in 1992, the majority parties invited General Suchinda Kraprayoon, a leader of the coup group, to be the Prime Minister. This caused much dissent, which escalated into demonstrations that led to a large number of deaths when the military was brought in to control the protesters. The situation became increasingly critical as police and military forces clashed with the protesters. Violence and riot spread out in many areas of the capital with rumour on the rift among armed forces.
"Amidst the fear of civil war, Bhumibol intervened. He summoned Suchinda and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, retired Major General Chamlong Srimuang, to a televised audience, urged them to find a peaceful resolution. At the height of the crisis, the sight of both men appearing together on their knees (in accordance with royal protocol) made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards.
"It was one of the few occasions in which Bhumibol directly and publicly intervened in a political conflict. A general election was held shortly afterward, leading to a civilian government.
"...Bhumibol himself stated that he was not above criticism in his 2005 birthday speech. "Actually, I must also be criticised. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know. Because if you say the king cannot be criticised, it means that the king is not human", he said. "If the king can do no wrong, it is akin to looking down upon him because the king is not being treated as a human being. But the king can do wrong." "
