Grossman

On 8/14/2018 at 5:11 PM, Vacuum said:

Seems like he forgot his calculator at the office.

"One wiener... two wieners... three wieners...  yep, it's porn!"

6 hours ago, webfact said:

He commented that the lawmakers have already approved the act and will not seek its amendment, unless requested to by the EC. 

Sigh. There's always an "unless" to everything this rotten bunch does and says just to keep the door ajar.. 

1 hour ago, johnc925 said:

I think this could be a reasonable solution for the accountability of media (especially in America). The danger exists is when the media tends to editorialize bacts based on their own, often biased, interpretations; as opposed to just laying the facts out and letting people draw their conclusions.

I see where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree strongly. Freedom of speech is a tricky thing, but at the core it's just that; free. If you want to present biased opinions, then by all means you should be free to do so. If you are aware you are presenting twistedfacts or have not done anything towards verifying the facts you are presenting, you should of course be accountable for your words. But at any given time you should absolutely not be banned from performing the act of saying/writing/whatever means of expression you prefer and whatever you want to say. Drawing conclusions should also be the right of every single human being on this planet; if people lack the capability for media reading and always assume everything is true, then it is us as readers/viewers who need to learn -- And this is something that usually only happens through at least a certain amount of trial and error, not by limiting the source of information in any way. People need to question and debate and debate and debate some more and the truth will eventually emerge. There are no ultimate facts; every single thing always have multiple sides to it.

Besides, if you limit media to "facts only", who is going to be the authority to say what facts are facts and what are not? It simply doesn't work. 

Should Mr. P and the junta be allowed to spill their BS constantly? Absolutely. Should I or anyone else be able to question and debate that BS publicly? Absolutely. Should someone else be entitled to think it's not BS but the best thing ever? Absolutely. Should I or anyone else be able to question and debate with that someone given there's an opposing opinion? Absolutely.

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

“If the NACC subcommittee had no bias, they would have ended this matter after seeing all the evidence,” he said.

If they had no bias, they would have ended this matter against him after seeing all the evidence. They didn't conclude the matter with the old fatty and his watches either. Again, should in some alternate reality this cockalorum be anti-junta and facing a similar situation, this would have ended against him in no time.. but now, I'm fairly certain that this will end like most things with NACC involving someone pro junta; It will just drag on endlessly until it vanishes into oblivion and nothing really comes out of it. "In it's final stage" and concluding before year's end.. I'll be really surprised if it does even go to court, even more so if the judgement is against him.

That is unless they are simply lynching him for some higher cause; whether it's to counter the face loss caused by the watch fiasco (and burying the matter even deeper while at it) or something else related to the holy duality of money and power.

15 hours ago, chama said:

This sure looks like a campaign visit. It will be interesting to see what happens when the other political parties are allowed to speak freely.

That will never happen, or I'll eat a hat full of something synonymous to what comes out of Mr. P's mouth every time he opens it. They will not allow any anti-junta political party to "speak freely". While they might lift the political ban (obviously at the latest possible time), the freedom of speech will be countered by an armada of cyber crime/sedition/whatever charges (with a juridical fast track of course) should someone even try to do something as absurd as "speaking freely". If you praise the junta filth or lay out grandiose plans akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, you'd be okay. Dare to say something remotely negative about the diaper general on the helm; off with your head. 

That is, of course, until after the inevitable downfall of the junta. Until then, any ease of restrictions will be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"Who watches the watchmen?" 

11 hours ago, monspencer said:

Typical Thailand. Why wasn't it completed before the rainy season, or do the authorities not know when that is?

Maybe someone needed a new watch and the money had to come out from somewhere; after all the project was already started so the illusion of doing something was already in place. Leaving it half finished saves half the money for more important matters. Any questions later can be easily averted with some dumb rhetorical mumbo jumbo.

6 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

So every crooked politician will now bring his crooked wife along?

Or they can coveniently leech the monthly expenses of their mistresses/giks from the trough instead of their own wallets.

2 hours ago, fantom said:

Another paper today reported that 339 founding members were present during the party's first official meeting. I agree that is an awful lot of 5 people needing to be charged for breaking the ban. It stinks.

Yep, and while everyone should know by now already, if they were to charge them, that process would not result in anything but empty statements and excuses over an extended period of time until the whole thing vanishes like fart in the wind. But seems they have the audacity to not even pretend to do anything about it now. Should an anti-junta bunch of ppl do something similar, I can bet that they'd be all over it in a blink of an eye with the whole arsenal of their laws from the gatherings ban to cybercrime to sedition; conveniently fast-tracked through the so called legal system all the way to the pre-defined judgement. Reeks to high heaven.

KInda smells like more than 5 people. So, this whole lot is now getting charged for breaking the political gatherings ban.. right? 

Maybe Prawit had an unfortunate mishap with all the flooding going around and needed to borrow some rice to dry off his horological paraphernalia. 

11 hours ago, Just Weird said:

It's still an offence but compensation being paid to victims' families is a normal part of the legal process whether anyone likes it or not.

Yes, the victims and families should absolutely get compensated. Why point out the obvious though? 

Oh my, I think the bad poo-poo he was struggling with during the cabinet joyride to the north was a bit more serious than what people were led to believe.

He's listening very carefully with his fist already clenched; Ready to punch the poor kids in the mouth should a few wrong words slip into the the performance.

11 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

It's actually the other way around: Hit and Run is a crime in every country, except Thailand.

Small correction; Hit and Run is definitely a serious crime in Thailand. Hit and Run and Pay, however, is not. 

6 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Seems like we've already seen this movie. Must be a re-run.

More like a re-run of a re-make of a re-boot.

3 hours ago, baboon said:

The beauty is, May or the rest of the scoundrels in her government can't send her back 'just like that'.

I mean she would probably love to so herself and her cronies can further enrich themselves, but unfortunately procedure has to be followed and courts respected.

The UK government of the day cannot yet do a '44, much as they would love to.

Yup, fortunately some still have to respect these things. While it's not going to happen (and I think the junta is pretty certain of this, otherwise they wouldn't dare to pull such a show), I'd love to be the fly on the wall to witness the panic if there actually were indications that UK might agree to this.. Mr. P and the funky bunch would need some emergency diapers before declaring it a misunderstanding. Having YL in jail in Thailand would spoil their plans (and cute camo knickers) big time.

23 hours ago, robblok said:

The whole problem in this country is that all laws are enforced selectively and whoever is in power stonewalls all investigations / court cases that are against them. As I said the Prawit with his watches and the Thaksin his passports and the ombudsman. Great examples of how governments stonewall, cover their own. Shows that both sides do it. 

The problem is not so much that the stonewalling and completely biased handling of investigations and all the cover ups are done by whoever-is-in-power (not necessarily in a political sense, I think access to a big load of cash can also equate to being in-power in this case), but the fact that it can be done with relative ease in the first place. Everything becomes quite meaningless when the system works in a way that you can affect the outcome in so many levels (sufficiently big brown envelopes, choosing key people running the investigations/enforcing laws/laying judgement, outright writing the enforceable laws without any real scrutiny or the absolute worst; tainting the whole constitution by granting yourself the power to pretty much override anything possible should you not like it). Sadly, the Junta does seem to have the capability of being the judge, the jury and the executioner (either directly or by-proxy) and that's a huge problem. 

In the ever-ongoing bicker about who is more evil, the junta or the shins, I think one strong differentiator is that as bad the shins may (or may not, depending on each and everyone's opinions) have been, they didn't have Article 44. Don't get me wrong though, in my opinion the shins weren't saints, but if you absolutely have to choose a "lesser evil", I don't need to think long. But rather than balancing between two evils, I'm really hoping that someday people would have the possibility to choose a "better good" rather than trying to figure out the "lesser evil".

6 minutes ago, Classic Ray said:

I have been watching a Netflix series where some redneck voters compared an idiot and a liar who were the two

main candidates during the last US Presidential election. The US chose the idiot so it will be interesting to see what happens in Thailand..

There's no need to choose; you can conveniently get both a liar and an idiot in the same frog kissing package. Vote now and they'll throw in a weekly showcase of latest trends in the luxury watch market.

Didn't they make remarks already last month that it may (ie. will) be pushed again until May 2019? Business as usual.

Ah, here we go:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30348602