JCauto

3 hours ago, Cadbury said:

A few famous female political leaders who have done jail time yet emerged to be strong leaders. Indira Ghandi and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Not suggesting the same will happen to Yingluck if she is imprisoned but history shows there are always possibilities for the unexpected; particularly if she is seen to be persecuted for political reasons.

And more recently Mu Sochua in Cambodia.

5 minutes ago, ginjag said:

The issue is, awaiting a verdict on weather Yingluck is guilty or not---simple as that,  your inbuilt hatred stands out,  stick to topic yingluck was controlled by a.n. other, and neglected her duties.  She was warned by so many different academics in Thai society because of the rice scheme---- it failed badly---say 500 billion,  and you are blaming all and sundry.

In your view it is. In our view it is not. We've provided ample reasoning behind why we believe this to be the case. Instead of debating the issue, you continuously post "stay on the topic" unless someone is condemning the Shinawatras, and resort to the usual tactic of reading things into our posts that we haven't stated. 

As to your "points":

"your inbuilt hatred stands out" - to what does this refer?

"Yingluck...neglected her duties and was warned by academics" - So Chuan Leekpai was quite a bad head of government, and was generally seen as an honest but poor Prime Minister who wasn't able to get things done. Should he go to jail for that? 

"you are blaming all and sundry." - not at all, I'm blaming the Shins for their corruption but applauding what they did for the poor farmers, while blaming the Junta for retarding Thai democracy and perpetuating business as usual. Were you thinking of someone else?

You seem to lack an ability to debate (and spell). Do try to address the points made, stop attempting to tell us what we can and cannot say, and try to be a bit coherent. 

18 minutes ago, ginjag said:

Insulting ???     you diverted,  you with others are diverting the topic, and blaming posters and the military but not the accused.

Insulting? Yes. Here it is as you seem to have a short memory:

"are you on this planet......what on earth are you on about  ??......canot speak much unless I drink the same potion as you------your post is all over the place.   OMG"

Diverted? No, the issue we are pointing out is that this trial is a political witchhunt by a group that has seized power illegally. When their basis for holding the trial was abrogating the laws of the country, then they rewrote them, then they hold a trial under their new laws, that's not in our view a valid prosecution. It's entirely on point. 

Once again, you're attempting to censor our posts. You should apply for a foreign liaison position with the Junta.

Just now, ginjag said:

Stick to topic,  Yingluck the accused.   backed by the fugitive in the desert 

 

I responded directly to your post in both instances. You misunderstood and wrote an insulting post in response, now try to stifle discussion and attempt to restrict others to only what you wish to hear. No wonder you're all in favour of the current situation with respect to democracy.

31 minutes ago, ginjag said:

You are saying that the red shirts funded and ruled by Thaksin acknowledged what a scumbag he was  ????   are you on this planet--------he paid for control of villages, funded and known reds busing down to BKK......what on earth are you on about  ??......canot speak much unless I drink the same potion as you------your post is all over the place.   OMG

No, I was referring to the posters on this site, which is what you wrote. To whit:

"Again typical reply,  just why in  hell cannot some of you Shin supporters condemn the Yingluck-Thaksin decisions , as well as not liking the military decisions."

Note that you were not talking about Red Shirts, you were talking about "you Shin Supporters" and were discussing it here. What else were we to assume? Perhaps you believe that the average farmer in the Northeast avidly follows English language discussions on Thaivisa?

As to your other assertions, it's boring to have to go over the same discredited arguments again and again. Read Chris Baker and others' research on vote-buying and educate yourself. 

Just now, Siripon said:

But Thaksin only offers the grass roots crumbs, only a fish, never a fishing rod or boat. The working class need to guide themselves with long term sustainable policies that truly benefit them. It could happen if community politics can truly grow.

Well, when they've never even been given crumbs, it's a start. Note that Thaksin provided them not only tangible populist benefits like the 30-baht health care, he also decentralized power both to the Provincial Governors and provided funds directly under the control of the Tambon Administrative Organizations. This is the start of giving them the fishing rod. 

You have to ask yourself, why did ALL the previous governments do nothing of the sort. If they had, they'd be able to compete in the elections, rather than rely on military coups to give them power. 

13 minutes ago, Siripon said:

I'm afraid my poor English has let me down . I was urging the red shirts and grassroots to expel the Shinawats, I was not implying all 3 groups should be removed from politics..

I should have written it as: 'Come on red shirts and grass roots, throw away the chains of the Shinawats, put your own interests first, not the vested interests of a super rich clan!'

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I would only note that they WERE voting in their best interests. The Shins, for all their many faults, were the first who really provided some tangible benefits to the Reds at the grassroots. They probably assumed that anyone in power was going to loot the treasury, seeing as pretty much all of them have regardless of affiliation.

14 minutes ago, ginjag said:

Again typical reply,  just why in  hell cannot some of you Shin supporters condemn the Yingluck-Thaksin decisions , as well as not liking the military decisions.     Oh  sorry because the Military are not democratically elected ??    I have noted scores of things I have not agreed with (military)  subs,  land retakes for some and not others,   police actions here and there,  for not taking action against authority in Pattaya sea and beach clean up,      there is 2 sides to this topic, but the topic IS about the accused NOT me  or the powers that be now.

Never did take a break been here 37 years,  get on board, gen up-catch up

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but most of the people I know who are on the Red Shirt side have acknowledged repeatedly what a scumbag Thaksin was, and noted that the amnesty attempt was spectacularly stupid. That's the warts part of democracy, and you'd have to go back to Chuan's administration to find a PM who was not on the take, yet he couldn't keep his colleague's hands out of the till (the execrable Suthep). On the other hand, we're also still waiting for the first clean Junta. Hence my preference for democracy, the first step is to stop the endless cycle of coups.

2 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Ahh yes, ol' far-right Bannon buddy and colleague, Brietbart Ben.

Now graduated to alt-right opinion, radio talkshow spin host.

 

What else ya got?

But...but...some Alt-Right guy has an opinion! Quod Erat Demonstratum! As one might recall, there are two things everyone has, this guy embodies the second more than most however.

12 minutes ago, Siripon said:

There can be no reconciliation whilst Thaksin is still alive. Pheua Thai need to be reborn, free of any Shinawat influence.

Pheua Thai needs realistic long term policies- education for example, to help the grass roots. not catchy superficial nonsense such as one scholarship ,one district.

Thailand is not AIS.

But then who will pay the village headmen and the canvassers? Who will pay the MPs to make sure they pay homage to whichever Shinawat is in power?

If Yingluk hadn't introduced the amnesty bill  Pheua Thai would still be in power today. But she couldn't resist her older brother's demands.

Expel the Shinawats, red shirts and grass roots!

Yes, expel the majority of the country. To where, one might ask. Is this the Yellow version of "Let them eat cake"? This is the true spirit of reconciliation, what a brilliant suggestion. 

10 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

Yes I hate Antifa more than all of the other current hate groups because they are potentially the most dangerous in the long run and they are completely dishonest about their cause.

 

I don't see any other hate group in the news being violent in the numbers that they are at the moment. And you all defend them because you propagate their big lie that they are peaceful protesters. They said themselves that their tactic is "Peace through violence" so they are obviously a violent mob.

 

Tbh if they just said they were a violent anti-government mob who just want to cause trouble to accomplish their goals I probably wouldn't have focused on them so much. At least BLM outright say they hate white people and cops.

 

Several of you have said you didn't even know who Antifa were until a few days ago but now you are already defending them after just seeing a bit of their propaganda.

 

A group that specifically targets only White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis is potentially the most dangerous in the long run? Bizarre. And as noted, the only one who has "classified" them as a hate group or a terrorist group is you (oh, and the Alt-Right you parrot word for word but claim no tie to). You seem to have this amazing ability to both see into their minds and "know" their "real" intentions, and of course, you have your ever-reliable crystal ball that tells you about the future and what they're going to do and become. And you wonder why you have no credibility in this discussion.

Numbers? As I noted, I'd never even heard of them before. I can't find anywhere that ascribes a large number of members to the organization, have you a credible source? I rather doubt it, perhaps you're referring to the "40,000 Antifa and left wing hate groups" that you imagined in Boston?

BLM have never said to my knowledge that they "hate white people and cops". Have you a credible source for yet another of your wild unsubstantiated claims? I didn't think so.

Now that we've dealt with your usual mis-statements and made up nonsense, please comment on the topic at hand, my clear formulation of where I stand with respect to Antifa. To whit, I do support confronting White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, I do understand why they're prepared for violence given whom they're opposing, but I would insist that they not instigate the violence. By the way, their platform with respect to violence has limitations, and those limitations certainly stop well short of driving cars into crowds of people they disagree with.

Just now, KunMatt said:

 

Only a dozen? 33 people were arrested for fighting with the police. Many more were attacking the police they just weren't arrested.

You all are arguing with me simply because I condemn your own hate group when you want me to condemn all hate groups (except yours).

You don't find that at all hypocritical?
I just wish we could be honest and call it how it is. Antifa are a bunch of terrorists. Aren't they?

 

I said "a dozen or so". That's 0.03%. You say it's actually 33. Okay, that's 0.0825%. So was that significant?

You have stated, quite clearly, that you hate Antifa MORE than you hate the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. It's on the record. If you'd like to continue to defend that, carry on. I rather doubt you're winning that battle.

You say you'd like to be honest. Okay, great, I'm glad you're ready for this. I applauded you for finally answering one of your rebuttals in the last post. Now you can address my quite clear position with respect to Antifa. Here it is again for your convenience. Kindly respond directly.

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.

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

 

So because I knew who Antifa was and you didn't, that makes me alt-right, and yet you now support and defend Antifa but you are not alt-left?? Strange argument.

 

And you were directly referencing my post where I said the red shirt thugs used the same big lie as Antifa to pretend to be peaceful protesters when they were in fact the instigators and the people who provoked the trouble.

 

So are you saying there wasn't 40,000 people in Boston counter protesting a free speech demo and they didn't fight with police?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40980175

 

As noted, there's no such thing as Alt-Left, that's just equivocation again. That you parrot all the Alt-Right talking points makes us assume you're one, perhaps you're not, but you certainly read and repeat all their stuff. I don't know you, so can only go by what you write.

I already debunked your similarly hyperbolic point with respect to the Red Shirts, and Attrayant and others have done so with respect to the Boston Protest. I do appreciate however that you finally addressed it, that's proper protocol and I hope you'll continue to stay on topic in future. Well done. But as they note, because a dozen or so protesters out of 40,000 were arrested, that in no way means that "they were met with 40,000 Antifa and other leftist hate groups who fought with the police." That's deliberate obfuscation. It doesn't make anyone go "he's got a point", it makes them go "he's disingenuous". Why make us think the worst of you, why not be like others on your side who argue with integrity?

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Well, as usual your assumptions are wrong. I'd love to know what language I use which makes you think I'm alt right? Have I ever posted a meme?? Am I a (British) Trump voter?

 

And you said this about me before,

 

 

 

So yeah you did call me racist and alt right.

 

And if I really wanted to I could find the post where you implied I was a neo Nazi or KKK, I forget which.

 

Strange how I remember it but you don't when it suits you.

 

Off the top of my head, Antifa, Alt-Left, left wing hate groups, come to mind. I'd never even heard of Antifa before this thread. 

As to your claim of my calling you a racist, that's something you've self-identified. Someone who has a bigger problem with people protesting Neo-Nazis than they do the actual Neo-Nazis may, as the Jeff Foxworthy joke goes, be one.

One again, please provide evidence of your statement that the 40,000 Boston protesters were Antifa or Far Left Hate Groups. Stop avoiding the question.  

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

 

I think so far you have called me a racist, a neo Nazi and now alt-right. You couldn't be more wrong about all of these.

But you are doing exactly what I am oppose to. Making false allegations against everyone who you don't agree with so you can try to shut down their arguments. Right now everyone is a bigot and a Nazi according to Leftists, so now those words are starting to lose their meanings. One of our (actually racist) politicians called more than half the country racists because they voted to leave the EU.

Anyways, I'm not alt right. Like I said, from what I gather they are a sad bunch of trolls who lurk on 4Chan and post memes supporting Trump. Although this is obviously why they get on your nerves so much.

However you have no problem with people committing actual violence because they are anti-Trump. So does this mean you are alt-Left?

 

 

I haven't called you a racist or neo-Nazi to my recollection although you seem to vociferously support their provoking of violence and hate more than they those who confront their hateful views as you've stated numerous times. The link by Jingthing on post #427 identifies the language and approach of the Alt-Right, and it matches pretty well with what you post. So there's a basis for that assumption. 

I note that you NEVER address any of the substance of the rebuttals of your posts and always change the subject around to something else as you've done again in this post, which is pure trolling. Tell us, what evidence do you have that the 40,000 counter-protesters in Boston were Antifa and Far Left Hate Groups as stated in your previous post? Don't avoid the subject, give us the evidence. You can't and won't, because you made it up out of whole cloth as you do most of your assertions. When called out, you change the subject and launch a different attack. Pure trolling.

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. Hope that clarifies my position. By the way, there's no such thing as the "Alt-Left" - it's another fabrication of the Alt-Right. And you wonder why we characterize you as one of them? When it walks and talks like a duck, it generally is a duck.

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I'll temper this depressing statistic with the following: While 9% think it's okay to hold certain views, a much smaller percentage think it's okay to actually act on them.  The picture above represents that tiny minority.

 

Hopefully.

You're probably correct. Unfortunately, the same could be said in Germany in the early 1930s. This is why there is Antifa and why there is vigorous counter-protesting going on. We learned the lesson - silence leads to the ones who don't act on them to eventually become emboldened to do so.

17 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

And yet I think the same about the rising of the far-left and militant leftist hate groups that are increasing hugely in number, very quickly and recently, and provoking and instigating all of the riots we've been discussing.

The other day in Boston, a few dozen free speech advocates gathered in a park and they were met with 40,000 Antifa and other leftist hate groups who fought with the police.

None of this seems to worry any of you because they are pushing your agenda, so you are happy to overlook all of the violence and threats as long as you agree with their political goals. "Peace through violence" as they put it.

But you're scared of the alt-right. A bunch of internet trolls who make memes and support Trump!!

 

Do you ever post anything that can't be easily disproven or which is not a blatant manipulation?

The far left provoked and instigated the riots? You know perfectly well it was the White Supremacists who did so. And to claim the huge counter-protest in Boston was entirely composed of Antifa and "other leftist hate groups" is a shameful distortion of the truth. I'd not have argued if you'd referred to them as "Libtards" or some of the other epithets of the Right. But you characterize anyone on the Left who is counter-protesting a "hate group". The only truth in that is that these groups hate Neo-Nazis and Fascists. Me too. Does that make me a member of a "hate group"? I thought you hated them too?

Your tactics of continuously repeating lies and pretending there are alternative facts only work with your Alt-Right brethren. 

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, the alt-right is a rising movement, and it's a very scary one. Anyone with any understanding of history can see that.

 

This article is useful because you can see that many of the alt-right code words are commonly used on this very forum by many trump supporters. It's like an infection and it's spreading. 

 

https://qz.com/1056319/what-is-the-alt-right-a-linguistic-data-analysis-of-3-billion-reddit-comments-shows-a-disparate-group-that-is-quickly-uniting/

Scary stuff. Humans suck. 

15 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

But this is the point. If you take any historical figure of course there will be something they said or did in their lifetime which, when compared to modern day morals, would be seen as wrong.

Destroying history isn't going to change that. I don't see the point with this new wave of wanting to destroy statues of people.

They did it in South Africa with a statue of Cecil Rhodes and in Ghana with a statue of Gandhi too (which is what the London protest is based on).

This isn't really about fascism is it?

 

Okay, so should Germany have statues of Hitler placed around the country to commemorate their history? Why not? Would you understand why the victims of Hitler would find that abhorrent and would seek to remove them?

The statues commemorating Lee and other Confederate figures were very much related to the fight against civil rights for black people, as evidenced by the graph I posted several pages back showing that the vast majority of the statues were erected during the time of lynchings and Jim Crow in the early 20th Century and during the Civil Rights protests and desegregation efforts during the 1960's. Coincidence? Of course not. They were symbols of racist opposition to black people having the same rights as they did.

Why did the protestors in Charlottesville have absolutely NOTHING to say about General Lee and the confederacy or the actual statues, but sure had a lot to say about Jews? Because the statues are merely symbols of their core belief, that of "White Supremacy". This is a deflection tactic of the racists masquerading as a supposed reverence for history. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I reckon if they randomly made any McDonald's manager president, she would do better than trump.

It's like the nation made a concerted effort to pick the most horrible person possible with the greatest chance of destroying the nation from within. 

Which would be in who's interest exactly? Not an American's...

6 minutes ago, iReason said:

Here are the Republicans denouncing Trump by name

 

Ohio Gov. John Kasich didn't tweet but instead told NBC's "Today Show" on Wednesday that Trump's remarks were "pathetic."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/republicans-list-denouncing-trump-by-name/index.html

Followed by a number that didn't need to mention his name.

Perhaps to difficult to utter it.

It is for me.

I look forward to JHolmesJr telling you that they're agreeing with Trump and that you're a "spinboi". 

8 minutes ago, iReason said:

America’s Military Leadership Sends Message To Trump Over His Defense Of Nazis

 

"Four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the highest posts in their respective branches of the U.S. military,

have come out to directly condemn white nationalists since violence erupted over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia."

 

"These comments came from President Donald Trump’s top military officials."

http://reverepress.com/news/americas-military-leadership-sends-message-trump-defense-nazis/

 

Freakin' Libtard socialist commies!

17 minutes ago, retarius said:

Donald revealed his lack of PC and the PC brigade are furious. More furious than if he starts a nuclear wars with NK. The anitfa demonstrators were acting illegally...they had no permit for their demonstration....some were also armed and the websites advocate violence. Trump sees a moral equivalence between them and the people protesting the removal of Robert E Lee's statue. His view is not shared by many on the left and in the PC brigade. Shame the police didn't keep the groups apart or arrest the antifa group for inciting violence.

Incorrect - the counter-protesters had a permit as well. Incorrect - the protest had nothing to do with Robert E. Lee's statue. Correct - the police handled it poorly. Incorrect - it appears the White Supremacists incited the violence but this is not conclusive at this point.

While some of the counter-protesters were armed, most of the protesters were more heavily armed. I actually must give them some credit for not shooting anyone, although it's only a matter of time until they do. 

As to us being furious with the Donald, it's because of his tolerance for White Supremacists, incompetent governance, poor policy choices and inability to consider the views of the entire population. Not because he's not PC, although of course one might expect a President to act, you know, presidential rather than like some street corner guttersnipe.

18 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

No. The important thing to understand is that Mr Lee lived 150 years ago, in a very different world to today. There was no PC and affirmative action culture back then, people said it as they saw it, and lived by a very different set of rules. This is our history, this period of time shaped what would become today's world. A little bit of respect for your history wouldn't go amiss. 

Here's an interesting graph showing when the majority of these statues were erected. As you can see, there construction directly corresponds to times of major conflict of race and later on attempts to provide civil rights to black people. Yes, it's a relevant part of US history, but very much one where the losers have tried to inculcate their views on future populations despite having both lost the debate and the battle that it was based on. 

Of course, the protest had very little to do with the statue, it was a "Unite the Right" rally intended to whip up support for White Supremacists. Any of the videos will show this to be true, there's not a single word about statues or Robert E. Lee. There's a hell of a lot about Jews though - were they a major part of the Civil War?

 

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

I said none of those things. It's quite stunning how much you tried to twist what I actually said to smear me.

What I said was the Red shirts called themselves "Peaceful protesters" and the media believed them even though they were really violent thugs, exactly what Antifa are doing now.

You lied so many times about what I actually said that you certainly owe me an apology for these lies:

I'm not racist.
I don't equate KKK/Nazis and Antifa/BLM.
I don't support the junta.

Now, apologise.

 

You are drawing parallels, equivocating. It's one of the new methods of debate that the Alt-Right is raising to an artform. You make a number of presumptions that are in no way universally accepted (for example, that the Reds were violent thugs, when in fact the majority were genuinely disgruntled and disenfranchised and peaceful protesters), then draw parallels to other untrue things, such as that BLM are violent thugs. There is no evidence to suggest that, and you've consistently been asked to provide it and have not done so, you just keep repeating it like a mantra. Of course, we haven't got a crystal ball like you do to tell us what's about to happen, so you have to give us the benefit of the doubt...

You have been consistently equating the KKK/Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists and the Antifa/BLM throughout your posts; to attempt to pretend you haven't removes any small scrap of credibility you may have achieved. In fact, in one of your classics, you claimed Antifa was WORSE than the White Supremacists. People here can read, you know. 

Apologize? 555555555