JCauto

It's a pity that you can't point to any reasonable evidence that the Death Sentence is either a deterrent, saves any costs to society or otherwise is beneficial compared to life sentences without chance of parole. Much better to just go off on a rant against lefties whom you dislike (again without any evidence) rather than present any cogent arguments. To explain - a life sentence without parole means these two have zero chance of ever doing this again. Not having the Death Sentence means not having endless appeals and therefore lower costs to the public even with the costs of incarceration (at least in the developed world, not sure about Thailand). A supposed Buddhist society should certainly not be choosing to execute prisoners, something fundamentally and explicitly against the credo of the state religion.

The master of deflection again refuses to engage in substantive debate, situation normal. You always have reasons for never answering any points but just moving on to the next bit of nonsense. Oh, plus the egregious misogyny and assumption that this young woman is selling sex, which totally doesn't indicate any paternalism on your part.

Why? Why not just answer the questions I posed? This woman didn't run any pranks or make other people's lives difficult or otherwise break the law or harrass other people as far as I can tell and there was nothing in the story to indicate she did or that she has otherwise done anything wrong. There was no indication of it in the article and you've not provided any evidence she did anything other than her business as an influencer. You just started slamming your fists into the keyboard because as an old person you find "influencers" to be absurd and don't participate in that economy and furthermore the idea of a pretty young woman being able to make an independent living outside of paternalistic boundaries bothers you. If she did something "radical", then she is liable for the impacts she caused and laws she broke. We don't expect society to engage in individual vigilantism to enforce the law. And as to your example, there was a NYC influencer dude who told his thousands (or millions) of followers that he was going to give away a large amount of stuff in public in Times Square and caused a riot. He has been charged and will likely face significant legal sanction because he DIDN'T take any precautions or pay for security for his stunt. That's just normal procedure.

So if I decide you're a real piece of work, start stalking you and harrassing you, you shouldn't be entitled to any protection under the law even when I start escalating my harrassment? Oh no, says you, I'm not doing this for work purposes, I just write posts on ThaiVisa to troll others! Therefore not fair? But if this WAS your work, then no problems, I can harrass you all I like? I had previously mistaken you for someone capable of rational thought, but I was incorrect.

Laughably incorrect and completely irrelevant.

Oh My! You weren't referring to the GOP? Who then was the person whom you were referring to when you wrote this? On 8/26/2023 at 1:07 PM, thaibeachlovers said: Remember a certain president with his WMD untruths? Caused the deaths of many, unlike Trump, who never started any wars. So if one wants to talk about causing disgrace, look elsewhere. WMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was the Colin Powell presentation you're referring to that was critical to the justification of the US invasion of Iraq. Correct? Are you really unaware of whom the President of the USA was during this episode and which political party he belongs to?

Why you're absolutely right! Who was the lying leftie libtard who did that!?!? Oh, that would be the noted Liberal George Dubya Bush! Which political party was he a member of?

When I used to travel a lot for work, I had to take with me a considerable amount of computer hardware, including a total of over 18TB worth of portable hard disk drives. We're told not to pack these valuable electronics in our checked luggage, which I have always found a bit odd - who is going to be able to access them other than airport workers? But I suppose experience has demonstrated that that's exactly who will access them and take whatever valuable is inside, given their ability to x-ray and observe whatever goodies might be hidden. Therefore I end up with two carry-ons, one with my laptop and half of the drives, the other half with my backpack and papers. Nobody has ever tried to stop me or charge me because of this, even Air Asia. Both are likely over 7kg, but what else am I to do?

So, where be them facts regarding the so-called "stolen election" you keep going on about? Why was he unable to produce enough evidence to convince 31 separate courts that this occurred including judges appointed to the bench by DJT hissownself? Why keep the clear and obvious evidence of the fraudulent election instead of showing it to the judges? If the so-called "corrupt judges" then decided to ignore this evidence, why not release it to the public where it's obvious veracity would instantly turn public opinion to his side? Oh because he's got nothing, nada, zip, zilch, bupkus!

Yup. By the way, remember when for the last 8 years or so Thaksin has been the evil one who must be prevented from returning for his original sin of Thai politics, how he was anti-Monarchist, how his regime was the most corrupt ever, how he destroyed "democracy" through accumulation of too much power...those same people just kissed the ring and handed it back to him because of the REAL threat, actual democracy. They're so afraid of that, they'll take Thaksin back over actually allowing the will of the people to prevail.

The "honorable members of the RTP"? So you're proposing the status quo?

Your ignorance is remarkable. You believe "Jews" were a monolithic group politically? And as a group, you believe they leant more Right than Left in pre-war Germany? I'm not at all sure that was the case.

I don't suppose you actually know any of these imaginary "rational Democrat" voters? Because nobody on the Democratic side of the fence feels that Biden won't finish his term and would have still voted for a potted plant over Trump. It's kinda like when the GOP people say "everyone knows" or "people tell me that" or any other amorphous and meaningless term that boils down to "I have no evidence but will make this bold assertion anyway".

You need to follow your own logic, but instead you're too busy tying yourself into a pretzel to broadcast your illogical and out-of-date viewpoints. Are you aware that the majority of immigrants to the USA are legal ones who go through the process and are rated on a scale based on education, job experience, age, etc.? These tend to weed out the poor and heavily disadvantage and prioritize the best possible candidates. The refugees and other hardship cases are not the majority. So why does it surprise you that immigrants out-perform those who were disadvantaged from the start? You live outside of the experience of immigrants and POC but are perfectly comfortable drawing completely irrelevant and incorrect assertions about them.

You wrote "Do you have any facts that support your claim about the 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations?" I responded with comprehensive evidence. You observed that post and wrote "Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked." despite the only opinion piece being the one supporting your viewpoint and the facts being comprehensive. You then moved on to your next tedious attempt to shift the goalposts, where you try to pretend that Biden did something illegal...like I said, you're a boring troll.

So now that I thoroughly rebutted your points, you ignore the substance and move back to the original "thought" as if nothing whatsoever had been discussed. I suppose you never did have any intention of honest debate, you're just here to troll. Boring.

This was your assertion, that there are "many" recorded attacks and deaths in Thailand. I googled Thailand and "death by water buffalo". Found two, one in February 2023, the previous one in 2004. Is that "many recorded attacks and deaths"? You made the assertion, where is your evidence?

Well, that explains your reasoning - you should go better into Comedy, Mel Brooks is a good model to follow if the 200-year old man is your schtick. Your response to my explanation that the problems that underlie the African-American community are the product of two hundred plus years of discrimination and systemic racism was to identify new people from abroad who haven't been disadvantaged in this way and asking why they're doing so well despite sharing similar genetic characteristics. Thanks for clearly proving my point. You might consider catching up on the latest research and understanding that's come out since the quill and inkwell lost their predominant place in the writing world.

The court struck down the use of an existing Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies" as the basis for his Executive Action on student loans. It is likely the Biden administration will try to use other legislation as the basis for their intended actions.

No fact provided? Did you click on the links? The first one is the opinion piece that is pro-Trump and contains pretty much nothing but opinion without factual verification - it's the one supporting your side, not mine. . The second one, called "Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" contains hardly any opinion at all. It has pretty much nothing but facts and estimates of the tax changes resulting from the act. This is why it's so tedious to "debate" with the Right - you are completely comfortable with blatantly lying in response to a reasonable post in order to characterize it as the opposite of what it is. As to your points: "The poor do not pay income taxes" - that's not true unless you're going to get sophist about "income". With the various taxes applied at state and federal level, the poorest pay around 11-12% in tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-tax-system-affect-low-income-households "The rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes" - that's true, it's called "progressive taxation" and is a widely accepted principle used in pretty much every liberal democracy in the USA and Europe, with Estonia being the only exception I'm aware of (they apply a flat tax). The legal question was not whether it is legal for the President to use money to selectively pay off student loans, it was about the Act he used as the basis for the cancellation and whether that specific act (used for "emergencies") would apply to the student loan repayment issue. There will be another attempt using other legislation to find other ways. But this was never the legal question that was ruled on.

Yes, because everyone knows that victimization of black people ended immediately and completely once slavery was abolished. Did you just wake up from a 200 year coma?

This is the most laughable argument ever. You're basically saying "the government should not be able to pass any laws that result in benefits to anyone unless EVERYONE receives similar benefits". This basically means the government cannot pass any laws affecting the budget. I argued previously about how this would ALSO invalidate the Trump tax cuts (which were substantially larger) and provided the evidence. Have you any rebuttal to that?

https://itep.org/faulty-fact-check-on-tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-corporations/ If you want to look at the article that the pro-Trump guy used to "make his case", this is the link: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full It's pretty clear. Surprised you challenged something that's widely understood to be true.

$1.7 trillion dollars for student loan forgiveness versus 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And, by the way, mandated big tax increases for the middle class after the first couple years but not for the wealthy. Does that sound fair?

To those who keep parroting the "if he didn't break the law, he wouldn't be facing this" line...this "law" was put in place by an illegal government who gained power as the result of a coup and then rewrote the "laws" to ensure the perpetuation of their regime. It's as legitimate as a three-dollar bill.