OMGImInPattaya

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, you're in deep shit because there are too many guns. The solution proposed by NRA is more guns, which to everybody else looking in is an unbelievable solution, as is shown time and time again.

I guess you didn't read (or choose to ignore) my post pointing out that violent crime is actually at historic lows; so I fail to see the " deep shit" to which you refer. 

To anticipate your next argument, guns are still necessary to defend against and deter the crimes that are still taking place.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes. Too many guns, so gun violence, therefor more guns are needed.

I'm sure if you, or a family member, friend, or other loved one, were in one of these situations, the first thing you would wish you had had was a gun. They're much more useful than a mobile phone for calling the police in saving your life.

Maybe China and Russia should have restrained their client state, North Korea, before things got to this point. They had decades to do it but chose not to and will now the world will have to live with the consequences.

5 hours ago, ross163103 said:

Exactly! I'm an American--not a liberal, but I wonder when Americans will say "enough is enough". Sad to say but obviously most of the population HASN'T had enough yet, or things would change. If 20 young children mudered at Sandy Hook didn't make a difference, cant see it happening now.

Had enough of what exactly...Constitutionally ordered liberty? Maybe one reason these mass shooting incidents stand out so much is that violent crime in general, and particularly murder, is down so dramatically from recent decades. The chance of being murdered while a victim of another crime, for example robbery or rape, has declined by up to 80% in most of America since the "crime wave" of the '70s and '80s, which prompted Hillary Clinton to call black people "super-predators." So in reality, it's actually quite a safe time to be living in America despite the rash of shooting incidents.

6 hours ago, Salerno said:

Sounds very similar to Australia; what's your point?

As this entire thread points out...gun violence (and other crimes like rape, murder, assault, and burglery) are higher in the U.S. than many other countries, including possibly Australia. Therefore it might behoove someone living in a remote rural area (but really everyone everywhere) to have a gun to protect themselves.

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Fine! What's wrong with that? You have a police force don't you?

 

Mind you you don't have a health service so maybe not ?

Who are often miles away and hours away (America is a vast country...it's not just densely pack urban land in case you haven't noticed). 

14 hours ago, RichinThailand said:

American have said by major majorities that they want gun control.  But the Republican portion, and many Democrats in Congress, are OWNED by the National Rifle Association.  The NRA used to be an organization for sportsmen, but it has been taken over by the gun manufactures.  

 

The votes to defeat gun control legislation have been bought and paid for by the NRA!

And they have done this how...by NOT electing the anti-gun candidate and instead electing the one endorsed by the NRA in the most recent presidential election? (In addition to electing Republican (pro-Second Amendment) majorities to both houses of Congress AND Republican governors in something like 34 of the 50 states AND solid Republican majorities in the statehouses of 33 of the 50 states.)

17 hours ago, bannork said:

When will Americans wake up and just say no to the NRA?

What is wrong with them ?

Why would they do that...Americans ARE the NRA. 

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Most sane people from other countries can see the stupidity, ignorance, and madness of (the majority of) American people in regards to your gun laws.

 

Keep you guns, in fact get more..... that's what most of you population wants... You kill far more of each other than any Islamic Terrorists could ever do.  

 

.  

 

 

 

 

All that childish name calling really hurt...and did wonders for your argument too.

I agree that it's in pretty poor taste for Senator Feinstein to trot out her gun confiscation and other anti-Second Amendment proposals after every shooting tragedy in an effort to use people's natural emotions during such events to further her anti-gun agenda. This time it's particularly farsicle seeing as the previous Democrat administration of President Obama authorized use of the devices in the first place.

Also, I'm taking bets that these bump devices WILL NOT be banned or regulated in any way (at the Federal level). The NRA and hunting and sport shooting enthusists know that it's just the camel's nose under the tent of the anti-gun crowd and if they give an inch they will always be back for more. As after New Town, it's necessary to get the Republican Party in line and shut down these proposals.

2 hours ago, bazza73 said:

There is nothing sacred about the US Constitution or the various amendments. All it takes is the political will to change it.

Yes, there are still many guns in private hands in Australia. However, very few of these are semi-automatic weapons, because it is illegal to own one. Get caught with one, and it's jail time.

Americans can't seem to understand the reason we have not had a mass shooting since 1996 is not because we have banned guns. We haven't. We have banned the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unless you are an expert, carrying out a mass shooting with a bolt-action weapon is fairly difficult.

Perhaps you are right though. America does seem to have a lot of mental health problems. Isn't that why the phrase " Only in America" came into being?

If one is not American, maybe it's difficult to understand that most Americans DO consider their Consitution to be a sacred document (albeit a secular one). In a polyglot society, it's the one thing we share in common and it is intentionaly very hard to change  (and that's a good thing). It is the reason its only been amended, what, 28 times in almost 250 years (and the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights). And what are you suggesting needs to be changed...are you proposing, like a ding-bat columnists for the NYT did recently, that the Second Amendment be repealed? You might as well be a dog barking at the moon.

As to American exceptionalism, yeah, we have allot of extremes...rich and poor...worst elementary schools and best universities in the world (and lots of them), most number of Nobel Prize winners, world beating companies leading the way into the future (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, Tesla, and myriad more), the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, the highest per capita prison population...and the most deaths from guns. (Not to put too fine a point on it...but what has Australia brought to the world other than Crocodile Dundee and Olivia Newton-John? I'm not saying Oz isn't a nice well ordered society and Aussies great people but the country could fall off the face of the earth and most people wouldn't even notice.)  It's all a package and maybe to be this truly great and inovative country, America, like many great artists, has to be a bit mad.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Thanks for the update and what a shame about the disappointment!

I would just clarify my post in that the food offerings were varied but it was that taste that was meh (the Thai dessert selection and the Hagan Daz ice-cream cups being exceptions). Also, no exterior windows means no tarmac views to keep plane-spotters entertained.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

Oh dear! You want to challenge me to an erudite discussion on, say 1945 to 1955 global history? You think I'm left wing? Let's just say that you are incorrect and out of your depth ?

It seems to me you're the one a little out of your depth but I'm not going to get into a mud-slinging match with you.

Just now, josephbloggs said:

 

So, what was the answer?

Thanks for reminding me to update my op. Yes, as per the official Star Alliance lounge access rules, I had no problem using the SilverKris lounge at Bangkok International Airport. All I had was a TG Business Class ticket from Bangkok to Manila return and no premier mileage status with any *A carrier.

However, I was not very impressed with the lounge. It's somewhat small and dark and has no exterior windows. The food offerings were meh and there are no showers and the loo was rather small. I much prefer the EVA lounge and the Royal Silk D Concourse lounge. It was also quite a hike from the Thai premium check-in counters to the SK lounge...and then again to my departure gate in C Terminal.

In future, I will just use the *A carrier lounge that is closest to my departure gate, and if it's in D Terminal then the Thai lounge there.

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Were that it was that easy - to just rain down ten billion $$'s of missiles, and then trot on in to clean up the mess.

The US has a checkered history of wanting 'quick in, quick out, job done' solutions - which don't work.  Didn't work in Korean war. Didn't work in VN or Iraq II.   Questionable whether US meddling did more harm than good in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala or most other Latin-American countries.   

One big lesson that the US still hasn't learned:   Superior weaponry doesn't = success.  More often than not, a determined adversary will not fold under attack by superior weaponry.  Trump doesn't understand that, and it will prove to be one of the most tarnished legacies of his disfunctional presidency.  

Tell that to Saddam Hussain and Mullah Omar and the Taliban. If the political will is there, taking out these rogue regimes is a piece of cake. It's when elite political opinion is divided that problems develop. The other problem is post-conflict trying to install 21st Century democracies on basically 14th Century societies. It can't  and shouldn't be done.

In this case, we already have a fairly advanced democracy and economically developed country to work with, South Korea, and they should be able to reconstitute the pieces of their united country with only limited (primarily security) assistance from the U.S.

34 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Well I'm not going to write the history here.

 

But, in an effort to force the Japanese to capitulate at the end of WW2, the Americans invited the Soviets to drive down Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula as far as the 38th parallel. At the end of the war a communist sympathising North Korea was the result. Their aim was always to reunite the country, free from imperialist oppression. The Korean War leads on from that. Similar to Vietnam situation IMHO. Watch out for Korcong infiltration, and make sure the American Embassy has a helipad on the roof!

 

Please, read some history ?

Maybe you need better sources than Pravda and the Socialist Worker.

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

I searched "WH Official policy on NFL kneeling" but only found refs to Trump's earlier suggestion that NFL fans boycott.  I would like to think WH Counsel was able to convince Trump the 1st Amendment deserves the same regard as the 2nd one.

How did that work out for James Damore?

2 hours ago, champers said:

On your own, if you must. UK needs to keep well away.

That's fine by me...probably just slow us down and get in the way.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

You do realise that the Americans INVITED the soviets to push the Japanese out of Korea at the end of WW2? The Soviets got as far south as the 38th parallel. The Koreans wanted rid of imperialists. (Just like Vietnam?)

 

I'm not sure what the Soviets and WWII has to do with the N. Korean's invasion of the South and the resulting war some 5 or 6 years later. 

Whatever the case, I just think we need to go in and clean-up the mess on the Korean peninsula once and for all.

I don't know why he went in the first place. Isn't it official Trump administration policy to boycott the NFL until they put in place measures to respect the flag at the start of the games?

My view is we should finish what we left unfinished 70 years ago...and the sooner the better.

22 minutes ago, Credo said:

So, now doctors get to do some more paperwork, to fulfill some nonsensical requirement for other peoples moral proclivities.   It is a doctor who decides, just like they do with Viagra.   

 

It's a medical issue, not a moral one and you and the President should not be in a position to decide.   

 

I'm confused why you can't fathom the difference between a medical condition, which is something that should be treated and covered and the choice of whether to become pregnant, which is a private personal decision and not a disease or illness. I have no moral concern on way or the other on women's fertility choices...only that I don't feel it is a government role to subsidise one side of that scale or the other. Exactly, neither I nor Donald want anything to do with the decision nor do we want to pay for it.

As to your Viagra example, it's a drug used to treat a medical condition, to wit Erectile Disfunction and I already said I had no problem with subsidies to treat genuine medical conditions.

14 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make laws based on the history of gun statistics since 1996, which is where Australia and the USA diverged.

Oh sorry, I'm being logical.

People are always bringing up this "Australian example" as somehow applicable to the United States but there are fundamental differences between the countries. The first being, as everyone knows, the U.S. has the Second Amendment, which places limits on the what the government can do regarding the public ownership of guns. I'm no expert on Australia but they probably don't  have such a limitation...heck I don't even know if they have a constitution or if Parliament is supreme as in the UK. If so, it is easy, if they so choose, to pass whatever law on guns the government of the day wants to pass.

Also, there are still millions of guns in private hands in Oz so they could certainly have a mass shooting incident at any time. The fact that they don't seems to militate in my mind that the cause of gun violence and mass shooting incidents lies elsewhere than the fact that there are allot of guns in a given populace. Maybe Oz has fully funded and available mental health care coverage, which the U.S. sorely lacks. Maybe there are higher levels of social trust in society, for whatever reason, which makes Aussies less likely to "go postal" on their fellows. I think America and its leaders need to explore these, and other issues, in regards to societal violence and not reflexively turn to blaming "guns."

20 hours ago, Golgota said:

Obviously you never saw how teenagers manage fertility decisions.. Foster kids, poor kids with no parental supervisions and other things of the same kind cost much more money to the taxpayers than contraception 

So in your world morality and what's right and wrong don't mean anything...only costs. And besides, the cost of a month's worth of BC pills is very inexpensive...probably a fifth of the average teenagers monthly phone bill.

9 hours ago, Credo said:

The issue of birth control, as well as drugs for erectile dysfunction (remember how much the military pays for such drugs as Viagra) and drugs for the mentally ill  are all public health issues.   Birth control and family planning is prescribed for people who will suffer medical problems as a result of becoming pregnant.   

 

Birth control pills are frequently used to assist women in controlling medical problems with their menstrual cycle, extremely heavy bleeding and other issues related directly to a medical situation.   

 

 

If hormonal birth control pills are used to treat a medical condition, I have no problem with them being covered by private or public health insurance schemes. However, pregnancy isn't a disease or medical condition so I would not support government funding of birth control to prevent conception.