JCauto

On 9/24/2017 at 4:05 AM, franzs said:

So what? I am since 1991 in this country, have seen a lot of crooks in government since then, I think this government is doing a good job and is one of the best in the last 26 years.

Well then! franzs has spoken, he's been observing things closely you know. If he says it's one of the best, then case closed! 

What the hell are the majority of Thai people going on about? Don't they understand that franzs has spoken?

Congratulations to them - they've produced some excellent analysis over the years. I'd particularly recommend them to those who maintain their perches in the living room parroting "vote buying" over and over again when discussions turn to why Thaksin was so popular.

So we can look forward to the trial of Abhisit for being putatively in charge of whatever committee decides defense procurement, no? 

8 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I was one of the Americans who went to the war zone in 1971 and knew immediately it was a lost cause.  the so called 'Peace with Honor' is about as much of a misnomer as one could imagine.   The US caused the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and allowed it to flourish and commit genocide against the Cambodian people. The current Cambodian Prime Minster knows what happened as he was once a member of the KR and certainly bears some responsibility.

 

While the Americans have their History in Cambodia to repent for, Hun Sen is going after the wrong people . He needs to realize that the Cambodian people have had enough of he and his minions and want a fair election so they can choose his replacement. Whether the Peace Corps goes home or not will not solve the problems of  Cambodia. Hun Sen is using the Americans as straw men.  He also might want to consider repatriating his fellow countrymen who have been deported from the US for criminal behavior instead of refusing to take them back as most civilized countries do. Cambodia is in the current position now due to the incompetency of the  Cambodian Government. You can't blame everything on America.

Whom is it Hun Sen should go after? And of course he realizes that people want him gone, why do you think he's knobbling the Press and trying to get the main opposition party dissolved? 
 

As for repatriation, I'm with him on that one. The majority if not all of those people came to the USA when they were children, and because their parents were refugees and didn't understand how things worked there, they failed to get them the citizenship they were entitled to. Then the kids got into trouble (usually with gangs) and now the USA wants to (and has been) deport them back to a country they have no recollection of and may never even have lived in and which they often don't speak the language of. That's hardly fair.

Amazing responses so far - yet another incident of Far Right Terrorism surfaces, and what are the TV responses?

a) Blanket condemnation and immediate calls for the expulsion of like-minded scumbags, the denigration and demonization of their religion/culture and the conclusion that whatever they're for must be fought against with all available means;

Sympathetic mewlings about how this is the fault of the "Liberals" or Merkel or how they weren't really intending to do any harm.

Just remember, becoming a creature of the Alt-Right means throwing all of your so-called principles out of the window except when convenient. 

2 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

No. There are no ridiculous rules or laws in play here. There is a cop, who was assigned to perform specific duties without making himself aware of the agreed protocols pertaining to those duties. These protocols are both sensible and simple to understand. Said cop exacerbated the situation, showing extremely poor judgment in failing to consult his superiors when told by numerous officials at the hospital that there was no legal basis for doing what he was insisting be done. He then compounded it all by assaulting and unlawfully detaining the nurse.

 

p.s. How's Muttley?

It's highly unlikely (actually it's not possible) that this guy was unaware of the agreed protocols, he worked regularly in the blood collection unit for years, and would have been trained about this numerous times. It's also highly unlikely that he did this on his own without any "nod or a wink" from his superiors - as noted in my previous post, the Police had a very good motive for breaking the rules and getting that sample regardless. And it's extremely unlikely that in a militaristic and hierarchical organization like the Police that this guy would act on his own without authorization.

3 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

 

Wow... good job nurse. 

 

... wonder if the driver was drunk--high--both--or crazy. Guess that is what the cop wanted to know to and now he will never know. 

 

 

Apparently they were trying to gain compromising information on the VICTIM, because there was potential culpability on the part of the police who were undertaking a high-speed chase that caused the accident. So they were not following their own police protocols, this resulted in the accident that killed the one being chased and severely injured this innocent truck driver. And as a result, this cop bullied the nurse who was following the agreed upon rules that the hospital had made WITH the police.

There's nothing acceptable in terms of what this cop, or those who obviously were supporting him in doing this so they could protect their department from liability, is doing. 

"Officers have worked themselves nearly to death on that.”

Nice. So not only does he dismiss the concerns of the thousands of people directly affected, he trivializes the death of nearly 100 people. Reconciliation!

Can someone make a Chrome extension that automatically plays the Benny Hill song whenever stories about the RTP show up on ThaiVisa?

*Deleted post edited out*

It's actually quite simple. The pardons that Obama, and every other President before this one, granted went through a standard process. The process that any pardon request goes through follows Department of Justice guidelines which include that the conviction is more than 5 years old and that the convict has applied for a Pardon from the Office of Pardon Attorney. It also includes that the requester has expressed remorse. None of this happened in this case despite the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying the president would follow a "thorough and standard process" in considering the pardon the day before. That process is considered important, because otherwise the President would in effect be able to do what he wants regardless of the Constitution of the United States.

So basically he completely broke with precedent and pardoned a man who repeatedly and openly defied the Constitution of the United States. It opens up the possibility that he can do so with himself, his family and others who may have broken the law during the Presidential election, and thereby throwing the country into a Constitutional crisis because the Constitution has no value if it can be abrogated by the President whenever he likes without any basis or due process.

But as you'll no doubt think this is the ravings of the Far Left, why not read about it in that communist publication Forbes...I know that you Conservatives are strict Constitutionalists so I am sure you'll be concerned.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/08/26/trumps-pardon-of-joe-arpaio-the-future-of-the-constitution/#eb6c73f130ea

9 minutes ago, 4737 Carlin said:

Yet another reason not to live in that third-world dump.

I don't know how we'll get along without you, but we'll do our best.

49 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Ban violent groups.

Ban hate groups.

Otherwise it's free speech, right? I know you all hate free speech in this little anti-Trump echo chamber you've got going here but how can you limit free speech? I'm sure there's some things which would offend you which won't offend me and vice versa, so who is going to be the one to set out what is offensive and ban that particular speech? How can you make being offended illegal? I know you are all trying to silence everyone you don't like, and this is exactly why Antifa is trying to do, but it's impossible because there's no standard on offence.

Either it's all ok or none of it is. As long as they are not being violent then it has to be allowed, right?

I don't know why neo nazis are not classed as a hate group in the States. Likewise for Antifa, yet....

 

I am in favour of free speech, and don't think it's possible to really police without it ending up a complete mess, but they've got reasonable enough standards in most places which tend to correspond to the population's overall view. The current battle over political correctness has been overwrought on both sides, and I cringe when I see some of the positions on the Left. 

And I'm particularly in favour of these cockroaches coming out of their holes and into the light where we can identify them, gauge their strength and confront them. If we don't, then their emergence into the light has the opposite effect, and it attracts more people to their movement and places them closer to the mainstream. The usually silent majority has to rise up and demonstrate to the Fascists that they're not willing to go along with it or ignore it. And having the counter-protesters who outnumber them is a critical aspect of that.

Read the piece in the New Yorker again which talks about how there were quite strong Fascist movements in the UK in the late 30's, and how they were confronted and defeated in a street battle and how that more or less killed the movement. There are several other articles within this thread that have outlined how the Fascists count on passive resistance rather than active and how increasing and unlimited violence is a core strategy. And the weight of evidence, despite how you'd like to try to frame it, is clearly and massively on the side of the Fascists being the ones who planned for, prepared for, instigated and implemented most of it. 

So yes, I'm for confronting them while preparing to respond to any escalation, it's the only language these bullies understand. I am glad that these deep racial divisions that have been papered over for too long are out in the open and people can re-examine what they're seeing and what might be better done about it.

32 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Here's a bunch of videos of your heroes beating up Nazis from yeaterday's riots at Berkeley.

Just kidding. They were beating up Trump supporters and innocent bystanders as usual.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57250

Let's not forget how much you all defended and supported this mob and you can't edit your comments any more.

There will only be more of this as each day passes.

Hey KunMatt, thought we'd lost you. BTW, you'd do much better if you linked to serious publications, which similarly published stories about Berkeley which were also not complimentary about the counter-protesters. Just a free tip to help you restore a smidgen of your credibility. For example, you could link to the Chicago Tribune, a legitimate newspaper, which published the story under the headline "Black-clad anarchists storm Berkeley rally, assaulting 5".

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-berkeley-protests-20170827-story.html

That's one way to get out of the Alt-Right echo chamber so that when you link to it we don't just roll our eyes, and as a bonus you can see that there is no suppression of news in the "lamestream media", but that they report everything. And you're correct that this incident does not reflect well upon the Anarchists, whomever they may be. 

But I'd be interested more in your views on this. Any reason why you can't provide us with an answer? You told us clearly you hated these guys too, but you really dislike Antifa's confrontational approach. So what would you suggest?

  On 8/27/2017 at 1:13 PM, JCauto said:

Do you think the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/KKK should be confronted or just be allowed to protest without any counter-protest or objection? What do you think should be done to reduce their relevance and reverse their recent upsurge in popularity and boldness in pushing for ethnic cleansing? I ask for your honest opinion as you've stated repeatedly that you don't support these people and recognize them as a hate/terrorist group. What would you do to stop them KunMatt?

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

14 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Of course you're welcome, are you willing to join in honest debate? Honest debate, by the way, includes not posting already discredited fake memes like the one you posted of the Greek riot pretending to be Antifa. And, by the way, you're going to be given a warning and banned shortly as happened to the previous guy who posted that exact picture several pages ago.

 

But before you go, perhaps you could try to answer the question yourself that KunMatt has gone running away from and for which your first attempt was an Alt-Right fake meme...
 

Rather than tackling the the subject in question you seem quite happy in baiting other posters that don't share your point of view. Do you condone antifas violence?

Baiting? I respond directly to their assertions, disprove them, then ask them a pertinent question as I did with you. It's not even a question you should be objecting to answering, as you and KunMatt have both said you object to violence on any side and KunMatt has already disavowed the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists (you, pointedly, have not).

I made my position on Antifa quite clear. I asked KunMatt repeatedly to respond to it, but instead he, like you, just keeps repeating that we either condone Antifa's violence or claim there was none. Both of these statements are completely untrue and easily disproven by anyone following the thread. This is called disingenuous debate, not honest debate. So here's my position on Antifa, as stated probably 10x already. It is what I think people should do to address White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis, so is my answer to the question. Now that I've answered it, could you try?

  On 8/22/2017 at 9:11 PM, JCauto said:

But what the hell, I'll try again in the hope that perhaps we might get one post that actually stays on topic and attempts to address the issue at hand.

52 minutes ago, vogie said:

I do not support violence in any form, which includes antifa anarchists, please put this to record as I don't want anybody coming back to me in 20 pages time telling me I am a member of the KKK. 

As a non American is it ok to join in with your little clique of debaters?

Of course you're welcome, are you willing to join in honest debate? Honest debate, by the way, includes not posting already discredited fake memes like the one you posted of the Greek riot pretending to be Antifa. And, by the way, you're going to be given a warning and banned shortly as happened to the previous guy who posted that exact picture several pages ago.

But before you go, perhaps you could try to answer the question yourself that KunMatt has gone running away from and for which your first attempt was an Alt-Right fake meme...
 

Do you think the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/KKK should be confronted or just be allowed to protest without any counter-protest or objection? What do you think should be done to reduce their relevance and reverse their recent upsurge in popularity and boldness in pushing for ethnic cleansing? I ask for your honest opinion as you've stated repeatedly that you don't support these people and recognize them as a hate/terrorist group. What would you do to stop them KunMatt?

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Can I put the ball in your court, is this the answer?

http://www.snopes.com/antifa-member-photographed-beating-police-officer/

This is not a genuine photograph of an antifa protestor striking a police officer. This image was digitally manipulated to add the antifa logo to an unrelated photograph. 

The real image was taken in Athens, Greece in December 2009 during a demonstration on the one-year anniversary of the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old who was killed by a police officer. Photographer Milos Bicanski took the photograph, which is available on Getty Images with the following caption:

Greek youths clash with riot police during a demonstration commemorating the fatal shooting of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos’ by police a year ago, on December 6, 2009 in central Athens, Greece. Two police officers will go on trial in the new year for the murder of Grigoropoulos.

So do I think having Greek youth fight with riot police is the answer to my question? No. Nice try though.

4 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

I think that you support an anti-Trump terrorist group because you hate Trump.

That's what I think.

 

 Yes, we've established that you believe this, but it's not interesting to discuss. No need to keep repeating yourself. But you have said you also hate the Neo-Nazis, and that you've done a lot of research over the last year, watching videos etc. So we're interested in your conclusions on how to deal with them. So let me ask you again...

Do you think the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/KKK should be confronted or just be allowed to protest without any counter-protest or objection? What do you think should be done to reduce their relevance and reverse their recent upsurge in popularity and boldness in pushing for ethnic cleansing? I ask for your honest opinion as you've stated repeatedly that you don't support these people and recognize them as a hate/terrorist group. What would you do to stop them KunMatt?

3 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

I would classify all groups who use violence and threats for political means as terrorists and ban them from having massive violent riots.

 

I don't believe they applied to have a "massive violent riot". They applied for a "peaceful protest" while preparing and planning to incite said riot. They received a permit as did the counter-protest. But you know all this. Answer the question, stop avoiding and deflecting. I had requested your honesty, not your usual bluster. Please engage with us and give us your honest viewpoint.

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Do you think the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/KKK should be confronted or just be allowed to protest without any counter-protest or objection? What do you think should be done to reduce their relevance and reverse their recent upsurge in popularity and boldness in pushing for ethnic cleansing? I ask for your honest opinion as you've stated repeatedly that you don't support these people and recognize them as a hate/terrorist group. What would you do to stop them KunMatt?

Just now, KunMatt said:

 

And I'm saying you are exposed as supporting a terrorist group because you hate Trump so much you are willing to ignore their violence.

Good luck refuting that.

 

Glad that you've now accepted what we have been saying all along, that wasn't so hard, was it?

No, they are not a terrorist group. You tried to find evidence of that, you failed. That's a lie. Again.

Yes, we dislike Trump; he's an embarrassment to the USA, and is causing a lot of damage to the political standing of the US globally, is destroying environmental protections that were crafted in direct response to many problems that occurred because of not having them, is damaging international diplomatic efforts to contain dictators and Islamic Extremism, and is abrogating the rights of women and minorities. Not much to like from our side. I expect that you probably didn't think so much of Obama either. But that is a separate issue from this thread and discussion, which is focused only on Neo-Nazis and for which Trump is an issue only insofar as he provides explicit and implicit support that has enabled them to try to go mainstream. This is not even a question, just read what they have to say about it. They're effusive in their praise of Trump and unanimous in their recognition of his support to their cause and clearly outline this as their strategy. We don't even have to say it, they do. 

Anyway, now that we've settled that your entire argument is lying in smoking tatters next to the wreckage of your credibility, I have a question that I'd genuinely like to hear your idea about, perhaps you can engage us in an honest discussion for once.

Do you think the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/KKK should be confronted or just be allowed to protest without any counter-protest or objection? What do you think should be done to reduce their relevance and reverse their recent upsurge in popularity and boldness in pushing for ethnic cleansing? I ask for your honest opinion as you've stated repeatedly that you don't support these people and recognize them as a hate/terrorist group. What would you do to stop them KunMatt?

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

I condemned them from my very first post. You refuse to even acknowledge the violence on the other side because they hate Trump as much as you do and you're happy to support a terrorist group as long as they push your agenda.

The only people exposed here are you hate driven anti-Trumpers who support a terrorist group.

Here we go again...

 

Yes, here we go again KunMatt, you refusing to accept your previous clearly written posts (that remain in evidence and are impossible to deny or pretend that you wrote something else) and of course, lying blatantly in response. 

You told us clearly, Antifa provoked the violence, Antifa were the Hate Group, and they started it and it would come out soon along with their being designated a terrorist group. Now the evidence is coming out, and you have one incident where a reporter was punched (but not injured) and even that guy hasn't yet been linked to Anfifa or BLM or any of the other groups you hate more than Neo-Nazis. And you have numerous incidents where the Neo-Nazis/Alt-Right instigated and incited the violence, and evidence of their planning to do so, and evidence of their being charged with felony crimes including discharging a weapon in the direction of the protesters, and video of 6 of them including protest leaders beating down a single black protester while their militia ignore it nearby, and what even the Right are calling domestic terrorism for their cowardly ISIS-style driving of a car into peaceful protesters. And we have evidence of their discussing that very tactic in private discussions leading up to the murder of Heather Heyer, and discussions where they celebrate her death.

You have been repeatedly called out for lying that we have denied violence from Antifa (disproven numerous times), for lying that they are designated or acknowledged as a terrorist group (disproven numerous times), and for attempting to falsely equate or opposition to Neo-Nazis and the KKK with our dislike of Trump and those who support him (attempted numerous times, nobody buying). You are just repeating these lies. You are a willful and obvious liar and are proven to be so by your numerous posts and our responses to them. 

You are naked and exposed for what you are. You should be ashamed, but of course you aren't.

Gotta give KunMatt credit - he told us repeatedly that what REALLY happened would come out and then we'd learn about who the real violent and hateful protesters were. Following on from the revelations from the Discord Server that completely eviscerate his basic premise comes this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/us/charlottesville-arrests.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Yep, look at all them Antifa who instigated the violence an... oh, sorry, these are all White Supremacists/KKK/Alt-Right. They started it, they escalated it, they used weapons and they ultimately drove a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters, something they'd discussed at length in their private server conversations leading up to the event. You stand naked and exposed KunMatt. 

Well, well, lookee here! Funny thing, social media. 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/discord-chats-may-crucial-lawsuits-013300783.html

The media collective Unicorn Riot has obtained leaked Discord chat screenshots (about 1,000 of them) and audio suggesting that many of the white supremacists were gearing up for a fight even as their organizers were supposedly calling for non-violence.

3 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Alright, again was the female reporter who was viciously attacked by a man from Antifa, was this the measured violent response you are referring to? Is she a Nazi?

The attack is on video and she says he was Antifa. Doesn't look like she was doing anything wrong but filming Antifa being violent. Definitely doesn't look like she was part of the KKK mob.

https://mobile.twitter.com/taylorlorenz/status/896442225600671744?lang=en

https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/896735554070564865


The truth is, and if you had any actual experience of watching videos exactly like this for the last year like I have, you would know that this is really who Antifa are. A bunch of thugs who calls everyone they don't like a Nazi so they can batter them and then plead innocence because "he is a total Nazi".

Over the last few days there's been several videos of Antifa accidentally battering their own members at their riots because they are just a violent mob attacking everyone who they think looks like a Trump supporter.

I believe you were one of many who said you'd never even heard of Antifa until I mentioned them on here, so it's interesting that you immediately defend them and tell me you know better than me about who they are and what they do.

All of you happily support and defend this violent mob of thugs (who beat up female journalists) simply because they hate Trump just like you do.

And that's really the bottom line here.

So you refuse to condemn Antifa's violent actions because they are doing your dirty work. Lucky the POTUS sees it for how it really is.

 

As you note, I hadn't heard of Antifa prior to this incident. I posted quite a comprehensive look at them from a mainstream source in my post that you failed to quote; if you've something to comment on I'd suggest you start there. You've previously told us they were a terrorist group (they're not), that they were declared a terrorist group (they weren't) that they're a hate group (they're not) and now you're saying you've been watching videos of these guys for a year although you aren't Alt-Right but haven't provided a source, only more anecdotal information. You have no credibility in that regard, because your anecdotal information has proved to be lies in most cases, and your sources are always Alt-Right. You've also told us that they're going to be something much worse than White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis in the future, although you haven't yet provided us lottery numbers or other things that might give your crystal ball some credibility. And the article describing Antifa and its antecedents was quite clear - when the Fascist threat disappears, so do they. So there's little to suggest what you propose has any basis in reality.

Yes, Jacob L. Smith was arrested for punching the reporter, and charged with a misdemeanour. We don't yet know whether he was a counter-protester or a member of Antifa, or BLM, or of the White Protester/Neo-Nazi side. So he threw the first (and only) punch and misidentified the person as a Neo-Nazi, ergo he was wrong from my point of view and I condemn his actions regardless of who he is a member of. But as he was not following the rules of Antifa, I can't condemn them as an organization. By the way, the journalist wasn't injured (you falsely claim she was "beat up"), and was only pissed off that he interrupted her video stream of the events which affected her professionally. 

However, one or other persons accidentally hitting each other or non-Nazis in no way reflects the Antifa philosophy or guidelines, so I don't see what it proves other than that things get messy when violence breaks out. I note that you failed to quote any of my post as usual, as it's inconvenient for you to show how you are manipulating in your postings. Now that I've answered your post, kindly respond to mine.

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

 

When I say "both sides are to blame", what exactly are you not understanding about that?

 

It's all you anti-Trump leftists that keep condoning and excusing the violent mob on the other side and pretending that they are peaceful protesters, because that violent mob is anti-Trump and pushing your agenda.

 

It's interesting because I don't have a side in this so I condemned both sides for the trouble they caused. But you all refuse to even acknowledge that Antifa were violent let alone condemn it.

 

So I'll ask you. If Antifa were there to punch Nazis, was that female journalist the male Antifa guy viciously attacked, was she a Nazi?

 

Or was Antifa really a violent mob who was there not just to attack just Nazis?

 

Here's a well written and lengthy article on Antifa from a reputable source for those who are interested. No doubt you'll cherrypick whatever parts suit you, but the piece stands up well in terms of a balanced and comprehensive look at the movement.

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-intimate-history-of-antifa?mbid=social_facebook
 

You are quite tiresome in terms of debate. All of us have acknowledged that Antifa advocate a measured violence as one of their responses to oppose Fascism. Most have applauded their standing up to the Fascists but not their use of violence. You just keep repeating the lie that we haven't and don't. We personally engaged in a back-and-forth where I kept trying to get you to answer my clear position on Antifa and you still haven't done so, you just kept deflecting and parroting.

There has been no conclusive evidence on who started the fighting in Charlottesville, nor is there likely to be any given that it was a running melee occurring over several different locations at different times and between different groups. As one side has a specific policy and training that they're not to instigate the violence and the other has the opposite, one might guess that the Fascists were more likely to start the violence. As one poster pointed out, the Clergy who were there standing in opposition to the Fascists credited the Antifa protesters with protecting them among others. But it doesn't really matter. Is your position that people should politely allow Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists to march through the streets with Nazi flags chanting Anti-Semitic slogans without any opposition? As noted in that article, this is one of their tactics, to use their opponents respect for rules against them.

But anyway, let me try again.

Do I have problems with people confronting White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis? Nope. Should they be prepared for violence given those groups preparing for same by being armed and armoured and practicing military manoeuvres? Yep. Should they start it? Nope. 

For the record, nobody has established who threw the first punch, and it's highly doubtful anyone would be able to in such a melee. We do however know who escalated it to driving a car into a crowd like an ISIS coward. But the position outlined above, is in no way terrorism.

6 hours ago, Thakkar said:

I've written off the evangelicals completely. Not even Jesus can wash their sins. 

 

As for these particular Rabbis, not only were they far from perfect, they were slower to respond than self-interested CEOs.

They're a group of people with a diverse representation across a spectrum of opinion from Liberal to Ultra-Conservative. Coming to a consensus is far more difficult and time-consuming than individuals acting on their own. The CEOs reached their own conclusions, and did not act in concert.