Evil Penevil

This version of "The Sounds of Silence" gets my vote in the popular music category.

"Imagine" by John Lennon is often considered the best song of the past 100 years. It doesn't get my vote, but it is the opinion of many. In terms of which song has had the most influence in the past 100 years, I would say the U.S. Civil War song "Battle Hymn of the Republic." It had a significant role as both a marching song for Northern troops and an inspirational song for civilians. Lines from the song have been used as the titles of movies and books as well as in speeches. Several of Dr. Martin Luther King's most famous speeches have made reference to or quoted "Battle Hymn of the Republic." King's last publicly spoken words before his assasination were "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

Considering the high levels oi alcohol and testosterone in low IQ individuals, I'm surprised we don't see many more fights in Pattaya. There are more fights in any U.S. city when the bars close on Friday and Saturday nights than you'll see in 10 years in Pattaya. The guys in the video were too drunk and too old to cause each other much damage, but the risk is one would fall and hit his head or break his neck. No one can accuse the Thai police of brutality; the officers were quite gentle with the idiots. It wouldn't have gone down that way in the U.S.

I had shingles and it was the worst pain I've experienced other than a traumatic injury. If you don't have access to heavy-duty painkillers, it will drive you insane. Get the vaccination!

Another song which has stuck with me through the years is Running Bear. It was played at the funeral of a classmate when I was about ten. My mother and some other parents were totallly outraged that a pop song was played at a funeral, but they didn't say anything. According to the mother of the girl wgo was buried, Running Bear had been her daughter's favorite song. When we got home, my mom just shook her head and said something about "white trash." I didn't share my mom's opinion and thought it was fitting they had played a song the girl liked.

U.S.-style biscuits aren't popular outside North America. One problem is biscuits go stale very quickly and have to be baked fresh every day, which is a lot of hassle for a fast-food restaurant. British scones on the other hand have proved popular in many countries.

For me, it's The Ballad of Davy Crockett. The image of Davy standing alone at the Alamo, swinging Old Betsy at the horde of Mexicans, remained with me all my life and defined my sense of duty and heroism. It became my view of Israel standing against 450 million Arabs and two billion Muslims.

British scones and American biscuits are similar but have key differences. They are made from nearly the same ingredients, but the proportions of liquid and fat as well as preparation methods are different. American biscuits tend to be flaky while British scones are crumbly. Traditional Southern biscuits are often made with buttermilk, but neither Church's or KFC uses buttermilk in its biscuits. Texas Chicken's biscuits are unique because they are topped with a honey-butter mixture.

Are you referring to the Hard Rock Cafe in Pattaya? 🤔 The Hard Rock Hotel is undergoing a long-term floor-by-floor renovation and some of its facilities are temporarily closed, but I believe the Hard Rock Cafe remains open.

The question doesn't make sense. Trump hasn't been convicted of Federal charges and certainly won't be before the 2024 Presidential election. If he wins, there won't be any Federal convictions of which to pardon himself. If he loses, he won't have the power to pardon anyone. Under the U.S. Constitution, a sitting President cannot pardon himself of state convictions. Legal scholars are divided on whether the Constitution allows a President to pardon himself of Federal convictions. There has never been any precedent and the U.S. Supreme would need to make a ruling. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/09/trump-pardon-felony-president

The current members of the Nana family are devout Muslims of Indian ancestry and Islam excludes belief in ghosts as spirits of he dead. It's highly unlikely the decision-makers in the family would be troubled about stories of haunted land, In an interview with the Bangkok Post, fifth-generation Nana heir Manas Nana said: "At the heart of it, religious teachings form the core of our business management," Mr Manas said. "All the employees at our companies are 100% Muslim, except for our hotels, where we hire both Muslims and non-Muslims." https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/1413643/keeping-the-faith-no-stopping-nana-clan After the death of the clan's patriarch and most famous member, Lek Nana, in 2010, his heirs sold Nana Entertainment Plaza in 2012 because they didn't want the family involved any longer in a disreputable business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Plaza Nana family members had never taken part in running NEP, but had leased it to a master lease holder who in turn rented out the individual bars. The existence of the "world's largest adult playground" raised the value of the family's other massive property holdings in the area and allowed higher rents to be charged for the businesses on them. Whether ghosts, booze or P4P, the heirs of Lek Nana ain't havin' none of it on religious grounds.

@georgegeorgia That is almost certainly the explanation. The company I worked for had a policy that all R/T tickets to international destinations had to be booked in business class at full fare because that made it easiest to change departure/return dates if needed. Passengers with full-fare tickets also got priority in terms of booking. I changed full-fare business class tickets many times because an assignment abroad started/ended earlier or later than originally planned. The new day of the week for a flight could make a big fare difference.

That sort of response usually means you are intellectually or morally unable to reply. So I'll repeat the question which should be answered with one word (yes or no), but always stumps anti-Semites and causes them to run: Does Israel have the right to exist behind secure borders as the homeland to the world's Jews?

xxxx I do say something. I say Israel has acted on the authority of its 7.2 million Jewish citizens and the other 7.8 million Jews in the world. Syria and Israel have been in a state of perpetual war since 1948. Syria refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, so no long-term peace is possible. Syria's choice, not Israel's. Same-same with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. They are dedicated to the eradication of Israel and its Jewish citizens. And that's only the beginning. Every day Israel stands against the hatred of two billion Muslims and 450 million Arabs. Muslims, Arabs, Syria, Iran. Hamas, Hezbollah, pro-Palestinian demonstrators and @john donson and @frank83628 all have to realize one thing: This time round, Jews won't walk passively to extermination. After 75 years, the enemies of Israel still haven't grasped it. Palestinians in particular have a very long learning curve, much to their own detriment and suffering. Speaking of long lerning curves ... No one is labeled an anti-Semite because they question or criticize the policies of the government of Israel. Through the years, millions of Jews inside and outside Israel have done just that and they certainly aren't antisemitic. The test for antisemitism is quite easy; one single yes-or-no question: Does Israel have the right to exist behind secure borders as the homeland to the world's Jews? No evasion or qualification is allowed; the answer is either yes or no. If the answer is "no," then the person is a Jew hater. Most Jew haters will either refuse to answer or hide behind a wall of words. So I ask @frank83628: Does Israel have the right to exist behind secure borders as the homeland to the world's Jews? No moral equivalence exists between Israel and Iran. Israel is fighting to defend its existence and save the lives of its citizens. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship that embodies the worst type of religious fanaticism. Israel is driven by the need to guarantee a homeland and last refuge for a group that's been persecuted for centuries and subjected to genocide in the past century. An irrational hatred of Jews is the driving factor for Iran.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 11/100 My Time 85 seconds  

I just completed this quiz. My Score 40/100 My Time 145 seconds  

That's a misunderstanding arising from quoting only part of what Churchill said. Below is the full quote. "Lachrymatory gas" refers to what we call "tear gas" today. In 1919, tear gas, mustard gas and deadly chlorine gas were all called "poison gas." Churchill was referring to the use of tear gas, not deadly gas. "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. " (WSC, minute from the War Office, 12 May 1919, in Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Document Volume 8: War and Aftermath, December 1916-June 1919 (Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press, 2008), p 649) Churchill went on to say at the same War Office meeting: “If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.” (Ibid. p 662) There's some dispute over whether the British actually used gas in Iraq. No sources made that accusation at the time; that came first in 1986. For lengthy discussions, see: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/605488 https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-chemical-warfare/ Churchill opposed both Hitler and Gandhi, but for very different reasons and used much different language when warning about them. He saw Gandhi as a threat to the British Empire, while he regarded Hitler as a threat to the balance of power in Europe. He viewed Hitler as a dangerous yet effective dictator and Gandhi as an unrealistic mystic without the skill, acumen or experience to lead a highly diverse country. He famously referred to Gandhi as a half-naked fakir. He was specifically concerned with Hitler's oppressive domestic policies; the rearmament of Germany and Hitler's goal of territorial expansion. Unlike most European politicians, Churchill had actually read Mein Kampf and had seen jackbooted Nazis in the streets of Germany before Hitler took power. He had a real fear of what Hitler could accomplish. His warnings went largely unheeded because appeasement was the favored policy of British governments in the 1930s. Concessions to Hitle were seen as the best way to avoid war and appeasement was favored by the public, especially the upper classes. In the 1930s, Churchill wasn't trusted by many members of the Conservative party due to his failure as First Lord of the Admiralty and his switch from the Liberal Party.

The 10-ton (Nazi) elephant* in this thread is the notion Hitler made a serious peace offer to Great Britain in 1940. That's NOT the case. On July 19, 1940, Hitler gave a speech to the Reichstag that included a vague peace offer to Great Britain as well as insults to Churchill and threats of destruction to the country and British Empire. "Hitler made it clear that rejection of his appeal to 'reason' would result in a 'final' attack upon Britain with every resource that Germany could throw into the battle." https://www.upi.com/Archives/1940/07/19/Hitler-offers-Britain-peace-or-destruction/6824181303557/ Back in 1940, most non-Germans recognzed the speech was propaganda, not a serious overture. Because it's better to have primary sources rather than a steady stream of Wikipedia links, I'll quote at length the US journalist William Shirer , who heard the speech in person and wrote about it in his award-winning bestseller The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Shirer said he noted in his diary the day of the speech that “'As a maneuver calculated to rally the German people for the fight against Britain, Hitler’s speech was a masterpiece. For the German people will now say: ‘Hitler offers England peace, and no strings attached. He says he sees no reason why this war should go on. If it does, it’s England’s fault.’ "And was that not the principal reason for giving it, three days after he had issued Directive No. 16 to prepare the invasion of Britain? He admitted as much—beforehand—to two Italian confidants, Alfieri and Ciano. On July 1 he had told the ambassador: …It was always a good tactic to make the enemy responsible in the eyes of public opinion in Germany and abroad for the future course of events. This strengthened one’s own morale and weakened that of the enemy. An operation such as the one Germany was planning would be very bloody… Therefore one must convince public opinion that everything had first been done to avoid this horror… "In his speech of October 6 [when he had offered peace to the West at the conclusion of the Polish campaign—W.L.S.] he had likewise been guided by the thought of making the opposing side responsible for all subsequent developments. He had thereby won the war, as it were, before it had really started. Now again he intended for psychological reasons to buttress morale, so to speak, for the action about to be taken.46 A week later, on July 8, Hitler confided to Ciano that he would stage another demonstration so that in case the war should continue—which he thought was the only real possibility that came into question—he might achieve a psychological effect among the English people… Perhaps it would be possible by a skillful appeal to the English people to isolate the English Government still further in England." (Shirer, William L.. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (p. 1168). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition) Shirer gave a sentence from the speech, "I can see no reason why this war must go on," and then noted Hitler "was not more specific than that. He made no concrete suggestions for peace terms, no mention of what was to happen to the hundred million people now under the Nazi yoke in the conquered countries." (Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (pp. 1166-1167). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.} It's interesting that Hitler wasn't able to fool many British or Americans back in 1940 with his phony peace offer, but appears to have succeeded 84 years later. Bottom line: Churchill didn't reject peace with Gemany; he rejected a propaganda ploy. *I am aware it's a pre-Nazi swastika on the elephant at the entrance to the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen.

Why are you talking about Israel vs Hamas or criticism of the Israeli government? Katharina von Schnurbein of the European Commission is referring to physical attacks and harassment of Jews in Europe and elsewhere. "We have seen a tsunami of anti-Semitism really rolling across Europe and the globe," she said. The anti-Semitic attacks are occuring not only in Europe but also in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Latin America, etc. It's very bad in the US right now, with daily incidents and many cases itargeting Jewish students from the elementary through university level. Does anyone think it is justifiable to harass or physically abuse residents of New York, Paris or London for what someone with the same religion did in another country on a different continent? Blaming all Jews for the real or imagined actions of some Jews is one of the hallmarks of classic anti-Semitism. Jews were hated in medieval times because they were supposedly the descendants of the killers of Christ. Nowadays anti-Semites substitute "Zionists" for "killers of Christ." The words have changed a little, but the message is the same.

The guy is an absolute idiot, but read 'em and weep: https://us.youtubers.me/ishowspeed/youtube-estimated-earnings He has 29 million subscribers and a whopping three billion cumulative views for his 1,454 videos. His Pattaya video got 5.4 million views. He's had $539,000 in revenue in the past 90 days. If it wasn't for YouTube, he'd be working a minimum wage job., assuming he could get a job at all.

Von Schnurbein isn't talking about protests against Israeli government policies. She's referring to attacks on individual Jews and their places of worship. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) discovered in a recent survey that of the 8,000 surveyed, "37% say they were harassed because they are Jewish in the year before the survey. Most of them experienced harassment multiple times. Antisemitic harassment and violence mostly take place in streets, parks, or shops." https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2024/jews-europe-still-face-high-levels-antisemitism The situaation is much the same in the U.S. https://www.ajc.org/AntisemitismReport2023

Darryl Cooper isn't a historian, amateur or otherwise. He's a guy who reads a lot of books and articles on specific subjects, then regurgitates a flood of details and snippets strung together in his podcasts by oddball interpretations. He's become the Kim Kardashian of historical revisionism- famous for being famous. There's nothing original or insightful in his podcasts. He simply goes down well-worn paths that have been previously trodden by more formiddable figures. Pat Buchanan wrote a book titled Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War (2008) that laid out in detail Cooper's subsequent claim that Winston Churchill was the "chief villain" of WW II. Cooper also draws heavily on the books of the (in)famous Holocaust and Hitler revisionist David Irving. Many of Cooper's notions about WWII and the Jews can be traced all the way back to the granddaddy of Holocaust deniers and Hitler white-washers, Harry Elmer Barnes in the late 1940's and onward. Very little that Cooper says about Churchill, Hitler, WWII and the Holocaust can't be found in the works of Buchanan, Irving and Barnes. Same message, different medium.

No, they look fine in these photos: Hersh Goldberg-Polin had part of his arm blown off by a Hamas grenade on Oct. 7. From an earlier Hamas video: I'm posting links to two videos that show the abduction ofmHersh Goldberg-Polin and two other severely wounded hostages. The second is particulaly harrowing as it shows the Hamas terrorists mistreating the injured hostages as they shout "Allahu akbar" and refer to the Jews as "dogs." Don't watch if you are sensitive to such images. https://youtu.be/Ob49SLAi5PU?si=BeanGLkow8c90u5Y https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-807503

There's been some debate in this thread as to whether the American Bully is a pitbull or not. The answer depends on which definitions you use, but it's accurate to say the American Bully is a pitbull-type dog. I'll quote from Pitbullinfo.org, definitely a pro-pitbull site: "Today, 'pitbull' has become an umbrella term loosely used to describe many different medium-sized, short-haired breeds and mixes with physical features typical of various bully-type breeds. While the American Pit Bull Terrier is the only formal breed with the term 'pit bull' in its name, over 20 different breeds and numerous mixes share physical traits common to those in the pitbull-type category." Moreover, it states: It is rather pedantic to argue whether an American Bully can be called a pitbull. It reminds me of the famous theological debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Dogs are NOT the most dangerous animals for humans. Mosquitoes are the living creature (animal in the broadest sense) that are responsible for most human deaths because they spread diseases. If you consider humans as animals, they are far more dangerous than dogs. Snakes arein third plce in terms of human deaths and dogs come fourth. https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/what-animals-kills-the-most-people

Interesting analysis from the U.S. Institute for Peace: Israel-Hezbollah Contained Escalation Halts Concern Over Broader Mideast War Iran remains the joker in the pack. As the article states, the killing of Ismail Haniyeh was an embarassing breach of security for Iran, but may not be sufficient cause to provoke the country's rulers into a costly war to avenge a non-Iranian citizen. However, due to the erratic thought processes and mindset of Iran's leaders, it's impossible to predict what they'll do. Some commentators had expected a much harsher response to the assasination of Major General Qasem Soleimani by a U.S. drone strike in Iraq in 2020. Iran launched about 15 surface-to-surface missiles at two U.S. air bases in Iraq, but no personnel were killed or seriously injured. Soleimani had been considered a high-profile military leader and national hero, so the retalitiaon was regarded as minimal and not intended to foreshadow more serious military action. It would be odd in comparison if Iran were willing to launch a full attack on Israel over Haniyeh's death. Most likely Iran will increase funds and equipment to Hamas, Hezbollah and other proxy groups so they can take action against Israel.