JCauto

Understandable. The Government's complete lack of fiscal responsibility is really biting them in the butt and they're becoming desperate to find ways to stop the bleeding. What they're proposing in the new banking laws will not just lead to an exodus of banks, but of businesses as well.

3 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

The death penalty save money only in that the cost of inprisonmnet is lower as he is not there for meals and looking after as long.

 

Personally I have always been a proponent of people that commit these crimes being jailed. With the provision that they are jailed in the Gen pop.  That way they really do HARD TIME.

 

Back when coke was sold in a glass bottle only they were a favourite toy for lifers that wanted to enertain themselves with child molestors or Pedophiles.  

This is incorrect. The cost of imprisonment within the general prison population is relatively low compared to the cost for the courts to convict for the death penalty (much more difficult and drawn out process), the costs to the courts for the appeals processes to play out (necessary with such a strong penalty that cannot be revoked) and the costs for the special quarters required for the condemned (Death Row is way more expensive than general pop). Just put them in the general population, where their costs are the same as others and their stay will likely be...short and unpleasant due to prisoner justice.

So we're in agreement sort of, convict them and put them in the general population where their costs are lower and their lifespan is measured in non-solitary prison yard visits.

New Government! COME AND GET IT!

Trough is now open for business! Get your snouts in boys!

3 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

Whatever the do-gooders and tree huggers opinion; the death sentence would have served society much better than feeding these two monsters for the rest of their lives. 

It must be the objective of society's gate keepers to ensure the safety. Rid the society from such terrible monsters - once and for good. You will not make anything unhappen but those two would never ever create trouble again and the taxpayer would be not unhappy too! 

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.

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I stopped reading after your rant.

"paternalistic boundaries" wow, do they teach you to use that term in woke class and how to do virtual signaling? 

Just looking at that picture above it's pretty obvious that she sells sex or whatever woke people call this these days. 

Action - reaction. That principle is well understood since centuries. But obviously the woke crowd has problems with the truth when it doesn't match "their truth".

Enjoy your Lalaland. 

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.

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, lets look at some more radical examples. There are some influencers and YouTube "stars" who get their likes and clicks because of stupid pranks. They make other peoples' lives difficult and they profit from their subscribers. 

If someone would harass those influencers, who harass other people for a living, do you think the police should protect those influencers? Should the taxpayers pay for protection for those people? I don't think so. Above is the same principle.

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.

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Possibly if she wouldn't be a so-called influencer then there wouldn't be a stalker.

If she wants to be a celebrity, then I suggest she should pay for her own security.

Should taxpayers' money be used to protect someone who deliberately puts themselves at risk?

I don't think so. 

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.


 

On 8/26/2023 at 10:55 AM, KannikaP said:

I think it is a good, honest song.

Brian was the first use the word GOD in a 'pop' song., 

Laughably incorrect and completely irrelevant.

2 hours ago, Jumbo1968 said:

I agree, I see people on flights attempt to take carry on baggage over the weight limit and size, don’t they ever read the what baggage allowances are or just pushing their luck.

 

Try doing it on an EasyJet ot Ryanair flight, Servisair / Emirates at Newcastle weigh your carry on baggage and on many occasions I have witnessed people being told it’s too heavy/large and they then are frantically trying to put it in their hold baggage.

I always get concerned when passengers are putting heavy bags in the overhead lockers, if they accidentally slip from their grasp they could do a passenger a serious injury.

When B.A. used to fly from Heathrow their carry on baggage limit was 25kg but the size of the bag limited, try lifting 25 kg into an overhead locker.

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?

1 hour ago, wazzupnow said:

pottheads united

this disgusting habbit of smoking pott or even tobacco should be banned from public places

and it is so simple to enforce it at low cost and great happiness for the honorable members of the RTP

put a fine on it from 5000 bht

wich is collectable by the arresting officers and allow them to keep this money themselves

the last is what makes it effective and inspires our noble cops

now L.O.S  is turning in to a different meaning before Land Off Smiles now Land Of Stinking 

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

On 8/5/2023 at 5:54 PM, bignok said:

Says the left. He hated Jews, they werent left wing. 

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.

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Wow, you think African immigrants from Africa haven't been disadvantaged?!?  Growing up in Somalia or Uganda or Nigeria is a cakewalk compared to growing up in the US? Sorry, but these are people who are escaping from actual injustice, death, and threat of torture.  Precisely what advantages do you think they have?

 

Ditto Asian immigrants, both recent and past. Guess you never heard of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, or the forcible internment of Japanese Americans, or the plight of the Vietnamese boat people, or the horrors experienced by those who survived the genocide in Cambodia and could escape to freedom. Yeah, they had it GOOD...

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.

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

How did you going on and on about "tax breaks for the rich" and pointing out the President inappropriately used an "...Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies'..." thoroughly rebut my statement? If anything, it looks like it supports it. 

 

Now you want to play the troll-card? 

 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

We were discussions whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectively pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter.

 

You regurgitating the same old "tax breaks for the rich" leftist rhetoric does not really add to the discussion. 

 

Because one thing is unfair, it not a good excuse to do another that is not fair. 

 

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.

On 7/1/2023 at 12:43 PM, Kenny202 said:

Buffalos can be aggressive and are what must be a 600km + ball of armor muscles and horns. There are many recorded attacks and deaths in Thailand. On foot and unprotected would be very unwise to go near it again. 

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?

On 7/7/2023 at 11:26 AM, Hanaguma said:

Sure. Can you explain why recent immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean outperform African Americans? And why discriminating against Asian immigrants and their children is a rational and fair solution to the problem.

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.

On 7/7/2023 at 8:15 AM, Yellowtail said:

The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

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.

On 7/7/2023 at 8:10 AM, Yellowtail said:

Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked. 

 

It's one of those things "...that's widely understood to be true." by the left. 

 

Again, as the poor do not pay income taxes, by definition, tax cuts only benefit taxpayers, and as the rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes, usually the rich disproportionately benefit from tax cuts. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

 

In any evert, the topic is whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectivly pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter.

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.

On 7/4/2023 at 10:09 AM, Hanaguma said:

Yes, because the only way to eliminate racism is to be racist...

 

Anyway, interestingly a large percentage of black students at Harvard aren't even ADOS (American Descendants of Slavery). They are immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa, who have only been in the US for a generation or two. Hardly the victims of generations of American racism. 

 

https://thegrio.com/2011/04/21/harvard-has-more-black-students-than-ever-but-are-they-african-american/

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?