JCauto

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

I doubt your understanding of capitalism and the free market is any greater than mine. But our definition of what constitutes a philanthropist is clearly very different.

I agree with your initial sentence, although I fail to see how it relates to my point. My point was "why Soros?" when:

1. Any other financier/capitalist who noticed what Soros did would have done exactly the same thing, and had he not done it the next one who did would have. Therefore the ultimate blame for the currency "manipulation" was the governments whose policies weakened their currencies who then decided to artificially prop them up when they didn't have the finances and political will to sustain it. That's capitalism. I'm not a big fan of untrammeled or unregulated capitalism, and certainly not in favour of crony capitalism, but that's the way things are currently working.

2. I haven't talked about philanthropy even once. So you haven't the slightest idea what I define it to be.

Just now, Krataiboy said:

What makes you think I loathe the bankers any less than our George? If you really believe currency markets are free, read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope and/or Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island.

Precisely my point. Okay, you loathe the bankers. How many angry posts have you made about them? How is it that Soros is the boogeyman rather than, oh, the Wall Street firms and Banks that caused and made massive profits from the financial crisis and then lobbied to remove any rules that would prevent them from doing it all over again? Or was that Soros too? And with respect to Soros and the currency issues, is it your position that had he not existed the next guy to notice would not have done the exact same thing?

42 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

You must have a short memory.

 

Millions of people of ALL political persuasions suffered when Soros destroyed the pound in 1992 and the baht five years later - and will again if the regressive lefty billionaire's meddling in the UK's internal affairs results in Brexit being reversed.

 

His is the kind of "philanthropy" our world can do without.

 

 

Okay, so you're saying that, had Soros seen the weakness of the Sterling and Baht positions and decided "don't want to hurt all them lil' people", then nothing bad would have happened to the Sterling and Baht, no other major investor/shark would have noticed the weakness and moved to take advantage of it, and things would have been all just fine eventually as the British and Thai Governments implemented policy to shore up their financial weakness as governments always act in the best interest of their people and would never artificially mess with their currencies for their own benefit. 

Uh huh. Write back when you have gained a bit of understanding about capitalism and the free market. If Soros is so brilliant that he's the only guy who could see it and act upon it, then you have to give the devil his due, he used the system legally to make an enormous amount of money. If he was just the first of several who would have seen and done the same thing, then the next guy who realized it would be the one who did it. If he had a pang of conscience (something we know many financiers are prone to), then the third guy would have faced this oh-so-difficult dilemma. Soros was just one of the many horses in the race that he won.

9 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Not sure that destroying the pound in 1992, the baht five years later and latterly pouring zillions into trying to reverse the UK's decision to leave the EU can be said to have made the world a better, fairer place. 

 

One thing that's for sure is that they have made an already wealthy and powerful man even more so. Sheer coincidence, of course.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt. You're against a free market in currency? You believe that people smart enough to recognize, for example, that the Thai Gov't was unsustainably propping up the baht and took advantage of it are criminals?

How do you feel about the banks who manipulated the LIBOR rate? How do you feel about Goldman Sachs and the blatant manipulation they've done to the markets and precipitating the financial crisis? Why do those people, who have already been caught illegally trading and whose actions definitely caused the financial crisis, get a pass? Why only Soros? And was anything he did illegal?

28 minutes ago, stud858 said:

That's, the problem. People think to much.

Australia has gone through 7 leaders in about 10 years(?). And it's not because each leader was evil   Hope US doesn't follow suit.

When individuals put their conclusions above democracy it all falls apart.  Well not really.  Completely remove government for years and society keeps functioning. 

Do we need a government?.  Maybe just a dictator.  Maybe Trump will deny a democratic vote next election. Now,  that would be evil. If that happens I'll jump on your bandwagon. Until then God bless the United states of America, and God bless Trump. 

The USA has only had one President who didn't complete their term because of being impeached, so it's not really much of a risk. Where exactly have you seen where government has been removed completely and society continues to function? I don't mean in movies. This is just another facile viewpoint that ignores history and facts. 

As to your points about democracy, you seem to misunderstand how it is supposed to function. Individuals do not just have the right to oppose the elected party and President, that's actually a critical part of the system. If your memory allows, recall the previous President and your likely views of him. They're of course supposed to do so within the limits of the law, but so should and must the elected representatives and President. 

Conservatives used to tell us that they had core Christian values that were immutable and based on strong traditional moral and ethical standards. And then of course they tell us that God is on their side as they follow a philandering, sexual assaulting, lying, cheating, scumbag who very likely conspired with the Russians (who have compromised him) to pervert American democracy. Ronnie Raygun is spinning in his grave.

3 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

I met my Thai wife in London back in the mid 1980s. Today, I doubt there are many, if any, Thais working illegally in Britain, but I can tell you that back in the 1980s, thousands of Thais entered Britain on education visas and then marriages of convenience where arranged for them. This means that there are thousands of Thais living in Britain today that should not be there. But the British government back then as is today, consider illegal immigrants as very low priority. This is why I believe in the immigration policies of the Thai government that are trying to nip this problem in the bud now before it becomes uncontrolled as what`s happened in Britain. 

 

 

I don't think that there's any correlation between the two situations at all. No Thai government has ever invited or wanted a lot of foreign people working in Thailand without visas, but government employees no doubt have often found it profitable to look the other way. When you see the "law" being applied in Thailand, that only means one thing - the ones applying it are doing so in order to punish people who are paying someone other than them off. When you discuss illegal immigration in the UK, I presume your concern is primarily those in blue collar jobs. In Thailand, the concern is the lack of blue collar workers willing to work for less money than minimum wage, and hence there's a strong demand for workers from neighbouring countries to fill that need. They're not at all concerned about this. 

I also find it hard to believe that there was a need for "arranged" marriages for Thai women who were in the UK. 

9 hours ago, vinegarbase said:

Now if our home countries can start rounding up and sending back all the Thai illegals to replace the foreign illegals they are deporting their Thai heaven will be complete!

I am glad these things are happening in Asian countries because when foreigners come here and see how strict and unwanted they are in Asian countries it contributes as a result to more people becoming nationalist when they return to their own countries. We need more nationalists back home!

Erm...so you're under the impression that there are a lot of Thai illegals working somewhere? Where is that?

According to the statistics, there are 3 countries who provide by far the most remittances to Thailand: #1 Saudi Arabia, #2 India, #3 Mexico and #4 Spain. Now, #1 makes sense, there's lots of labourers in Saudi from Isarn and the South. Are they illegal? Do you have an interest in Saudi nationalism? India? Sounds a lot like locals who have immigrated from India and managed to acquire Thai citizenship. Mexico? Sounds like money-laundering unless there's some large Thai presence there that I'm completely unaware of. Spain? Sounds like seasonal work in the ag sector and highly unlikely to be illegals.

So not sure about your point, which ultimately seems to be "I'm a nationalist and I think everyone else should be one too!"

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/remittances

11 hours ago, riclag said:

The Mantra of the Far Left before and during the committee meetings

     "We Will Stop At Nothing".

Decent American's are sick of the search and destroy mission tactics of the resistance and those who support it,MSM,Dem's and Far left. 

So beyond the usual rhetoric, would you support a constitutional amendment that basically says "The President shall not appoint any Supreme Court Justices within the last calendar year of their Presidency to ensure the voters have a say in the direction of the Court" or words to that effect? 

2 hours ago, iroc4life said:

All of you arm chair keyboard jurist sure do know a lot about something that supposedly happened 36 years ago, and without ay evidence, all witnesses deny ever happened, dont know time, date, place it happened etc. I truely hope noone make accusations against you from years ago to the media. Public opinion means nothing, accusations alone condemn no one except people like you who believe anything they hear without proof evidence etc. 

Let's first dispense with the lies of this post. There is evidence, and eyewitness reports. No, "all witnesses deny ever happened" is not true. Several have provided corroborating evidence, and the 65 Trump supporters are starting to crumble.  Public opinion means everything in this case, had there been no public outcry, they'd have simply swept this under the rug.

I have no fear of people making accusations about me from years ago to the media (notwithstanding the fact that it is highly unlikely that the media would be interested in me). The reason is that I never did anything like what was alleged by this women, the other women who have come out with stories or any other thing that we did back in the day. This was a bunch of privileged frat boys in an all-male school who were engaging in male bonding rituals that were degrading to and physically inappropriate with any girls they came across. Based on the stories of the others who knew him in University, this laddish and inappropriate behaviour continued. 

Now is he on trial for sexual assault here? No, most assuredly he is not. But is this the sort of person who should be on the highest court in the land? And particularly the case when it becomes apparent that he has perjured himself? No, he is not. Some of the colleagues on the Right on this board have identified that there are four alternative possible judges they've had lined up in case this one doesn't get through, one of which is even female. Why not just withdraw gracefully and put one of those up? If this continues, it's not going to look good or go well for Kavanaugh.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

IMO the makeup of the SCOTUS reflects the reality that till recently, law was something men did and in the US probably mainly white guys. To get to the stage of being considered for SCOTUS requires a lot of experience, which probably isn't available in many female lawyers at present. Give it a few years for that to become reality.

 

For very good reasons, SCOTUS isn't elected by a popular vote, and may even be in the constitution to be done as it is. That would require a constitutional amendment to change. 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your point with respect to non-White guys on SCOTUS is taken, although if we look at an average appointed age of 50-55 for Justices, you'd be talking about 1995 or so from when you'd think you'd have some viable candidates. Understood that changes on SCOTUS take longer.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Comes down to she said he said. Who to believe is the question. 

Of course she may have some actual evidence, like a dress with his ( dna tested ) semen on it, or an eye witness that corroborates her version, but I doubt it.

Some people need to be careful what they wish for, as if, in the future, a Dem majority wish to nominate a candidate they like, GOP women may be making accusations of their own to pay back the Dems.

 

If any lessons can be learned from this fiasco, it should be that before any accusations can be made in public in such a situation, a police report or definitive proof of the event should be available, or the accusation is ignored.

Disagree. There's a very strong disincentive to deciding to bring these accusations forward and the ones who do inevitably have their lives turned upside down and not for the better. Should a Dem Jurist be accused similarly, they should immediately have the claim investigated by the FBI and if it's determined to be credible the person should be disqualified immediately. People willing to do this once will do it again and again, so an initial accusation will inevitably unearth others who will come out when it's finally exposed. I don't think this sort of behaviour is common even among frat boys; the vast majority of people know the lines that must not be crossed even in High School. So I don't think there is a shortage of non-sexual predator judges on either side of the aisle. 

10 minutes ago, riclag said:

Source up 

Are you really asking for a source for something that started "Allow me to paraphrase"? I guess English isn't your first language, so I'll explain. A "paraphrase" means "a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else". 

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

“Democrats have signaled for months they’d put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture,” McConnell said. “Even by the far left’s standards, this evil, evil smear campaign has hit a new low.”

Be prepared and don't be shocked especially the fake left predictable  crocodial smears of  tears ! I would have sympathy but this was all orchestrated many  months ago probably before July! Sick! What the  despicable deranged left is doing 

 https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-decries-kavanaugh-accusations-smear-campaign

What's a crocodial? Is that a new kind of shoe-phone, like Maxwell Smart would use if they updated that TV series? When you can't spell basic English words, your other ones lose their effectiveness.

Allow me to paraphrase what McConnell's words really were. "We are shocked to observe that the Democrats have abandoned their weak-kneed tendency to allow us to manipulate the law and railroad this terrible Supreme Court choice through the Senate with as little scrutiny as possible. To behave exactly as we Republicans have for the previous 10 years by discarding all principles in favour of naked self-interest and using sneaky rules and sympathetic press to get what they want is appalling. We should at least get royalties for our intellectual property having developed these tricks."

Why are people still believing this <deleted>? The site is 3 km from a local village. You really think nobody would have heard the plane come down, and nobody would have ventured 3 km into the jungle to check it out?

Satellites take imagery from above the level planes fly. When a plane flies under the satellite, then the satellite image captures a picture of a plane from above. The plane is flying, it is not on the ground.

11 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

"we" ?

 

"Professionals" at the FBI that invent a narrative by leaking it to the press to out it in a surveillance warrant? you mean those "procedures"?

 

The FBI that was founded on illegally taping and photographing people to blackmail them into going along with what J Edgar wanted while he was wearing women's clothing and getting turd burgalled?

 

you mean that impeccable "justice" dept that hid Bruce Ohr's obvious illegal contact with the inventor of the bogus dossier? The one that refuses to release information for a year until threat of contempt? Then releases it 90 percent redacted. What are they afraid of? What are you afraid of?

 

the texts and the implications are obvious, but keep on hoping 

 

The "we" was in reference to your comment which was directed to "those on the left" of which I am one.

Your pathetic attempts to distract and divert have been destroyed by several other posters already, so no need for me to point out the obvious rebuttals (Hilary's investigations of several years and millions resulting in ZERO indictments, Trump's team 6 already many more to come, timing of the Strzok/Page texts and FISA warrant, etc.). I do believe you're going to lose the plot completely when the Democrats retake the House and Senate and the President gets impeached.

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They are evidence in an ongoing investigation, by making them public it hampers their chance of being used in court against them, this is not about scoops, this is about removing a tyrant, shame the NRA aren't on this.

Oh, but they are! The NRA was used to funnel Russian dirty money to the campaign. This is going to be great, so looking forward to the trial.