.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
johnnybangkok
-
Posts
2,891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by johnnybangkok
-
-
1 minute ago, yogi100 said:
I did not write 'murders'.
I wrote 'fatal stabbings'.
Bear in mind it's very difficult to get guns in London, police are not routinely armed and there is no death penalty in the UK.
Just imagine what they could achieve if they could lay their hands on guns!
There are no stats for 'fatal stabbings' in New York, Chicago and/or Detroit so again your statement is just nonsense. These cities don't discriminate by weapon, only by outcome and to be honest, most of these American murderers would laugh at you if you came at them with a knife (never bring a knife to a gun fight and all that). The murder rate (the outcome of these fatal stabbings) is still vastly higher in any of these cities compared to London so your fear mongering is, yet again proven wrong.
Sorry I can't help you in your echo chamber.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 hours ago, yogi100 said:It shows the depths to which Britain has plummeted.
A level at which a US president is allowed to be mocked by a Muslim mayor of a city which used to be one of the greatest in the world and which is now the crime capital of Europe and one that has more fatal stabbing incidents than New York, Chicago and Detroit combined.
And it shows the quality of a weak, pathetic government who can't even get us out of the EU along with a totally ineffective police force that allow it if not actively encourage it to happen.
These left wing creeps do not speak for any Britons I know. Many of us wish we had a leader just like Trump and we'd welcome him to our country if only the liberal MSM such as the BBC gave us half a chance.
That excuse for a mayor along with the creeps who support him are a major embarrassment to all decent British people.
He only got elected because internationalist liberal politicians have allowed the native population of London to be ethnically cleansed and replaced by third worlders who have come to expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by socialist Labour councils who now run the vast majority of London's boroughs.
Truth be known the Home Secretary who is also a Muslim and the most powerful politician in the country after the Prime Minister probably supports this so called mayor lock, stock and barrel.
If I was Trump I would not even consider visiting London. It's bad enough having to live there.
What absolute nonsense. If you are going to argue anything to support your Islamophobia then at least get your facts straight.
Although violent crime in London (as a percentage of the population ) was at it's highest for a decade in 2018, it had been steadily falling from it's peak in the 80's to an all time low in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London). You also don't have more murders in London than New York, Chicago and Detroit combined; this has been debunked as fake news perpetuated by the likes of Katie Hopkins and other erstwhile right wing nutters. I won't even use Chicago and Detroit (don't need them) but for a very small time period (two months) in 2018 murders in London outpaced New York but this was only for 2 months in 2018. In the whole of 2017 there were 116 murders in London which was fewer than half New York’s total of 290. In 2016 there were 334 murders in New York compared to 102 in London. In 2015 New York had 352 murders compared to London's 109. The situation for January to March 2019 shows an even starker difference with New York having 53 murders against London's 16. I could go on (and will again emphasise I haven't even had to use Chicago's and Detroit's figures) but I think you get the point (by the way a 5 minute Google search gets you all these stats, but then that would not be adding to your echo chamber would it).
Also - I lived in London for 25 years, in places such as Croydon, East Ham, Brixton, and Whitechapel (I still have a flat there) so don't try and tell me I 'don't know what I'm talking about' when it comes to London and it's mayor. You're just trying desperately to prove what can clearly be seen as right wing views with ill thought out rhetoric and cherry picked news.
And if by 'liberal' you mean someone who looks ahead rather than behind, someone who cares about the welfare of others and is not just all about themselves, someone who understands that fanatics don't represent a race or a religion and someone who believes in equality (sexual, economic, LGBT) and someone who doesn't blame everyone else for their own self inflicted problems, then I'm proud to call myself a liberal.
-
3
-
1
-
2 hours ago, yogi100 said:
What would you have thought had a similar inflatable effigy of the King of Saudi Arabia or the Chinese leader been flown over London when they visited.
You know it's OK cos there will be no comebacks where Trump is concerned that's why. If there were that would suit Khan down to the ground but he'd be OK on his 150,000 quid a year salary and that's without his wonderful pension and other perks that come the way of any mayor of London.
You can't guarantee that that would be the same with the Chinese and the Saudis.
He can afford to be the ignorant, rude, insulting pig that he is but those of us who have to produce wealth don't have that luxury.
We don’t discriminate against ANY dictator
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-34580813/xi-jinping-visit-pomp-and-protests-greet-china-s-president
and £150k to run London? Bargain.
-
15 minutes ago, yogi100 said:
It's the same the whole world over. Very few UK politicians have ever been in the forces let alone seen active service. After the lessons of the Great War few sons of the privileged elite were placed in danger if it could possibly be avoided.
The overwhelming majority of casualties are always suffered by men from working class backgrounds. That's why they're referred to as Cannon Fodder.
Our Home Secretary and the Mayor of London were never in the forces either. Neither was Theresa May's husband.
I would never criticise anyone for not going into the armed forces voluntarily but you have to seriously question the character of anyone that dodged the draft through duplicitous and morally abhorrent methods.
Especially if they were then running to be the commander and chief of said armed forces.
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:What a bunch of losers. He knows what they think of him and I doubt he cares a jot. None of them can vote against him.
What they should be protesting, along the lines of the yellow vests, is the appalling fiasco that is the present British government.
However, I guess Trump owns their brains
.
Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a sniveling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a <deleted> was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."
-
15
-
1
-
7
-
57 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:
You missed a trick. What about Tommy Robinson?
I'll leave it to you to add a suitable description. Let me guess: something along these lines. . .
. . . "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe".
Right now (as much to his surprise as ours, I would imagine) the "lout from Luton" - to quote another of the mass media's favourite epithets - is pulling big crowds of supporters on the campaign trail as he seeks to become an MEP for the country of which he is allegedly the No. 1 enemy!
In the process, he has been not only verbally assaulted and spat at, but punched and had milkshakes thrown into his face, while the police have turned a deaf ear to his protests. Can you imagine this kind of inertia being shown if, say, Anna Soubrey who called for protection from a man who simply accused her of being a fascist, had been on the receiving end of such clearly unlawful abuse?
Robinson is perceived by the Establishment and its tame mass media as such a threat to the peace and stability of the country in which he was raised by Irish immigrant parents that the mere mention of his name on Facebook is all it takes to get your account airbrushed.
He has also been barred from Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. YouTube has so far resisted pressure to follow suit, but has restricted his access. That kind of notoriety can only end up making a man famous (Well, he did have more than a million followers on Facebook, which I would imagine is a few more than Theresa May could muster, even before the Brexit debacle).
We need to learn the lessons of history. The arbitrary banning of free speech (other than that which is proscribed by law), simply plays into the hands of those who seek ever greater control over our individual lives. Clamping an ever tighter lid on civil, or even uncivil discourse, does nothing to solve important issues which need to be freely debated and all too often leads to a violent reaction.
Nobody is immune when corporate giants like Google and Facebook, with the world hanging on their every word, have a gag in their hands.
Today, it is the conservative and right wing under attack, to the obvious delight of the left (there really is no centre any more). But, as a look back at the repressive gestation of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, it's just a matter of time. . .
Remember Martin Niemoller's words:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
You almost got there and nearly put forward a decent enough example of the 'arbitrary banning of free speech' but they are not being banned because they put forward controversial viewpoints (as there are still plenty of others on FB who still do this) but rather they 'promote or engage in violence and hate and spread misinformation' which has been in Facebook terms of service from the beginning.
FB, Twitter, Instagram and the likes are commercial businesses and as such can ban whoever they so wish from THEIR platform as much as any business can pick and choose their customers (within the law). My post was in reply to another poster attempts to virtue signal these people as paragons of upstanding right-wing values when in reality they are two bit conspiracy theorists, racists, misogynists, Islamophobes and on occasions have incited their 'followers' to violence. This by any decent societies standards should be unacceptable and certainly shouldn't be given the size of platform that the likes of FB, Istagram etc offer.
And I didn't mention Tommy Robinson as we are talking about those banned in America but for you to use him as some sort of bastion of free speech grossly diminishes what his 'free speech is really all about.
In your own words, Tommy Robinson . . . "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe" (which is all true thank you) got banned from Facebook and I quote 'for opinions that amount to hate speech that in turn may intimidate certain groups in society and for posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims.'
No one is stopping free speech until that 'free speech' turns into 'hate speech' which could (and often does) have serious consequences for those it is aimed at. Tommy Robinson has done this on many, many occasions and is now suffering the consequences of his actions. I think that's perfectly ok.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Chivas said:
So taking an average in that business tends to be around 4 times more than economy (so in the case of Brits say £500 as opposed to £2000) you'd spend an additional £1500 because its a "quicker" getaway at the landing end ??...
I wouldnt spend £50 for that which is probably why I've clocked up 169 landings at BKK from the UK because I wont throw cash away needlessly. As regards bags mine are tagged priority anyway from Frequent flyer status so come off always in first batch anyway. £1500 lol that would keep me happy for a month in the sun
Obviously it's not just that.
There is the small matter of a 14 hour flight either crammed into a very small seat or laid out flat and able to sleep for much of the time. You also get better meals (served when you want them), constant drinks, priority boarding as well as the pre-flight and post-flight immigration benefits.
The actual flight is why you pay extra with the other stuff just a nice bonus.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:Never mind being broken up. Facebook and Twitter must be outright banned for election meddling. Banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever, in an age where these social media sites have such importance in an election campaign is unforgivable. Zuckerberg and Dorsey, they had it all, but have jeopardized their businesses through their intolerant liberalism/left wing fascism - in an age where it is not regarded as being cute any more.
Luckily Trump is on the case, he will be concerned about this heading into the 2020 campaign.
So let's break down your 'banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever' statement.
Banned where:-
Alex Jones - Founder of Infowars and notorious conspiracy theory nutter who is currently being sued by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre for his horrendous assertion that the massacre was in fact completely staged.
Paul Nehlen - a self-proclaimed white supremacist holding alt-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic views and whose favourite slogan is "It's OK to be white."
Laura Loomer - a well known far-right conspiracy theorist who thinks there should be no immigration to the US and who has falsely insinuated that school shootings in Santa Fe; Texas; and Parkland, Florida; were staged, and that the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS.
Paul Joseph Watson - Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website Infowars he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati.
Milo Yiannopoulos - banned from Twitter for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others", referring to a racist harassment campaign against African-American actress Leslie Jones, he also said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys as well. In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart.
Louis Farrakhan - Leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) which is classified as a hate group and black separatist organization. As the leader of NOI, Farrakhan has preached the organization's theology that blacks are superior to whites. He has said whites were created 6,600 years ago as a "race of devils" by an evil scientist named Yakub. At an event in Milwaukee in August 2015, Farrakhan said: "White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it’
We can see your own extremism when you describe these people as 'popular conservatives' but I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and argue these people were banned for 'no reason whatsoever'. There's plenty of reason to ban these hateful extremists and long may it continue.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
44 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:
Trump again raids the bottom of the barrel, for a pick. He has made a career and now has made a presidency, out of picking low quality, unqualified candidates. No defense secretary should ever get the job without a military background. Just like no candidate should ever qualify for president without having served in the armed forces. They have no perspective. They know nothing about sending men and women into harms way. They are all just another Cheney. An ignorant fool, hellbent on expressing power.
Granted, a high quality candidate would not want to work for Trump. Who would want him as a boss? Best to work for someone you can respect. But, still? He could not do better than this? Is this how he expresses his so called "patriotism?"
Couldn't agree more and I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mention '... high quality candidate would not want to work for Trump', as I think this is what is happening. The toxic 'agree with me or you're out' mentality of Trump (as well as truly onerous policy choices) does not lend itself to attracting top quality applicants and in turn has ensured that Trump has the record for highest White House Staff turnover (including the cabinet), in history https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/all-the-major-firings-and-resignations-in-trump-administration.html
I suppose no one should be surprised when the guys catch phrase was 'You're fired' but I don't think even his most ardent fans thought it would be happening quite as often as it has.
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:Can you give me some examples of Obama's "Great Society" that the Republicans thwarted? 40 years earlier he'd have been running on the Republican ticket with his "platform", whatever that was..Remember when "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"? He ran interference for Wall St. to the detriment of the American popukace. None of them went to jail. Democratic coffers filled, America noticed, and we now have the current a-hole.
As Bill Bellichek likes to say "Do Your Job". That's a winning strategy.
Democratic Stimulus Package - Blocked by Republicans
Tax on companies that ship jobs overseas - Blocked by Republicans
Political ads disclosure Bill - Blocked by Republicans
The Small Business jobs Act - Blocked by Republicans
The Dream Act - Blocked by Republicans
Repeal of Don't Ask, don't tell - Blocked by Republicans
Anti Rape Amendment - Blocked by Republicans
Benefits for Homeless Veterans - Blocked by Republicans
Health Care for 9/11 first responders - Blocked by Republicans
The Jobs Bill - Blocked by Republicans
Wall Street Reform - Blocked by Republicans
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act - Blocked by Republicans
Oil Spill Liability - Blocked by Republicans
Immigration Reform - Blocked by Republicans
Unemployment Extension Bill HR4213 - Blocked by Republicans
Fair Pay Act - Blocked by Republicans
The list goes on to over 500 blocks of legislation and of course the famous non-approval of a Supreme Court judge (Twice) but I think you get the idea.
This is a good article about how it all came about https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498
-
2
-
1
-
7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:
That is an extremely charitable take on history. The fact is Obama did exactly as he was elected to do, which was virtually nothing. An, intelligent, likable and charismatic fellow who didn't have a single idea in his entire tenure that advanced the interests of the average American citizen. He reinded me of Robert Redford's character in "The Candidate". Not an ounce of "greatness" there. I'm not sure that there are any "great", "bold", deliberate agents of change anymore. Trump's an agent of change, and in the end it will probably turn ot alright, but that may be decades away and after we bounce off the bottom. I'd much rather it didn't happen this way.
And this is a very biased view of history.
'who didn't have a single idea in his entire tenure that advanced the interests of the average American citizen.' What you actually mean was 'who had lots of great ideas but was hampered and stopped at every term by a hugely hostile Republican party.
Mitch McConnell is famously quoted as saying the top priority for Republicans was to make Obama a one term president; Newt Gingrich openly admitted that it was GOP policy to block Obama's policies 'at every opportunity', forcing Obama to revert to executive powers to get anything done. Jesus, Republicans wouldn't even discuss Obama's supreme court nomination Merrick Garland, with McConnell again famously saying "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'
Any ineffectiveness coming from Obama was certainly not down to a lack of ideas but more a concerted effort by the Republican Party to stop anything this man did, regardless of whether it was good for the American people or not. That's what makes it all so disgusting.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:
I agree about cleaning up the planet, but that's not what they want to do. I doubt they even know what can be done or not done. If the solution was to ban private motor cars in cities and ban tourist air travel ( 2 good solutions ) they'd be screaming about their rights to pollute the air and the land with engine emissions.
Alarmist nonsense. The science is there already for so many meaningful advancements (electric cars, hydrogen fueled aircraft, biodegradable plastics etc) if only governments would stop sucking off the teet of fossil fuels and politicians started looking after the interests of their constituents rather than themselves. Nuclear power is so much safer than it used to be (ask France) and if we all poured as much money into science as we do into fracking, oil exploration and the likes, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We have the means and the ability to solve this crisis if we only started thinking “give me solutions rather than problems. “
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:You beat me to it.
He was decidedly unimpressive as VP, so the only reason I can see for him being front runner is lack of anyone better.
I'm not surprised though. The position of president is now a poisoned chalice with all the personal attacks against the candidate and their family, friends and associates. Anyone running knows that they are going to get the same as Trump does. I'm sure good potential candidates are told by their families to shut up and forgedaboudit.
A 'poisoned chalice'? Perhaps. But anyone running can easily avoid this by not sleeping with porn stars, not sexually harassing scores of pageant girls, not 'grabbing women by the pussy', not dodging the draft, not lying about their academic achievements, not lying about their wealth, releasing their tax statements, not pretending to be 'self-made' when it was all daddies tax dodging money, not conning people into joining your dodgy university, not lying about winning the popular vote, putting their business interests into a blind trust like every other president before them, not sending a constant stream of offensive tweets to anybody and everybody, not lying on a daily basis (to the tune of over 10,000 false or misleading claims), not disrespecting dead people (i.e McCain), not throwing your own intelligence community under the bus, not siding with your enemies, not sucking up to dictators, not separating children from their mothers, not appointing people who are suing an agency to head up the self same agency, not promising to 'drain the swamp' when doing exactly the opposite, not calling white supremacists 'fine people', not getting your 'facts' from InfoWars and Fox News, not constantly attacking the free press as 'fake news' etc, etc.
No one is going to get 'the same as Trump does' as literally no one on the planet has as many scandals as this man does.
-
3
-
1
-
3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:
Do you know how ridiculous your post reads?
Maybe re-read it.
What’s really ridiculous is people like yourself chastising an educated youth for trying to protect the planet. Even if they’re wrong (they’re not of course), what harm can it possibly do to clean up the plastics in our oceans, reduce our carbon footprint and generally treat the planet much better than your generation ever did.
Theres no down side to a cleaner planet unless of course you happen to be an oil Barron, a bought for politician or just an argumentative old git.
-
'Climate change...it's a hoax!'
'Kids today with their new fangled iphones'
'The yooth just don't know how lucky they are"
"Back in my day............"
Bahh Humbug.
P.S. As well as being a cliche upon a cliche, I find most of you are the same conspiracy theory nutters that are always out supporting Trump. Coincidence? I think not.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:
When you consider it used to be called global warming, which was then thoroughly debunked so they changed it to be the vague "climate change" you know it's just a hoax. Al Gore's ice caps that would melt in 5-7 years are still there just the same 10 years later. Polar bears that would go extinct are actually increasing in numbers!
Even if we all went back to a stone age existence in the western world to virtue signal, it is unlikely the Chinese and Indians would do the same. But I can see some wisdom is banning under 21s from using any personal technology such as phones and the internet. They should be outside running in meadows and catching butterflys. Living in other words. Like we used to do when we were kids. But try and take away their iphone or turn off the tv and they have a tantrum.
"Outside running in meadows and catching butterflys (sic)'?
Is Little House on the Prairie your biography?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Pilotman said:
last time I looked, 2 weeks ago, Economy Return on Eva £700, Business Class £2,200. Not really twice.
As I said, depending on when you fly. I've paid twice as much; sometimes I've paid 3 times as much. It's all about peak/off-peak.
-
6 minutes ago, wgdanson said:
And how much more does business cost compared to economy?
Flying to Heathrow, EVA is approx. twice the price of economy (depending on when you fly) whilst Thai can be as much as 3 times.
Worth every penny in my opinion to be able to stretch out and have a good sleep, order food when you want it and drink whatever you want. Plus fast-track at the other end.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Pilotman said:Up to you mate, it's a personal choice. I choose to use money to make my life simpler and less stressful. It's hardly a Kings ransom.
I agree. I used this service and thought it was excellent.
Had a very polite young man waiting for me at the arrival gate. He then took me through Fast-track and we waited for my bags. Went straight through customs to an awaiting limo (I think it was a Camry) and off home. Very efficient and for me to save all that time, great value.
-
3
-
On 5/1/2019 at 9:04 AM, malagateddy said:
As a Glasgow man..I dislike the orange order, the order if the hibernians etc etc.
It is disgraceful that in Glasgow and surrounding areas..local authorities persist with imo..the religious apartheid sectarian educational system.
Sadly playing that card gets them votes.
Now back to the topic..never been to Egypt so honestly do not know much about the country it's politics..quality of life of the average Egyptian.
Cheers
Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
In other words:-
'I don't know anything about Egypt. Don't know anything about their politics or their people. Don't know much about anything this thread is about but I'll be damned if that won't stop me from throwing my tuppency worth in along with a little bit of Islamophobia'.
Typical Thai TV contributor.
-
1
-
-
On 4/27/2019 at 7:21 PM, Thainesss said:
I could say the same to you. Nowhere, in any of my posts, have I even remotely done this:
In fact my very first post (which if you would have read instead of having a meltdown) you would have seen this, which was my very first sentence:
My concern is late term and full term abortion, infanticide, and the discussions going on about the same within the left. Have you seen the Kathy Tran bill? Thats quite the opposite of what all of you are telling me.
No, there aren't.
https://www.heritage.org/life/report/the-necessity-the-born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-act
You actually said in your last post before this 'To adjust the law to make it a criminal act punishable by up to 5 years for doctors, and to address 'passive' abortion, allowing the baby to 'eventually pass' .....................................'
You are advocating punishing doctors for helping women in a horrendous situation and for forcing mothers to give birth to a child that will soon die out of the womb. This idea that 'after birth, the baby is wrapped in a blanket and mother, doctor 'decide whether to execute the baby' (actually said by Trump at a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday), is a horrific lie and would immediately fall under infanticide laws, which are very much in existence already. As usual, people like yourself and other Trump supporters are trying desperately to 'frame' a situation to fit your narrative when if a situation like this did occur (as in the case with Kermit Goswell who performed late term abortions past the 24 week limit and who was convicted of first degree murder) the current laws allow for prosecution and appropriate sentencing.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 minutes ago, Thainesss said:To adjust the law to make it a criminal act punishable by up to 5 years for doctors, and to address 'passive' abortion, allowing the baby to 'eventually pass' as noted from the Gosnell case, to mandate medical care, and require reporting of such actions if known.
Nothing unreasonable at all, just further specifying the details.
And the dems refuse it. Seems to be if they wanted to be seen as not supporting infanticide, they could easily pass it. And don't forget this all came about because of Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam comments. Both Democrats.
Geezus, what part of all this don't you get?
There are already laws in place to cover any and all of the situations you seem very invested in (another case of a man dictating a woman's rights) but you are advocating new laws that will make it a criminal offence for doctors to act in the best interest of the mother in the VERY RARE cases where a late term abortion is medically necessary to save the mothers life. 89% of all abortions occur within the first 13 weeks, 8% 14-20 weeks and only 1.3% after 21 weeks (https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/). In the vast majority of third trimester abortions (unfortunately there are few verifiable stats due to the controversy of it all) there is severe health dangers for the mother or the fetus. Do you honestly think that individuals who have committed their whole lives to the well being of others, are in some way going around killing perfectly healthy and physically viable kids? You are (as usual) falling for anti-abortion propaganda, perpetuated by a President who is willfully ill-informed but who is clever enough to turn a non-issue into a rallying call for his demented evangelical support.
-
1
-
2
-
19 hours ago, Trouble said:
I have no problem with abortion per the Roe V. Wade ruling. I am starting to question whether the advocacy of "very" late term abortion or after birth infanticide is something that should be taking place. Late term is generally considered about 24 weeks (6 months). I'm not really clear on what people on the left are advocating at this point. Lots of confusion over this. If a women can't make up her mind in 24 weeks they have a serious problem. However, I am not so sure that the taxpayers should be funding anything but birth control. I'm all for government funded birth control but think it is a bit odd to see the taxpayers being forced to fund abortion which may be against their beliefs. Personally I think Planned Parenthood is a racket taking millions from the government and in business basically to make those that run it quite wealthy. Like so many contracted "social services" that local, state, and federal government fund, little money is spent on the services and lots of money spent on those that run the organizations. It is like everything else the government involves itself in, it is never well run and never goes as intended.
What absolute nonsense. People who have only one goal in life which is to help woman who are shunned by a religious dominated political stance (whatever happened to division of church and state) are now money grabbing leaches only in it to get wealthy. Please post one corroborated paper that backs up your statement. Otherwise please try and educate yourself to the reality of what is going on in the US with Trump (obviously a bastion of Christian values) purely trying to keep an evangelical base on side.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Thainesss said:
All of this is flat out false. Practically nobody debates weather or not abortion should be an option, at any time during pregnancy, if the mother or child's life is in danger. This is a lie and deflection from the pro-abortion left.
There is open and frankly disgusting discussion AND policy for late term abortion (outside of a mothers child's physical health) based solely on the mothers 'decision' all the way up to the moment of birth, and if the child survives the abortion? They can have another go at killing it.
So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go a killing it?
Unsubstantiated nonsense. Please educate yourself before you spew your ill informed nonsense on here. I know you’re not big on facts but all of this is very easy to find with a simple google search. Here I’ll start you off.
-
1
-
.
Snarling orange 'Trump baby' blimp to mock U.S. president in Britain, protesters say
in World News
Posted
Well when you consider the average house price in Tulse Hill is nearly GBP 600k (https://www.foxtons.co.uk/living-in/tulse-hill/) I think you can safely say it still remains 'up-market'.
And if kids throwing stones at your grandfather is your best example of 'wouldn't happen in my day' and ''things have certainly got a lot worst' thinking then the bar is truly set low.