johnnybangkok

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who elected the US as a global leader? A bastion of morals? 

 

 

 

 

The US elected itself as the global leader.

After WW2, it was the only country to come out on top, emerging as the only real global economic superpower, with a strong industrial base and a large consumer market ready to spend after years of wartime restriction. This continues to this day with a $30 trillion economy, which is some $10 trillion more than China and dwarves all other countries. They have used this power and money to initially keep Russia 'in check' (and lately China), building bases throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and The Middle East. Currently the US has 171,736 active-duty troops deployed across 178 countries. 

To now say 'it's not our responsibility any more' is just pure madness as you can't have it both ways - if you've declared YOURSELF the 'leader of the free world' then you can't all of a sudden declare yourself 'America only' as Trump and his idiot brigade of sycophants are now trying to do. So who fills the gap if Trump gets his way? Well the obvious answer would be China who have for years through their belt and road initiative been trying to garner influence but who now have an even clearer path to world influence and eventual dominance. But because ol' Donny has the attention span of an over-excited spaniel, he cannot fathom world economics never mind the consequences of his actions, which includes killing millions of people throughout the world by gutting US Aid.

Cheerio America. It's been nice having you around for as long as we have, now can you please hurry and move over whilst China takes over. 



 

On 6/30/2025 at 12:59 AM, rikiderorck said:

Hey everyone,
I’m currently researching how realistic it is to get a Non-B visa if you're moving to Thailand. I know it’s mainly for work or business, but I wanna know about what it actually looks like in real life.

From your own experiences guys, If you’re in Thailand on a Non-B visa, what kind of job did you apply for, or what were the circumstances that allowed you to get it? Was it through a company, your own business, teaching, something else?

Like I said just trying to understand the real paths people take to get this visa, beyond just the theory or legal definitions.

A work permit is issued by the company that employs you or you can get one from setting up a company (but you need a lot more such as THB 2 million in fully paid-up capital, VAT registered, and you hire Thai employees). You cannot just 'get' a WP for yourself and most of us working here on WP do so through our companies.

To get the WP, you need an offer letter and employment contract from your employer and you need to apply for a Non-Immigrant B visa BEFORE you arrive in the country on the back of the offer. Once you are in the country, your employer (not you) applies for the WP. 

21 hours ago, Donga said:

In their day, those media were well respected. I was a keen listener, watcher of ABC and subscribed to the Sydney Morning Herald, well into my 40s. That was last century, before the Y2K hysteria, followed by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the "science is settled" mantra, which is an oxymoron in itself. My BS meter started to twitch. Then we had the BLM movement, and anti-Western civilisation permeating what were once well respected media. Been downhill ever since.

You have to be living under a rock not to understand that these once objective media catered more and more to a left wing bias, market and truth become the casualty. You could say the same for Fox News in the US but on the other side. The internet has spurned hundreds of news sites, some more professional than others, but clearly MSM has lost support. They are now not nearly as respected as they once were and the younger folk hardly refer to them at these days. Sad.

I find Al-Monitor the most objective site for Middle East news, and still searching for reliable wider coverage, other than Murdoch, who still provide counter opinions, which people pay for, unlike ABC, BBC, The Guardian. Hence read across the spectrum and search when my BS meter is aroused. Objective stuff can be found, but takes a bit of effort.

What strikes me are two factors:

1. People now of the left persuasion are convinced they are more humane, caring while Conservatives are viewed as capitalist, environmentally blind and inherently evil
2. People of the left often have very strong views, but struggle to engage with the other side about them. They tend to hit back at the source, rather than the content and are fond of cancelling those with whom they disagree with. Sad.

I've only stopped voting for Labor in the last few years, such was my own surety that I was on the right side of righteousness. Now see I was ignorant of the details on so many topics back then, e.g detailed history of Palestine. An idealist, rather than a realist.

Very frustrating that many folk don't comprehend the notion of illegal immigrants. And is telling that old media, hardly mention the term, preferring "migrants" or "refugees", which was grandfather was 100 years ago. What do people think visas are for? 

I appreciate you taking the time to put together a reasoned argument. It's a rarity on this site so it's good to see.

I'm sorry that you feel so jaded about the media these days but I will also say that media bias has been around since the dawn of media so I'm not sure why you think it's getting any worse but I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mention 'Objective stuff can be found, but takes a bit of effort'. I personally still find lots of 'objective media' but I do realise it can sometimes be drowned out by the hysteria of blatantly unbiased media. The areas though I want to pick up on are when you mention the following:-

1. People now of the left persuasion are convinced they are more humane, caring while Conservatives are viewed as capitalist, environmentally blind and inherently evil - this is probably the case as it's objectively true although I would substitute 'conservative' with right-wing as I think 'proper' conservatism has been slowly but surely eroded by right-wing doctrine that is absolutely less humane, less caring, completely focused on capitalism, doesn't give a hoot about the environment and when all added up, is hard to argue is NOT evil. 

2. People of the left often have very strong views, but struggle to engage with the other side about them. They tend to hit back at the source, rather than the content and are fond of cancelling those with whom they disagree with. Sad. - don't agree with this at all. The 'struggle' you talk about is because the far-right (and I will stick to just them) disregard facts and figures in favour of identity politics and blind devotion. They disregard evidence, logic and reason in favour of bias, xenophobia and downright racism to the point they now wear their prejudices like some sort of badge of honour. They feel emboldened to spout their nonsense after they see a bunch of billionaires with an obvious agenda get voted into office by standardising their inherent fear of others that don't look like them with a very obvious 'look over there, not over here' slight of hand. They don't want to engage in any meaningful way and certainly don't want to be hampered by silly facts and figures which continually prove them wrong. They also have a tenuous grasp of history and seem to conveniently forget that we have seen much of what's going on by the far-right before, with disastrous consequences, conveniently forgetting that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Anyway. I appreciate your thoughts.  

13 minutes ago, Donga said:

Oh dear, thanks for the education, Johnny.

So Daily Mail is the polar opposite of BBC, The Guardian, ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Los Angeles Times and all those other tired old media, which cling to their steadily declining base who sleep smugly at night knowing they are clever and compassionate while the others are so cruel and evil.

Go Johnny, only you know what a smart person you truly are.

Isn't it just amazing how all of the papers you quoted (don't know much about The Sydney Morning Herald though but I'm assuming it's of the same ilk) were very recently the bastion of great journalism until Trump and the far-right started with all the 'fake-news' BS. It's like something straight out of Lawrence Britt's, 'Fascism, Anyone?' written in 2003 -  

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Maybe you show learn your history before snidingly remarking on someone's intelligence. But let me guess, we're all just sheeple and you guys are the only one's with your eye's truly open? That about right?

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

So, basically they're economic migrants.  In search of better living conditions. 

 

Because asylum seekers are legally required to apply in the first safe country they land in.

 

Some of them are. Others are not. I don't think I've denied this and in fact said in one of my posts 'No one denying there are 'economic migrants' but those should be assessed and deported asap but with a wait list of 91,000 (the real problem), that's not happening nearly quick enough.'

If this was your big 'gotcha' moment then I'm happy to disappoint.

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.  It's the same with economic migrants.  

 

Just out of curiosity, what horrors in France may those inflatable riders be trying to seek asylum from?

 

I'll let AI answer that for you:- 

Asylum seekers may choose to leave France for the UK due to a combination of factors including the perception of better economic opportunities, family connections, language, and cultural ties, despite France receiving more asylum applications and refugees overall. While some may find conditions in northern France difficult, the UK also faces challenges in managing its asylum system and providing adequate support, with some asylum seekers facing destitution and inadequate living conditions. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Factors influencing the decision to leave France for the UK:

• Economic Opportunities:

The UK is perceived as having a larger "shadow economy" and more opportunities for informal work, even if poorly paid, than France. 

• Family and Community Ties:

Many asylum seekers have family members or strong connections within the UK's large diaspora and ethnic minority communities. 

• Language:

English is more widely spoken in the UK than French, making it a more appealing destination for those who have learned English. 

• Cultural and Historical Factors:

Some asylum seekers may have pre-existing ties to the UK due to historical connections, such as former British colonies. 

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The British were warned by Enoch Powell decades ago what would happen - and they chose to ignore him and instead he was branded a racist and old fashioned.  Now the UK are swimming in that failure and are in very serious trouble with no rope or a life raft in sight.  There is only one solution and it is clear and obvious - do what they do in USA (now) and China and Russia and Hungary and Argentina (now) and Japan and Korea etc etc - stop immigration to only what the country really needs, and actively deport all illegal migrants.  Woke liberal left-wing politicians know they will vote for them if they are given voting rights - and that is the only reason they support them coming - if they all voted right wing they would have been stopped decades ago.    

Powell made THAT speech in 1968 so 57 years later his 'prophecy' still hasn't come true and I seriously doubt it ever will.  And whilst we are on the subject of predictable nonsense, you assert that it's 'voting rights - and that is the only reason they support them coming' as being the major reason this is happening (nonsense of course) so would you consider the Tories to be 'woke liberal left-wing politicians' as out of those 57 years , the Tories have been in power for 36 of them. This includes 14 years up to the end of 2024.

So are the Tories now 'woke liberal left-wing politicians?'

  

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

You mean those military age males on the inflatables?  If they're seeking asylum, why aren't they taking their families out of danger, too? 

 

If they're just economic migrants, it makes perfect sense.

 

 

You have nothing other than anecdotal observations and your ill-informed right-wing bias to try and 'summarise' a VERY complex matter.

Often asylum seekers send the husband first as it costs less, he is more able to make the journey and has less chance of being raped and/or human trafficked. Once he is granted asylum, he can then apply for a family reunion visa which is for partners and children of those granted protection.  The initial granting of asylum is what the investigations are basically about and the family reunion visa requires another investigation.

No one denying there are 'economic migrants' but those should be assessed and deported asap but with a wait list of 91,000 (the real problem), that's not happening nearly quick enough.

And just for your own information as you seem to be completely ill-informed on this subject, in 2024, 40,000 asylum seekers (slightly more than a third) arrived in the UK on a valid visa before then claiming asylum. About the same number arrived via small boats and the rest came through applying in advance or through safe and legal routes for resettlement, such as the Afghan resettlement program (which resettled 7,800 refugees in 2024) 

1 minute ago, madone said:

 

But who are these DECENT Brits, the aging population of xenophobes, (not so) closeted bigots, and pro-Brexitiers, or the burgeoning, trout-faced influencer class?

There are 54 million adults in the UK. I still reckon (but it's anecdotal) there are far more decent people than there are 'xenophobes, closeted bigots, and pro-Brexitiers.' Especially now that Brexit has been show to be the complete disaster we all told them it would be and DIDN'T do a single thing to stop the boats and the illegal immigrants from OUTSIDE the EU.

Lot of buyer remorse amongst many of them.

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's the way immigration used to work.  But that's from before they could bypass any legal formalities and just hop on an inflatable.

 

How can they 'bypass any legal formalities'? Are you conflating asylum seekers with illegal immigrants? 

19 minutes ago, madone said:

 

I was taking the piss, but i do not share your faith in Britain and more than i beleive in the US.

 

Those uneducated idiots are the most easily turned to violence.

 

Take a look around you, peace is fragile right now -- it's just too easy to manipulate folks when every moment of their lives is media-saturated. 

 

Well that's certainly a better response than your first one.

I don't disagree that 'Those uneducated idiots are the most easily turned to violence', manipulated by far-right dog whistles and click-bait nonsense such as this article, but I do have faith that most DECENT Brits can see through a lot of this nonsense and any violence will be isolated and quickly dealt with. It's the oldest trick in the book though, perpetuated by idiot politicians like Farage - your problems aren't because of those in power - it's because of that brown guy down the road who although just trying to do the same as you and look after himself and his family is somehow the reason there's not enough council houses or why the NHS is struggling.

Right-wing, sensationalist and VERY obvious nonsense.  

NB - for any of our American or Australian or other nationalities who don't know what the Daily Mail is (where this 'article' comes from) it is rated 'biased right' with 'a sensationalist, tabloid bent, often choosing to highlight individual stories that elicit shock or heightened emotions.'  https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-mail

2 minutes ago, madone said:

race wars are coming, 

Don't be such a drama queen. This is Britain after all. Apart from a few uneducated idiots, the VAST majority of the UK understands the problem and although getting impatient for a solution, will not be resorting to any 'race wars' any time soon. 

50 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

UK residents have to join a queue and wait fir something to become available, asylum seekers will be housed quicker as government pays full price for accomodation 356 days including food.

So essentially asylum seekers get better treatment

Wrong. See my post above.

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

 

TBH there are two separate issues at play- freedom and abortion.  We could argue abortion until Mars is colonized and still disagree. It is a moral issue rather than religious or political to me, but the three often mix. Personally, I think it is horrifying bacause it snuffs out a life. A healthy fetus, left alone, will shortly become a healthy baby, and killing it for financial or social reasons disgusts me.  Especially when the option of adoption exists. Then it is merely convenience. 

 

The other issue is freedom. Freedom of conscience and expression.  I agree that blocking the way into any medical facility (abortion or otherwise) is a foul thing to do and should be illegal. But merely speaking, or even standing silently and not blocking access? This should not be an issue.  IMHO when there is a conflict between being offended and freedom, freedom always wins. There is no "harm" involved.

You have the right to hold whatever beliefs you have and if you are anti-abortion, then fine. I obviosly don't agree but I acknowledge it's your belief but unfortunately for you the law isn't on your side and women have the right to abort up to 24 weeks regardless of whether it's 'for financial or social reasons'. 

The law is also VERY clear about protesting abortions and doesn't allow ANY protests within 200m of an abortion clinic. It is irrelevant if the protestor is loud, jumping up and down, waving a red flag or in this case silently praying - proximity is the problem and this women clearly broke the law. Saying that, she did get her charges dropped and received a civil claim payment (more I reckon because it was becoming too political for all the hassle) and I'm not sure if you know but this all happened in November 2022! So Trump jumping on this bandwagon under a 'freedom of speach' BS now is typical Trump, playing up to his evangelical buddies and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Don't worry that it was all settled out of court and both parties understood they perhaps went a little bit too far but most importantly, it happened in Britain and the last time I checked, thankfully he's not British. He does think he's the King of the world of course but he's definately not British. And I think we all know how he would react if Starmer sent officials over to America to meet with pro-abortion groups. He'd go even more banana's than he currently is. 

What's the bet that if this isn't all just his usual BS (highly likely) then it's either exactly the same or even worse than the Obama led Iranian Nuclear Deal agreed in 2016 that Trump then promptly cancelled in 2018?

His habit of creating a problem and then solving the problem HE created is truly something to behold.  

For all you Trump fans - here's an actual website tracking his golfing, backed up by video evidence https://trumpgolftrack.com/

Total days in office -127       total number of days playing golf - 24     % of time spent golfing - 18.9%

That's 1.33 games of golf per week and when you consider he's been overseas etc, that's more likely twice per week when he can. 

I know retired people who play less than that. 

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Obviously.

 

And the simple fact that so many people have moral qualms about it who are also in favour of it makes it obvious. It is NOT just another medical procedure, and even the most pro-abortion people know that in their hearts. That is why they try to hide behind euphemisms and political doublespeak- the straight facts are horrifying. 

I'm not entirely sure why you keep banging this drum. No one is saying it's just another medical procedure - of course it's different - it's different emotionally and psychologically but what it shouldn't be seen as is so different as to be dictated by religion and/or politics. I'm not also sure what you are eluding to when you talk about 'the straight facts are horrifying'. In the UK, you can abort anytime up to 24 weeks and it's very safe. After this it is agreed by medical professionals a fetus is considered 'viable'. The definition of viable is generally considered the point when a fetus has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. There are exceptions of course, primarily when the woman's life is at risk or if the child would be born with a severe disability, all of which is pretty sensible, scientific stuff and not particularly 'horrifying'.

What most pro-abortion people (myself included) 'know in our hearts' is this is not a religious matter and it's certainly not a political matter. We also know the law allows people to voice their anti-abortion stance (freedom of speech and all that) but this right shouldn't include harassing women that are choosing abortion (also their right). The 200m law is therefore sensible and like all other laws, if you break it, expect to face consequences.

And again, it is no business of any other country, especially overly religious America and certainly not Trump trying to pander to his white evangelicals to gain political points.

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

She WAS praying in secret. Nobody knew until the police bothered her. Was she carrying a sign saying, "I am praying SILENTLY!"? 

Within 200m of the clinic. What part of this are you not getting?

Go pray wherever you want with your anti-abortion views. Just make sure it's over 200m from an abortion clinic.

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

WHy should that matter, if it is just a medical procedure like any other? This should not upset the woman who is getting the abortion at all, any more than if there were a protest outside her dentist's office about people getting root canal procedures. 

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

I'm doubting that there are too many women left with major emotional and psychological distress after a root canal. An abortion is not an easy thing for the VAST majority of women and what they definately don't need is some religous nutter screaming in their face that they are murdering a child and 'sinning before God'.

The law is there for a reason and like all laws, if you break it then you face the consequences. And more importantly, UK law has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

A fascist dictator taking another country to task over their banning free speech? Are we sure this freedom fighter is really a fascist dictator?

Yeah we are absolutely certain. He shows us this on a daily basis.

And isn't it slightly convenient that the 'causes' he seems to choose are often aligned with pampering to his religous backers and/or right-wing politics?

And whilst we are it, this bastion of free speach is doing his utmost to ban speach that HE doesn't like (supporting the Palestinians for example) by putting illegal pressure on the likes of Harvard and other educational institutions. Freedom fighter my backside.  

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Why is all this necessary? I mean, abortion is just another medical procedure after all.... same as getting a hangnail removed or lancing a boil...

Yeah because religous zealots often picket chiropodists and proctologists, shouting, screeming and antagonising anyone who enters. 

Now where's that eye-roll emoji?