.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
- Popular Post
johnnybangkok
-
Posts
2,891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by johnnybangkok
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I think most of the people on this thread have given you a the best advice which is to seek professional help asap but I will add another point which is to not give up on him.
A close friend of mine suffered from depression and over many, many years he lied, cheated and generally buggered up his life to the point where most of his friends and family had given up on him. A couple of us stuck with him though until it got so bad that even we thought a bit of 'tough love' might do the trick; so we cut all communications with him 'for his own good'.
Two weeks later he killed himself.
I live with that awful decision every day and the guilt is unbearable at times. If I could go back and change that decision I would in a heartbeat, but I can't and it's done now.
You sound like a really nice guy and you've already done so much for him and I know this sounds unfair considering he's not even a really close friend of yours but he cannot be left to his own devises. Get in contact with the family and try and get him home (this sounds to me like the best plan) or if that fails get him to a proper psychiatrist who can judge whether he really is a threat to himself. He can then judge whether he needs to be sectioned for his own good (I'm really not sure you would have the authority for this as it's usually only family that can do this but it's worth a shot) or maybe he will refer him to the US embassy. All of this would be made a lot easier if he was back home.
I'm sorry you have to take on this burden but I can assure you whatever guilt you may feel about walking away from the situation is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the guilt you will feel if it all goes really badly.
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
48 minutes ago, usviphotography said:It is far more countries than Germany. France, Poland, Austria and many others have similar laws. And yes, such laws effectively do mean any academic discussion or research of the Holocaust is pretty much forbidden since any true critical analysis and objective discussion would almost certainly run afoul of the law and expose the student or teacher to accusations of being a "denier" of whatever the official state sponsored narrative about the Holocaust is in that particular jurisdiction.
I thought before you were just misinformed. Now I’m beginning to think you have an agenda.
Research into the holocaust isn’t banned but as already mentioned, research that concludes it was some sort of hoax understandably is. What is this “state sponsored narrative “ that isn’t the actual truth?
Theres only one fact that is needed; the Nazis committed terrible atrocities on the Jews (amongst many others) resulting in 6 million deaths.
What “critical a analysis” or “objective discussion” is going to say differently?
-
2
-
1
-
4 hours ago, MalandLee said:
It should NEVER be buried under a blanket of political correctness - I believe it is right to be taught in schools. We as human beings must NEVER allow this to happen again.
Denial only exists among those who continue to believe the twisted Nazi rhetoric OR it would seem Islamist's (e.g.. Iranian dictatorship) with an agenda
Not sure what your point is here. Certainly in the West It isnt “buried under a blanket of political correctness “. It is taught in schools (usually under Modern History - I studied MH for 4 years) and theres very little denial other than crazy right wingers.
Im sure it probably isnt taught in Iran but that can’t exactly be held up as a world standard or indeed a standard for Islam.
There is ignorance of it for sure but there’s no need such alarmist rhetoric.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 hours ago, usviphotography said:In many Western Countries it is actually illegal to discuss the topic. You can't really teach something that could land the kids or teacher in jail. In America the 1st Amendment protects us from that kind of stuff so the schools mostly just sidestep the topic nowadays. When I was a kid we got assigned Night by Eli Weisel but that doesn't happen anymore for obvious reasons.
Overall, knowledge of that time period is probably higher than any point in history because of all the great resources available on line, so it more a change in the way the kids get the knowledge rather than any reduction in overall competency on the subject matter.
There is no Western country that I am aware of where it is 'illegal to discuss the topic'. I think you are getting confused with it being illegal in Germany to deny the holocaust but it isn't illegal to discuss it.
-
3
-
1
-
43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:
More deflection, shocking.
If you don't know, just say you don't know.
It's not a deflection but then I wouldn't expect you to understand common English phrases. It was in fact an accusation. I was accusing you of trying to excuse a convicted tax dodger, perjuror and liar with the not so subtle 'well we all do it don't we?' line of defense.
We don't all 'do it'. Except maybe you.
And your straw man attempt with 'just say you don't know' won't work either. I do know. I know exactly what you are trying to infer. It wasn't that sophisticated.
-
1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:
"Teenagers often are not aware..."
I bet that they were aware.
As for German uniforms..
Classic sketch
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This is just a friendly reminder that in 8 years, not a single person affiliated with President Obama's administration or his campaign was ever charged with or found guilty of any felonies.
Not a one.
-
4
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:That all ya got?
Okay, I'll rephrase: I wonder what percentage of US expats have failed to file their FinCEN/FBAR (failure to disclose foreign bank accounts), lied on a tax return (tax fraud) , lied on a loan agreement (bank fraud) or lied under oath on a statement at the embassy (perjury).
Any idea?
If you find yourself making excuses for fraudsters, perjurers, tax dodgers and con men you're probably a Trump fan.
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
15 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:Regardless, it's still Trump for 2020.
Which means, like most Trump devotees, you really don’t care.
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:What I see are rabid dems so intent on destroying Trump they don't care about anything else. The Dem's hatred is deluding their sense of reason concerning as an example.....border security. That's a big one right now. They no longer care what's best for the US, they only want Trump to fail.
What I see is Trump devotees so infatuated with the man they are willing to let SERIOUS and illegal activities go unchecked and without proper investigation just because he tells them 'it's a witch-hunt'.
The Mueller investigation has yielded some serious results so far to include conclusive proof that Russia meddled in the election. Many of Trumps associates have either been indicted or are facing criminal charges so as far as witch hunts go, it's found a lot of witches.
Yet none of this seems to matter to a Trump devotee who thinks a man who lies on a daily basis about everything from security clearance for his son-in-law to immigrant figures to even the amount of burgers he served to the Clemson football team is to also be believed about this. According to the Fact Checker database, Trump has made 7,645 “false or misleading claims” since taking office. The most repeated lie – 187 times and counting – is that the Russia investigation is a “witch-hunt”.
If you have any love for the USA or respect for the office of the POTUS, you should be happy and supportive of ANYTHING (be it against Republicans, Democrats or Presidents) that shines a light on corruption, illegal activities and of course collusion.
-
4
-
39 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:
Out of context much? It was an allusion to if she was I am. I don't puport to be qualified in the same way as being able to provide access to power.
What, so now we have to work out the subtext to what you actually say?
Your whole point is that Chelsea Clinton and others got their media jobs only by virtue of family connections. I (and many others here) are disputing this. It certainly gives them a helping hand but to say it's the only reason is spurious at best, downright insulting at worst. Chelsea is particularly well qualified for a role in media and I would guess would have had no problem getting said job without the famous name.
Anyway this has gone massively off topic so let's draw a line under it.
-
16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:
I never said I was qualified, I only pointed out that her hiring is a payoff of sorts. I'm not singling her out, there are many others drawing salaries for the same reason. It's how the system works unfortunatey:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-largest-u-s-companies-board-members/
Yes you did.
Your exact words in a post literally two before this was 'Well I guess it means I'm qualified to work in media...'
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:
Well I guess it means I'm qualified to work in media as well since her degrees are not in that field either. C'mon man it's a payoff for access. You know it and I know it.
But you're not.
Clinton obtained a B.A. degree in history, with highest honors, at Stanford in 2001. The topic of her 167-page senior thesis was the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. In 2003, Clinton completed an MPhil degree in international relations at Oxford. Her 132-page thesis was titled The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria: A Response to Global Threats, a Part of a Global Future. In 2011, Clinton transferred back to University College, Oxford, from the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University to complete her DPhil degree in International Relations. Her 712-page dissertation was titled The Global Fund: An Experiment in Global Governance.
Irrespective of whether this is a 'payoff for access', she is much more qualified for the role than you or I are.
-
Just now, lannarebirth said:
I've got a BS in Marine Engineering and a BS in Nautical Technology johnny.
Well done to you and means you are qualified in these fields much the same as she is qualified to work in media.
If she wasn't so well qualified you may have a point. She is so you don't.
-
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, SpokaneAl said:
Isn’t that the job of the IRS to review tax returns? I see no reason why anyone should be required to release their personal tax returns.
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkOh for God's sake he isn't just anyone is he? He's the President of The United States and as such should be held to a higher standard than most which MUST include whether he is beholding to outside influences and/or just making up BS about how much he is worth.
Most politicians in western countries have to show they have no ties to corporations and or shareholdings in companies etc. But Donny is special isn't he? Well it certainly seems that way.
-
5
-
19 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:
I'm not deflecting. I'd never hire any of them. That's an impressive record of academic achievement you've presented, but to hear her talk she sounds about as stupid as can be. Maybe her connections played a part in her academic placements. Who knows? Some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard have come out of the mouths of Harvard graduates so I tend to take all of that with a grain of salt..
And so do you have anything near her "impressive record of academic achievement' yourself?
Are you the head of a 'big, global media complex?'
If the answer to either of these questions is 'no' then you are not qualified to comment on whether she is qualified for the role.
And no, your own personal experience of Harvard graduates doesn't count either.
-
- Popular Post
My guess is his fan base just simply won't care. I mean look at what he's got up to in the last 2 years and still he can do no wrong in their eyes.
-
7
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:Climate change, universal healthcare, stop all airline traffic, give everyone thousands of dollars, blatant socialist programs...more freebies to the masses...the Dems better find some way to dethrone Trump before the 2020 elections...
Shifty Adam, Dem from California, is the poster boy for everything wrong with American politics. He has no thought or motivation except to get Trump impeached...be careful what you wish for...????
Yeah heaven forbid that someone is trying to look out for the planet once you lot have wrung it out for all it's worth and shuffled off your mortal coil. And that citizens of the wealthiest country on the planet can actually afford to get medical treatment. The rest of your opening paragraph....well that's just Fox News made up nonsense that doesn't deserve a response.
As usual you are being conned by a bunch of super rich people who are convincing you (and doing a good thing by the looks of it) that socialism is the same as communism. It isn't but you will be bombarded by this in the lead up to the 2020 election, with the gullible falling for it hook, line and sinker.
There is numerous scientific evidence to support man-influenced climate change (I am choosing my words carefully here so as not to incite the climate deniers) and the economics to support universal healthcare is solid and sustainable. But unless you're a multi-millionaire/billionaire, you must be a certain type of masochist/stupid to literally vote against your own interests as many Trump supporters do regularly.
-
2
-
3
-
1
-
- Popular Post
56 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:Hmmm. Wonder how the Democrats would've reacted had Hilary won and the Republicans then spent all their time attacking her and looking for anything they can get their hands on to discredit her.
Wonderful way for an opposition to behave! But characteristically how the left behave when losing. They just can't accept people vote against them.
What you mean exactly what the Republicans did with Obama?
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.'
So when you wonder how Democrats 'would've reacted had Hilary won and the Republicans then spent all their time attacking her' - probably the same way they reacted over the 8 years of Obama being obstructed at every turn; with resigned disgust.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:Just another investigation to add to all the other ones that are finding little if anything to bring Trump down.
If they are spending so much time on Trump, who is doing any investigating on actual wrong doing in the US?
The thought process of your typical Trump devotee:-
- Russia didn't interfere in the election.
- OK, they interfered, but there were no contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign.
- OK, there were contacts, but Trump didn't have any deals with Russia.
- OK, Trump had deals with Russia, but it's not like there were meetings with Russian intelligence agents.
- OK, there were meetings with Russian intelligence agencies, but Trump didn't know about them.
- OK, Trump knew, but nothing came of them, so there was no collusion.
- OK, some people in his campaign colluded, but Trump specifically didn't collude, so therefore there is no collusion.
I really don't know what you people need to finally have your Trump goggles removed. Whether or not Trump can be proven to have personally been involved is obviously the soon to be answered question, but even if it comes back that they can't prove anything (Trump isn't stupid after all and is unlikely to have left an obvious smoking gun) there is no way you can say he was not aware of all this and therefore guilty by association.
The standards you set this man decrease by the day and as long as your stocks are going up and your taxes coming down, you happily turn a blind eye to the fact the highest office in the land is being dragged to a level most 3rd world dictators would blanch at.
Where is your morality? Where is your sense of right and wrong?
Or is it as it seems when we all have to read your inane postings, that you really just don't care?
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:
Hello Jonnybangkok,
I've read your post #66 and see nothing which describes my point of view as a false equivalent. People build fences and walls around their property, not just to protect any fruit and vegetables they might be growing, but to deter people from stealing anything that is lying around, especially when they are away from there property, when they sometimes lock the gate, as well as locking the house.The purpose of the fence or wall is to make it more difficult for people to intrude, but we should all know that a burglar who is really intent on entering the house, because he thinks there might be a few diamonds lying around, inside the house, will devise strategies to climb over fences or walls, and pick locks to get into the house.
The point you seem to have missed is, if entry through normal channels such as airports are subjected to increased scrutiny to prevent drug smuggling and illegal entrants, then such people will revert to border crossings where there are no checks and no wall.
The wall is not the whole solution, but a major and necessary part of the solution.
You have answered my point yourself.
'The purpose of the fence or wall is to make it more difficult for people to intrude, but we should all know that a burglar who is really intent on entering the house, because he thinks there might be a few diamonds lying around, inside the house, will devise strategies to climb over fences or walls, and pick locks to get into the house'.
Now imagine if that 'burglar' was a family fleeing persecution and destruction in their home country and getting into the US means literally life or death? How determined do you think they might be to get over a mere wall? If the wall is 50 foot, you only need a 50 foot ladder. If it's buried 20 foot into the ground you only need to build a tunnel that goes 21 foot underground.
The vast amount of illegal immigrants get into the US with the help of 'coyotes'. These are people who do this for a living. Do you think they won't work out how to get over/under/around a wall? There's already 650 miles of fencing in place on the border and that doesn't stop illegal immigration so why would another 1,000 miles do it? And please don't say they are using the bit not protected by the wall as that is not true either. The vast majority come through areas already covered https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us.
Then there is the problem of land rights (much of the border is private land), water rights (how do you stop lands on the Mexico side getting much needed water), ecological, environmental issues not to mention the vast costs of maintaining said wall. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
The vast amount of money we are talking here (you are not even close with your $10Billion - try $70 billion ++) would be put to much better use pursuing and prosecuting employers that hire these illegal immigrants in the first place (take away the incentive and then people have no reason to try such a hazardous trip) and giving resources to the vastly underfunded and understaffed courts that handle asylum seekers. You can also clamp down on people who overstay their visa's as this is how the VAST majority of illegal immigrants get into the US.
It's tempting to think that such a simple solution could immediately stop the problem of illegal immigration but it's simply not the case and only serves as an effective soundbite to appease Trumps ever fervent base who he promised this to so many years ago and who he needs to stir up again to take their mind off the many, many problems he is now facing.
-
1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:
I'd like to discuss the ethics of Trump's proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border.
I'm not American, but Australian, so I'm not very familiar with American practices and lifestyles. However, in Australia, most people have fences or walls surrounding their property, whether it's a suburban home or a farm, and I assume that is also the case in America.
Some properties are in gated communities, surrounded by a high wall, with access only through a gate which opens after entering a specific pin number.Many owners of properties keep dogs, and put warning signs to deter any intruders, like, 'Beware of dangerous dogs', or, 'This property is continuously monitored by video cameras', and 'Private property; Intruders will be prosecuted', and so on.
I assume this situation is similar to that in the USA, is it not? However, Australia is a large island and doesn't have a land border with another country. Even without a land border, we have had a lot of trouble with refugee boat people who have paid smugglers to 'unsafely' transport them to Australia, often with loss of life at sea. But let's not get into that discussion.The issue that concerns me is the 'apparent' hypocrisy of those who are against the building of the wall along the Mexican border. I say 'apparent' because I don't know their precise circumstances. Perhaps someone like 'Bristolboy', on this forum, who is clearly against the building of the wall, actually lives on a property with no fence or wall, grows fruit trees in his garden, and allows anyone to walk into his garden and help themselves to the fruit. I don't know.
However, if those who are against the building of the wall, are not also against surrounding their own property with a secure fence and gate to deter intruders, then it seems irrefutable that such people must be hypocrites when they attack Trump's agenda to build a wall along the Mexican border.
Just a point for discussion. ????
Hello VincentRJ.
You are coming to this discussion very late as your point is a prime example of false equivalence and has been discussed in depth before (see my post number 66 on page 5).
If we were to take your point at it's face value the easy refute would be that if these people trying to steal your 'fruit' were as determined as illegal immigrants, they would be tunneling under your fence, flying over your fence and driving through the main gateway of your property, therefore negating the fence altogether. Also, you might want to think twice about a fence that costs 50 times more than the value of the fruit it is protecting.
It is tempting to boil down very complicated arguments to something that you can personally relate to (and a fence around your own property certainly looks similar) but there is no real equivalence, as a fence around your property probably would deter people from stealing your 'fruit', whilst there are much more effective ways for Trump to deter people from entering the US illegally than building an ineffectual and VERY expensive wall.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Thainesss said:
You mean that 400,000 per year enter/get caught and that more people (deflection) overstay visas (completely separate issue) than illegally cross the border? That’s still four hundred thousand people and hundreds of billions in tax payer dollars. Border security is minuscule in comparison.
The entire post was full of deflection and not a single solution.
Not to mention the cute little ad-hom at the end about how conservatives blame all their problems on immigrants, which is a garbage take and nothing more than liberal race-baiting.
Well aren’t you thirsty. You didn’t refute anything. 400,000 bodies per year and your Democrats wanted to reduce ICE detention beds.
Spare me.
You want solutions? I’ll give you that as well.
The ONLY reason illiagal immigration is an incentive in the US is there is a vast amount of employers willing to pay for illegals. There are procedures in place to try and combat this but guess what? They are massively underfunded. $3 billion would probably help a lot to combat this never mind the $20-70 billion Trump is proposing for a very ineffectual wall that only serves as a destraction for things he has personally benefitted from in his past and continues to do so with his current business dealings.
Cheap labor fuels America. It started with slavery and continues with prisoners (second only to China). From argriculture to manufacturing it has been a source of cheap labor that undercuts competitors and keeps America “efficient “. But the problem is it puts Americans out of jobs (ones they turned their nose up to mind you), but when you pitt them both against each other, the masses get distracted.
America doesn’t mind illegal immigrants. The Republicans just don’t like it when they come of voting age. Buts that’s when they use them to become political pawn. And you keep falling for it.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:Well this might not please everybody. The last Nobel was given out as some sort of participation prize to Obama, who to be fair to him, seemed puzzled as to why he received it, before invading half the middle east. This time it would be very well deserved. Trump has defeated ISIS, made peace with North Korea, has a firm grip on the tyrants in Iran, generally just done everything he can to ensure world peace. Trump has done more for women and minorities in America than anybody before him. What a great man. Even if the Nobel committee choose some virtue signalling nobody over Trump, at least the history books will hold him in high esteem.
Give Trump his Nobel peace prize and start to restore the damaged image of Nobel.
'Trump has defeated ISIS' - single handed I hear!
'Made peace with North Korea' - but shhhh don't tell anyone, it's a secret.
'Has a firm grip on the tyrants in Iran' - by stoking even greater anti-american sentiment and emboldening the hardliners in Iran.
'Generally just done everything he can to ensure world peace'. - see above.
'....done more for women and minorities in America than anybody before him' - that's my favorite. Just ................................priceless.
Having seen many of your posts I think I can safely say your head is so far up Trumps rear end you can probably see where his heart was supposed to be.
-
6
Trump ex-aide Manafort hit with 3-1/2 more years in prison, new charges
in World News
Posted · Edited by johnnybangkok
I think we could all guess that you're 'not a lawyer' as that has to be the most asinine argument I have every heard in my life. So by your reckoning you can only be charged with a crime if the people investigating are looking only for that exact crime? So the murderer gets off because they were only looking for a kidnapper; the arsonist gets off as they were only looking for a burglar; the pedophile gets off as they were only looking for a rapist.
You've said some crazy stuff in the past but you've excelled yourself here. Please take a bow!
Oh and by the way, as stated many, many, many times before, the Mueller investigation isn't and was never about 'Trump colluding with Russia' but rather investigating links or co-ordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to cover 5 very specific topics; financial dealings, Russian interference, campaign coordination, transition contacts and obstruction of justice. And as far as ‘witch hunts go, it’s done a pretty good job with 5 convictions and 28 indictments to include five former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer.
It might not get Trump (still to be seen) but you can be damned sure that as the guy at the top, he's as guilty as the rest of them.