@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

Same old faux indignation, trying to associate your own posts with the New York Times etc. On the off-chance you actually don't get it, let's try again. My point was that you habitually quote googled bits, without your posts conveying much clue or in-depth take beyond what you link. Other than rehashing the contents of such links, or building castles in the air upon such "foundations", you contribute relatively little to these "discussions".

And while you adulation of media sources and reports supporting whichever argument you push is dully noted, that still doesn't make them all gospel. Notably, you don't even bother addressing points raised, but simply rely on the absurd force of "it was in the New York Times".

You could try the "anonymous poster" nonsense, sure. But then again, I post quite often on related topics, and it would take quite a stretch to assert I haven't got a clue. Case in point, examples were given as to certain issues with both your assertions and those made in the article linked. As said in response to similar, past faux tantrums - posters find it hard to accept that we do not all share the same background, knowledge or experience. That's all the more obvious with those insisting on being instant know-it-all's on a whole array of topics.

We got an offer to make some new doors and doorframes out of a type of wood we're not familiar with.

Doors are meant for the interior, so no direct exposure to elements.

If I got it right, it's ไม้ร่มม้า (roughly, mai rom ma).

Does anyone know what wood is this, and if it's any good?

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

If "trump" is reelected and good odds he will be the traditional allies will understandably give up permanently on looking to the USA for leadership. America alone indeed.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Good odds Trump will be reelected? Somehow doubt that. And even then, a permanent rift between the US and Europe is still not a forgone conclusion.

9 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

Did Trump sign  or "un-sign" for the US or not? In the name of the American people, or not?

Did Trump repeal Obama's legacy as POTUS or as individual?   

I think everyone agrees Trump is POTUS. Whether Trump faithfully represents the American people can be debated. A couple of years ago, Obama was POTUS and signed things. Was this a different America or a different POTUS?

IMO, most world leaders understand Trump is not a permanent fixture, whereas the US is. I don't see the willingness exhibited by some posters, to toss away relations with the US over Trump this or Trump that, reflected much in world leaders' take on things.

4 minutes ago, Opl said:

Trump has the closed face of the stubborn guy but who signs and cowardly withdraws his signature.  Well, with this completely predictable turnaround the entire planet can no longer have the slightest doubt about the total lack of American credibility. R.I.P. the diplomatic power made in the USA, and that will survive Trump. We will have to strengthen the EU, accept China as the new global center of gravity, and work directly with US states on a case-by-case basis.

So basically, you dodged the questioned, and went on ranting. Your original complaint was about the US, rather than Trump. The US was supposedly putting its interests first, and "imposing its principals" (still not clear about that one) - are there any countries not doing the same? Or is it more a matter of their ability to advance their interests? Is China, which you herald as the "new global center of gravity", different?

Many of the posters commenting here, whether opposing or supporting Trump, seem to emulate the way he reacts to the world.

I place a somewhat stronger trust in both the long standing relations between countries, and their leaderships ability to transcend emotional outbursts. In fact, that was one of the strong comments against Trump aired in this context (I think by Macron, but could be wrong). And, of course, whether posters like to acknowledge it or not, all countries got interests, and all put them first. I doubt most European countries' best interests involve ditching the US or getting in bed with China/Russia.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So in short: we need the US because of WW2.

Nonsense, but maybe someone else has some real arguments?

That's not what was posted. Nonsense would apply to your spin, and the feigned ignorance as to US role with regard to Europe.

1 minute ago, Opl said:

So you  consider Trump's show off of self confidence as proofs of competence, and boldness ?  Trump is the epitome of what the US has always managed to hide to the world so far. It is a nation that has always brutally put its interest first and imposed its principles because of its power. Trump is a bad thing for a good, Europeans and their partners should open their eyes

  

Because other countries do not "put its interest first"? Do tell. And other countries, to the best of their ability - do not "impose their principals" (whatever this means)? All ears.

@dexterm

A "joke" would be an apt description of your "reasoning". What you quote is a bit of the UN position, and then you announce it applies to the OP, and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. The former is a partial fact (if one feels charitable), the latter - your personal, biased interpretation. Glad I could clear this for you, even though it was plainly obvious.

Deflect all you like, but if one would take your hyperbole seriously, it would seem Israel isn't either not invested in this supposed "genocide" effort, or not particularly good at it. For an effort lasting (according to your nonsense posts) 70 years - not particularly impressive, as such things go.

As for you obligatory straw-man argument - do cite where any such praise was rained on Israel in my posts? Yeah, though so.

What you label "excuses" is what other people call realism. That you do not like reality, facts or anything that doesn't fall in line with your extreme point of view is a matter of record. All of your routine talking points, which you seem to rehash on each and every topic, were addressed and dealt with numerous times. That you cannot offer any coherent reply, or refuse to address anything whatsoever reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side pretty much leaves you wallowing in the bile and vehemence which your posts are made of.

5 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

The world willnot and cannot allow isolationiism. So a deal will have to be struck huh.

Or, they'll wait it out a couple of years, and deal with the next, hopefully sane, POTUS.

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Please be isolationist. We don't want or need the USA. Please just stay at home. OK?

What "we" do you imagine you speak for?

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Not feeding the trolls today.

You'll starve....

@dexterm

Again, that you say something, doesn't make it so. So going on about "genocide" is all very well - as long as it's clear that's not a fact, but your opinion. That you announce the UN version to conform with your interpretation doesn't make it so - yet another one of your co-opting acts. Nothing new here.

For a country supposedly united by such nefarious intentions, Israel did rather poorly considering it's been at it 70 years. More Palestinians than ever, some of them (gasp!) Israeli citizens. Couldn't make up such nonsense arguments (only apparently, you can).

As per script, when you have nothing of substance to post on topic, you head for them nonsense lands, where facts are scarce.

@dexterm

Nah, you co-opted something and quoted it without applying anything resembling proportion. I suggest that other than yourself and those holding similar extreme views, applying the term "genocide" to the casualty toll related to the protests is not a widely held position. Applying it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole is pretty much similar - more something which you allege, and less an actual widely held position.

Naturally, anything that doesn't reek of of your extreme, one-sided views, or attempts to address the Palestinian side in the conflict is labeled "blaming the victims". Getting argument getting pretty worn by now.

That you announce something is "exactly" this or that, is a good bet that it is nothing of the sort. As usual, your "account" fails to acknowledge the reasons the blockade is in place, or that protests were not quite the peaceful picture that you try to paint.

@dexterm

You can push  your nonsense all day long, we've been through all of your talking point many a time.

There is no "genocide". You and others usage of the terms demeans and trivializes it. Once can certainly relate to the Palestinian predicament without employing hyperbole. Considering one of your standing arguments is about the Palestinians being the majority, or time being on the Palestinians' side - doesn't seem like much of a "genocide" to me. But again, I'm not the one making bogus arguments, you are.

For the better part of them 70 years, the Palestinians chose a rejectionist stance, which left little room for any solutions. Twisting facts doesn't change reality.

The Palestinian refugee status can be debated. Other refugees are not afforded the right to "inherit" this status to following generations. Making this allowance with regard to the Palestinians, as well as Arab countries failing to address the issue of Palestinian refugees are two main factors in the situation being hard to solve.

I think you should give this a rest and go back to deflections denying Hamas involvement in the protests .

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I do travel alot. Most of my friends in the US, are fairly disenchanted. And some of those friends are doing very well financially. Others are having a hard time, as consumer confidence is incredibly low right now, despite what the WH and the pundits say. About a third of all Americans, including kids, are on anti depressants or similar meds. Many are barely coping. Believe me, the quality of life in the US has slipped dramatically. Not the nation it once was, by any stretch of the imagination. Sure there are worse places. But, that is not really my point. And yes, you are right about the past 20 years. A 30% increase. A remarkable statistic, by any calculation or comparison. 

Most of what you posted above can be described as anecdotal. Whether it even pertains to Bourdain's suicide is questionable.

You tried to make the case that the US "not an easy place to be", while going on about "the bitter, disenchanted, joyless atmosphere of the place". This seems to be at odds with the the 30% increase being spread over 20 years - unless your claim regarding the US is wider.

And saying that a 30% increase over 20 years is "remarkable, by any calculation or comparison" is somewhat hollow, without actually applying such comparisons. I'm not saying it isn't - and I'm not bothered enough to check how it stacks vs. previous decades, or in comparison to other countries/global stats.

9 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Oh Morch, I put up my post above, and I then went to the  "In bombshell, Trump says US backs out of G7 communique, criticizes Trudeau" post, and put up the photo of John R Bolton.
I then noticed your post above. Well, yes, John R Bolton is in the White House, he turned up for the big meeting. Whatever views Donald Trump has got, well, Bolton is influencing Trump. At the very least, Bolton is egging Trump on. At the very least, behind closed doors, I reckon Bolton is saying to Donald Trump "go on, do it, you've wanted to do this for ages, do it, go and put some tariffs on them G7 people, and laugh at them".

 

 

Only problem with your nonsense is that Trump held such views long before Bolton joined the administration. Long before he won the elections. As for you pretending to know what goes on behind closed doors, or which level of influence Bolton exerts on Trump - allow me to doubt you've got an insight on either.

Trump being "spared" from some of the criticism, and "America" (or "Washington", or some "advisors influencing him") taking heat is just one of them ways in which you push a rather obvious agenda.

Try harder.

@dexterm

I am not confusing anything with anything. The one disregarding facts is yourself. You've been doing the same on all topics related to these protests. You couldn't factually contradict any point raised, hence you rely on bogus comments. As for painting a "one-sided" picture - do your really want to go there? You?! And, of course, there wasn't actually anything "one-sided" in my posts.

I've no time for your guessing games. Considering your standing position is to deny, reject or ignore anything bearing negatively on the Palestinians side, all of your comments should, at best, be taken with a truckload of salt. You can try and twist things all you like - don't recall saying anything about belonging to a political party being a "crime punishable by death". Then again, portraying the Hamas as a mere "political party" is just another typical misleading statement. Instead of making up hypothetical scenarios and my reactions to them, perhaps reflect on the simple fact that the Likud party does not actually support a "military wing".

You can try to spin your "independent" investigation yarn all you like - about as factual as the rest of your nonsense.

15 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-apos-emmanuel-macron-throws-041556367.html


Okay, from the headline, "France's Emmanuel Macron throws down Trump Twitter gauntlet: G7 can become G6".

And also, Macron said "The six countries of the G7 without the United States are a bigger market taken together than the American market. We don’t mind being six, if needs be.”

Emmanuel Macron, I'm not French. But today, I have no problems flying the French flag. America reckons that it's so important. America needs to be reminded "you're not as big a deal as you think you are, get real".  "You're not actually a bunch of jumped up nobodies, but you're heading that way".

 

Only, despite your spins, this isn't so much about "America", but more to do with Trump. Guess you'll shortly come up with some unnamed advisors "influencing" him to adopt policies he doesn't really support.

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Don't confuse yours, Netanyahu's, and Nikki Haley's opinions with facts. Nothing has been debunked at all. Just a smear campaign launched by Israel and parroted by you.

 

If the US had proposed a counter UN resolution for an open, independent, transparent inquiry to get to the bottom of the violence and deaths in the Great March of Return demonstrations, instead of playing games by wording an anti Hamas resolution to protect Israel that not a single other Security Council member voted for except USA, we may be approaching something like facts.

You are pretty much out there trying to dissociate Hamas from the protests. This even goes against Hamas's own statements. And regardless of your obvious lies and nonsense - the tone of the protests didn't have much to do with the supposed message you tout.

As for your absurd one-sided views - don't see you complaining about about the original resolution proposal failing to exhibit such balance. Guess that being biased is acceptable, as long as it fits your agenda.

Hamas definitely exhibited control of the protests - fact. Hamas definitely played a major part with regard to their organization and attendance - facts. Hamas definitely set the tone, and dictated the agenda - facts.

28 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests.

...that's because Hamas were not behind the Gaza protests, as you falsely claim.

Even if this inane deflection somehow had to do with what I posted, it would still be a blatant lie. That you would repeat such nonsense after it was thoroughly debunked on previous topics, and pretty much against all accounts, just goes to show your disregard for facts, whenever a talking point needs to be made.

@dexterm

Trump's Embassy move and related statements refer to Jerusalem's final status being a matter of negotiation. That you routinely insist on ignoring that doesn't change facts. The same goes for your annexation talking points - in effect, there is no annexation. On the basis of these two faulty arguments, you announce the demise of the two-state solution. Not particularly compelling. And, as usual, failing to address anything related to the Palestinian side's role in this.

You can also pretend whatever nonsense version you like, but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests. Similarly, all of your posts fail to address that no matter what form a peaceful solution will take - it will only be achieved through negotiations. Since negotiations seem anathema to your position, entirely unsurprising.

And the topic is not about a one-state solution, as much as you'd like it to be.

@JimmyJ

There is no "genocide", other than in your mind. People tossing about such term simply demean and trivialize the concept, making it harder to apply where it actually fits.

I question either you being an expert on international law, or Finkelstein's view being accepted as anything but extreme.

Your claims regarding the new Hamas charter are misleading.

@JimmyJ

Yet another one of your alternative facts, one-sided presentations.

There are no Israeli settlements within the Gaza Strip. And whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the blockade on the Gaza Strip is directly related to Hamas actions, agenda and policies. It is also maintained by Egypt - as much as some like to ignore that.

Israel being targeted by various UN bodies is nothing new. Perhaps more indicative of the organizations' drawbacks when it  comes to putting global concerns over politics. The same UN finds it hard to address much more severe crises - such as Syria, Sudan, and Myanmar, to name a few.

Hamas is a not a "red herring", nor a "diversion". Unless you wish to claim that a faction representing half or more of the Palestinian people is insignificant. A peaceful settlement wasn't reached prior to Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip doesn't "prove" anything much, unless someone is trying really hard to muddy the waters. The same old either/or nonsense.