Donnie Brasco

I used to play football back in the Old Country.

Ran both ways.

Loved it.

Much like porn, football (as its played and commentated on these days) is just a game for fat old men.

As much as I'd love to watch the half-time shows and all those well-publicized ad campaigns we've been hearing so much about for the last two weeks, watching the Super Bowl means I'd have to sit through another season's crop of overweight grammar-slaughtering hasbin commentators in huge bespoke sports jackets.

The headsets get me as well.

I'll watch that big blonde walking through the farmer's market on YouTube.

Haven't really explored all the options on my lovely new TV.

If I can't find the OFF thingie I'll just pull the plug.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

It seems to depend on how the books are done and who's doing them.

Personally I have some difficulty believing any numbers China would post regarding their military. A country that tends to be reclusive I believe would certainly undervalue their military budget, but who is to know.

Sure.

As much as we are led to believe otherwise, the intelligence agencies have seldom been about cloak and dagger operations minicams and the dreaded (gasp) honeypot caper.
These days most concrete information is out there for the taking.

The public in the West has been conditioned to believe that anything that gets "picked up" by security and intelligence agencies, CCTV, eyes in the sky and all the myriad other intrusions into our lives has to actually exist.

The government's "media pets" . . . . . . NBCCBSABCCNNCBCetc are just poised waiting to spread this "news from nowhere".

That's the "war" at this point in time.

So whether you really CAN believe what you hear and what you read depends upon your critical faculties and your willingness to cross-reference and verify all this information.

I routinely access the mainstream media to determine just what the real owners of our country expect us to swallow so that they can further a rather obvious corporatista agenda. Then I cross reference it with alternate news and information media on the web, scientific journals, books and documentary treatments.
I don't give a toss about spectator sports and celebrity gossip ;-))

The final analysis that shakes out of a 360 degree analysis proves satisfactory in most cases.

The University of California (Berkeley) Semantics Professor S. I. Hiyakowa said it best when he cautioned Americans to be vigilant and skeptical with all incoming information.

He offered the following analytical paradigm:

When you are faced with a piece of new information, ask yourself WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM and exactly WHAT EFFECT is the speaker trying to achieve in the listener's or the audience's mind ? What is that speaker's objective ?

Without sharing the boring details in a public forum on Thai Visa, taking the time to run to filter new information this way has worked very well for me.

S. I. Hiyakowa was a right wing observer and commentator of the Berkeley Free Speech movement in the Sixties.

Personally, I prefer to be wingless.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

It seems to depend on how the books are done and who's doing them.

Hey. Don't knock it.

She used the "very well English" that 99% of Thai girls use to achieve their ends.

And she achieved her end.

Really, think back on it a little.

How many times have you heard one of these fillies just cobble together a non-stop string of idiom, slang and illogical gibberish till they get what they want ?

It matters little to them that they are making little sense.

The threat in the air is that THEY WILL NOT STOP TALKING and thus they will cause their opponent a loss of face.

In this case it worked because she'd managed to bluff the cop into thinking that a Thai woman who spoke English would be able to beat him at his authority game.

Sounds like the wife, wish she looked like that

Yeah, well, don't we all ;-)

But (fortunately) as the years pass other good stuff kicks in.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

>> continue to ramble as if you are drunk <<

If your contribution here is to tweet insult after insult and then to scurry off to hide behind "I was joking" or "your (my) rant" or a smear that according to you I must be drunk (and then to declare it as "reality") and hide behind THAT, you've proven my point.

And . . . No, sorry to crash your cab here but . . . . . Nope.
Not much of a drinker.

By that I mean I can do it if I want but, no.

A little research on your part into the subject at hand would have gone a long way.

I'm done with you.

(Unless you respond with another gratuitous smear)

You are done with me? Thank god.........

Your arrogance and attitude is seriously among the worst I have seen on Thaivisa, and that is saying a lot. There is truly no reason to behave the way in which you do. And I don't hide behind anything. My original post was indeed a joke and I think the vast majority of level headed people would have seen that (especially considering the smile emoji). And none of my responses were personal snipes or smears. You serious ramble in an aggressive and incoherent way. I don't even understand why people like you post on web boards, unless you are just trolling. Good luck working out your anger......

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

yeah, wow....she needs to learn more English to do that. The cop's English was easier to understand. I really couldn't get most of what she was saying.

Believe me dude she's counting on him NOT being able to respond.

The old "bullshit baffles brains" thingie flies high wide and handsome out on the open road.

BTW

I am just too chickenshit to buy a car here.

I use Grab Taxi and when I can I use Uber to impress the girls.

Me and the Mrs picked up "the kid" at Mo Chit in an Uber Black.

What a blast. Even the driver got it. ;-)$

Easy driving in mo chit and Bkk , what are talking about being chickenshit. maybe you need more confidence in yourself , lol

Well maybe (even though you took my tone and my attempt at irony LITERALLY )you're right.

(GAWD if there's one thing I can abide less than a greedy bar worker it's these forum literalists . . . . . . *irony alert*

But I believe it was Alfred Hitchcock, Britain's master of horror and the macabre, who upon being asked what HE feared the most, answered that HIS greatest fear was "entanglement in our legal system"

Now, from what I see on these pages and from what I hear from my driving friends it's not a matter of IF you'll have an accident but WHEN. Since I am partial to medium-better cars and trucks, as well as coming from a jurisdiction where they drive on the, ahem, correct side of the road, I fear an accident and the legal consequences would be inevitable.

I don't want that crap anywhere near me.

I want a private car preferably black and a personal driver.

I AM chickenshit.

Relax lads.

A careful reading of the post suggests that the bib's were more concerned with the exterior presentation aesthetics than any hard core rock and roll.

I suggest that these police are on a beatification drive of sorts.

In future, the reception area and drinks pavilion will offer a more family-oriented restaurant approach in an effort to draw a wider range of clientele.

Just be careful you don't roll up there with the missus while the Miss is preparing her kitty for the evening trade.

yeah, wow....she needs to learn more English to do that. The cop's English was easier to understand. I really couldn't get most of what she was saying.

Believe me dude she's counting on him NOT being able to respond.

The old "bullshit baffles brains" thingie flies high wide and handsome out on the open road.

BTW

I am just too chickenshit to buy a car here.

I use Grab Taxi and when I can I use Uber to impress the girls.

Me and the Mrs picked up "the kid" at Mo Chit in an Uber Black.

What a blast. Even the driver got it. ;-)$

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)

I meant all that stuff, however.

I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

Wallace is a registered democrat and has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism - which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation - and the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism. Wallace has been characterized as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.

There are a number of news programs on Fox that are similar to this, but IMO Fox News Sunday is the best one.

Mediate named him Best Sunday Show Moderator for 2014.

The only Sunday moderator who is reliable interrogator of those in power is Fox's Wallace. As we wrote earlier this year, we admire his ability to "devote 15 minutes to debating the actual policy implications of Obamacare with Ezekiel Emanuel one week while holding tea partiers feet to the fire over self-destructive electoral tactics the next." Slippery politicians and talking-points-slinging pundits beware of Wallace.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-awards-2014-we-pick-the-years-very-best-in-media/#5

Fox started touting Wallace's political affiliation when Combes retired as from his exhaled position as Fox's liberal punching bag. Hell, they had to do something to keep on keeping on as a fair and balanced network.

If Chris Wallace wasn't Will Ferrel's inspiration for Ron Burgundy he should have been.

Oh wait.

I'm being unkind.

Perhaps it was Hannity, yeah, maybe 5natii, or pundit/hottie Anne Coulter, or that horrific suck-up Michelle Malkin, or Bully/billy O'Reilly or hey, I know, speaking of Asian hotties, how 'bout Rupert Murdock's Tony-banger wife, Wendy Deng. She be looking for a job now riiiiight ?

Where is Mike Wallace now that America really Really REALLY needs him ??

What's unusual about it?

Well, you can rollerblade there for one thing.

Hey. Don't knock it.

She used the "very well English" that 99% of Thai girls use to achieve their ends.

And she achieved her end.

Really, think back on it a little.

How many times have you heard one of these fillies just cobble together a non-stop string of idiom, slang and illogical gibberish till they get what they want ?

It matters little to them that they are making little sense.

The threat in the air is that THEY WILL NOT STOP TALKING and thus they will cause their opponent a loss of face.

In this case it worked because she'd managed to bluff the cop into thinking that a Thai woman who spoke English would be able to beat him at his authority game.

I am a Romney fan and it was a tragedy that he was not elected in 2012, but I think that he made the right decision and I am glad that he decided not to run. The democrats had already slimed him so badly with lies and distortions in the last election, that no matter what a good, competent leader he is, I don't think that he could have won.

I just have to laugh in disbelief. Do you suffer from confirmation bias, or did you just not see a single attack ad aimed at Obama?

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

He never had a chance so a wise decision.

What worries me is who will be pulling the strings if Bush ever became President.

I'll tell you who will be pulling the strings.

It'll be the same bunch that has ALWAYS pulled the strings since Kennedy was murdered in Dallas.

The Banks, the Military-Security-Intelligence Complex and the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

They'll ALL be running their jive through a compliant media cartel (owned by six large US corporations)

Ordinary Americans are allowed to fantasize about having some kind of political say in this.

They DON'T.

The problem with polls is that they don't necessarily assess the "likeability" of a candidate. Romney's high ratings are more about his perceived ability to defeat Hillary, not that they liked him. Of course the same can be said about Democrats and Hillary.

Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your response. I have never found Hillary particularly likable - even when I voted for her husband. From what I have seen, she is not a good speaker and does not have a lot of charisma either.

Hilary Clinton is an ill-informed political monster.

Bush'll beat her in 2016 and I will win my $1000 bet.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Bottom line is that no one really likes Romney. I rarely hear anyone say anything good about the guy.

And you look at things "objectively"? What a joke. The latest poll had Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney dead even. Somebody must like him. alt=rolleyes.gif>

That's from a FOX News poll - so you're right, somebody does like Romney.

Think again. Fox News does not conduct its own polls and the respondents are chosen at random. They are not Fox News viewers. They are as accurate and reputable as any other major poll.

The Fox News Poll is directed by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. The poll is conducted via telephone among a nationally representative sample of approximately 900 registered voters. Of the completed interviews, roughly 650 are conducted with respondents on landlines and 250 with respondents on cell phones.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/fox-news-poll-methodology-statement/

If a polling organization doing work for Fox News submits results that don't correspond with the Fox world view they are NOT asked back to do another.

It's like anything else.

Amazing what an International slap round the head and pocket does for motivation.

Names and more details please.

At least this is a start. It would never have happened 3 years ago. So maybe things are changing for the better?

Your are damn naive... .. First I may remind you that the media is totally controlled by the Junta. It is not possible to questions them... and all news to be brocasted is first filtered and approved by the good guys... it is obvious what kind of news is release!!!! The same is happening in Venezuela, a beautiful country ruled by militaries... so they release these kind of news for just 'image". This is a typical behavior!!

However, You cannot hide a lit-candle inside a dark room.... Tough times ahead !!!!

Sure it's controlled by the oligarchs.

Please, just for discussion's sake (of course) identify a jurisdiction anywhere on the planet that does NOT have its own little measures in place to control what people are allowed to think.

From dissident media people not being welcome on the campaign bus or the press conference or not being leaked to, to journo's simply being dragged off, tortured for their sources and executed the information we get is monitored.

There ARE no exceptions to this.

NONE

Human trafficking and de facto slavery will be with us for a long time to come, I'm afraid.

From the hard-core fishing boat slavery to the soft-core work teams in "team jackets" in the boarding areas, the ignorant and the desparate are currency for this most despicable of crimes.

Why the hell should a Thai peasant farm labourer have to pay a commission to ANYBODY to work abroad ?

BTW, incidents of this banal, non-sensational trafficking (for labour) far and away outnumber incidents of traficking for sexual purposes. Way WAY more poor souls are enslaved than are "turned out."

And way WAY more money and lives are lost in the buying and selling of industrial, construction and agricultural slaves than with kids sold into sex bondage.

But it's the sex stuff that makes the papers and the media and keeps everybody's eyes off the ideological elephant in the room, n'est-ce pas ?

Can't be talkin' about 'dat elephant, now can we ;-?

Nooooooooooooooo

I'm getting married next month. Promised 500k doury 4-5 months ago. $ way near 30tbh. Can I negotiate it with her parents? Or douries are exchange rate independent? Well bloody they should be. I'm too scared to calculate it based on today's exchange. Could someone give me the figure please?

Congratulations Sir Charles I've

(Round UP

It's Toy Cowchaw

You'll make a lovely addition to the family.

Amazing Thailand, the baht stays put.

"When China awakens, the world will tremble."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Most of us on this board conduct our day-to-day existences on this fault line.

We are in "Indochine".

Hmmmmm

"Rexall"

Got it.

Never mind.