Comment As You Like

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I know of none but two personally- I'm sure there must be more, but I'm not acquainted with them. Even Churchill, who saved the world from Hitler had feet of clay.

 

One I refer to was David Lange, PM of NZ some time ago that brought hope to the populace, and IMO sabotaged by bad people. The other is Chuan Leekpai, former PM of Thailand that I had great respect for.

There are quite a few in the States.  I've always felt that what gets forgotten when it comes to people, especially politicians, is that no one is "perfect."  No one has a corner on the market of good ideas.  What politicians should be judged on is their characteristics and values.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What politicians should be judged on is their characteristics and values.

Name one that wasn't a lying, cheating, corrupt scumbag?

[KC 71]

Always liked him after watching the 'Coast' series he did.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

What part of elected comes under dictatorship. 

they should have a free hand to do so.

 

Government should NEVER have a free hand. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[BritManToo]

26 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Not to me I'd have a party at home if I wanted too. 

What part of elected comes under dictatorship. 

Hitler was elected, how well did that go?

[Tippaporn]

38 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Nothing to do with Trump.

 

 No it isn't.

 

Why would I, that's for Scientists.

 

Yes germ warfare something never experienced before.

 

They have been ELECTED to run the country during a pandemic they should have a free hand to do so.

To mention dictatorship is for OCD people. 

Nothing to do with Trump.

It's related to Trump only in the sense that it exposes the blatant hypocrisy.  You missed my entire point which is meant to show the selective nature of the use of certain arguments and rationales and how easily (and often) they get flip-flopped as needed.  You didn't understand that?
 

No it isn't.

No, it isn't what?  I can't make out what you're objecting to.  Could you be more clear and elaborate?

Why would I, that's for Scientists.

Huh?  You have no thoughts whatsoever, nada, about the fact that in two years time not a single therapeutic or treatment has been developed and the only solution to the pandemic is a vaccine?  No questions enter your mind at all about what that might mean?  Your answer is to leave it to scientists?  Might that be your attitude to any aspect of this pandemic?  Leave it to the scientists.  Leave it to the politicians.  Leave it to the media to tell me what's what?  Where do you fit in?

 

They have been ELECTED to run the country during a pandemic they should have a free hand to do so.

To mention dictatorship is for OCD people. 

Yes, a free hand.  Not an unbridled hand.  When a free hand morphs into an unchecked hand is when a free country falls to dictatorship.  And when logic fails you then turn to ad hominem - OCD people.  Is that it?

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Kwasaki]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

they should have a free hand to do so.

 

Government should NEVER have a free hand. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What I mean by a free hand to do what they want is not to be restricted as the population is the country still needs to be run. 

But UK is just listening to a load snitchers.

[Kwasaki]

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Hitler was elected, how well did that go?

See what I mean. 

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Boris was only elected as Tory leader because he wasn't May.

Boris was only elected as PM because he wasn't Jeremy.

 

Same in the USA

Donald was elected because he wasn't Hillary.

 

We have the same problems in the UK as all the other western countries.

ALL the applicants for leaders are unsuitable sock puppets for God knows who. 

Until voting forms have the option 'No suitable candidate', democracy has failed. 

Boris was only elected to see Brexit through.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Boris was only elected to see Brexit through.

Wasn't that what I wrote?

[Kwasaki]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Nothing to do with Trump.

It's related to Trump only in the sense that it exposes the blatant hypocrisy.  You missed my entire point which is meant to show the selective nature of the use of certain arguments and rationales and how easily (and often) they get flip-flopped as needed.  You didn't understand that?
 

No it isn't.

No, it isn't what?  I can't make out what you're objecting to.  Could you be more clear and elaborate?

Why would I, that's for Scientists.

Huh?  You have no thoughts whatsoever, nada, about the fact that in two years time not a single therapeutic or treatment has been developed and the only solution to the pandemic is a vaccine?  No questions enter your mind at all about what that might mean?  Your answer is to leave it to scientists?  Might that be your attitude to any aspect of this pandemic?  Leave it to the scientists.  Leave it to the politicians.  Leave it to the media to tell me what's what?  Where do you fit in?

 

They have been ELECTED to run the country during a pandemic they should have a free hand to do so.

To mention dictatorship is for OCD people. 

Yes, a free hand.  Not an unbridled hand.  When a free hand morphs into an unchecked hand is when a free country falls to dictatorship.  And when logic fails you then turn to ad hominem - OCD people.  Is that it?

 

Everyone knew what Boris was like and now as usual instead of good being done the topics are only someone kissing someone, wallpaper,  and having a wine after work.  Perthetic.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Not to me I'd have a party at home if I wanted too. 

What part of elected comes under dictatorship. 

Not to me I'd have a party at home if I wanted too. 

Illegally, of course.  In which case you would flaunt the diktats and claim that you are free.  The flawed logic is simply amazing to behold.  LOL

 

What part of elected comes under dictatorship. 

The suspension of freedoms, the claim to be the sole possessor of all real facts and the sole arbiter of truth, the suppression of opposing voices.  All this and much more.  These are some of the conditions which define a dictatorship.

 

Are you denying that none of this is happening?  And if you admit that it is then how would you then characterise these actions?  As democratic actions?  Or dictatorial actions?  Hitler was elected, too, you know.  Again, your logic is entirely flawed.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

We have become conditioned to politicians lying to us. We are now accustomed to a media that perverts truth for its own purposes. Inconvenient facts are ignored.

 

Google "Ted Mack". An Australian politician, last of the honorable men.

 

The pandemic has exposed the flaws of unbridled capitalism. The social contract that existed between democratic governments and voters no longer is functional, the sole purpose of government now is to keep capitalism working. That's hard to do if half your workforce is off sick.

 

It's no accident that the only people who are substantially benefiting from the pandemic are the billionaires.

In fact 9 new billionaires in the pharma space have been created since the pandemic.

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What I mean by a free hand to do what they want is not to be restricted as the population is the country still needs to be run. 

But UK is just listening to a load snitchers.

What do you mean by "not to be restricted?"  Look up the definition to unrestricted.  "not restricted or limited in any way"  Synonyms include: unlimited, unconditional, unregulated, unbounded, unconstrained.  The meanings of these words describe the characteristics raw power which define a dictatorship.

 

You are arguing that you are in favour of allowing elected politicians to possess such incredible power.  And furthermore you have no concern whatsoever that this unchecked power will be wielded justly?  There's a word for a belief such as that:  naiveté.  There are a whole lot of people who absolutely reject that naiveté.

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Wasn't that what I wrote?

You are correct.  I missed it.  

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Everyone knew what Boris was like and now as usual instead of good being done the topics are only someone kissing someone, wallpaper,  and having a wine after work.  Perthetic.

I truly cannot make out what point you're trying to make.

In any case, there's a whole lot of my quoted post which goes completely unaddressed.  Which is typical.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why would I, that's for Scientists.

Huh?  You have no thoughts whatsoever, nada, about the fact that in two years time not a single therapeutic or treatment has been developed and the only solution to the pandemic is a vaccine?  No questions enter your mind at all about what that might mean?  Your answer is to leave it to scientists?  Might that be your attitude to any aspect of this pandemic?  Leave it to the scientists.  Leave it to the politicians.  Leave it to the media to tell me what's what?  Where do you fit in?

 

 

 

This is an example of extrapolating beyond what you know. Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition. 

 

You also infer that the sheeple like me assume that politicians or any person including the media and scientists can necessarily be trusted. Wrong. People build reputations though. Common sense based on limited time can be used. Opinions can be updated if appropriate. 

 

You think there other motivations for lockdowns and other covid outcomes but have scant evidence. Lockdowns hurt the economy and tax revenue. Lockdowns always stop. 

I'll accept human nature is good and bad and therefore look for evidence based sources. 

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even during WW1 Britain had elections.

They didn't have any general elections during WW1.

 

It was initially a Liberal government that evolved into a coalition in 1916 under Lloyd George.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Bluespunk

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Is that the reason you give for dismissing excellent and important points out of hand?  It does excuse you for having to actually address and debate what he says on their merits.  The easy way out?

For many it is the reason they vote one way or the other.

 

Bulk of voters voting for the same party that they voted for last time........because that was who they voted for the time before that......and the time before that.........because that's "their" party.

 

The "people" get the government they deserve..........the government that the "swing" voters vote for.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This is an example of extrapolating beyond what you know. Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition. 

 

You also infer that the sheeple like me assume that politicians or any person including the media and scientists can necessarily be trusted. Wrong. People build reputations though. Common sense based on limited time can be used. Opinions can be updated if appropriate. 

 

You think there other motivations for lockdowns and other covid outcomes but have scant evidence. Lockdowns hurt the economy and tax revenue. Lockdowns always stop. 

I'll accept human nature is good and bad and therefore look for evidence based sources. 

Thanks, Fat is a type of crazy, as your post leads me to make an extremely important point which explains much in the way of the unreconcilable differences of certain opinions.  What is crucial in understanding this point I'm about to make has everything to do with perspective.

Now here's what you wrote in your first post:

 

"I just get sick of people extrapolating beyond what they know."

 

And I replied to you with (to which you never answered):

 

"Is it a question of someone not knowing or is it a question of someone with a different point of view who then gets smeared as someone who is out of their league?  Which one is it?"

 

From your perspective, and in our present case, someone with an opposing point of view is considered to be speaking beyond what they know.  They may full well know what they speak of and be spot on in their knowledge.  Yet it is precisely because your view point is different (and usually that means opposite) that your perspective then leads you to believe that this someone knows not what they are speaking of.  It's contrarian.

Now, the exact same happens when we, or anyone, talk about conspiracy theory.  And I'll quote from your post (in which, coincidentally, you now accuse me of "extrapolating beyond what you know," LOL):

"Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition."

You have your worldview operating here, your perspective, in which scientists and businesses attempt to profit, in this case off of a "treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic."  I think I can safely say that you have an implied, yet unspoken, assumption operating that this activity is based in pure innocence.  That there is nothing at all nefarious going on.  That is your view, your belief, your perspective.

Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see.  And what they see leads them to question.  Since your perspective assumes all is done in innocence and purity then any questioning is naturally  and automatically seen as an attempt to read into something something which is not there.  Under this perspective, and precisely due to this perspective, any evidence offered that all is not above board is in one way or another rejected.  Either by discounting it, distorting it, recontextualising it, minimising it, or outright ignoring it.

And so this then allows for your conclusion, made with absolute righteousness, of "implications but no evidence."  The evidence can be smack in your face but, as explained, you will reject it in one way or another using one of the means described above.

 

This entire idiocy of immediately claiming "conspiracy theory" at the slightest hint of someone's doubt or questioning, due merely to one's perspective, is the worst type of canard.  It is an entirely disingenuous practice and is purposed to dismiss out of hand any countering viewpoints, bona fide or not.  And to disparage and discredit the character of those who question.

It is a practice, in essence, of a self adopted closemindedness to the existence of any other possibilities other than your own.  Which, again, is disingenuous at it's core.

I'll remind you that at one time the mere mention that the UK was to adopt vaccine passports was dismissed as conspiracy theory.  It would never happen.  Does that not prove my point?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

For many it is the reason they vote one way or the other.

 

Bulk of voters voting for the same party that they voted for last time........because that was who they voted for the time before that......and the time before that.........because that's "their" party.

 

The "people" get the government they deserve..........the government that the "swing" voters vote for.

 

 

The people absolutely get the government they deserve.  The government is literally a reflection of the people.

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The people absolutely get the government they deserve.  The government is literally a reflection of the people.

But none of the candidates have anything in common with 'the people'.

They were educated in schools and universities 'the people' couldn't attend. 

They have health care in facilities 'the people' couldn't afford.

Holiday at exclusive destinations 'the people' can only dream about.

And they live in places 'the people' can't afford to live.

 

In fact those who purport to represent us, have lives that share nothing in common with us.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by BritManToo

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I truly cannot make out what point you're trying to make.

In any case, there's a whole lot of my quoted post which goes completely unaddressed.  Which is typical.

I'm not surprised of your non understanding of a wider picture or a more open minded approach you sound brainwashed.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Kwasaki

[seedy]

Just had a look at what British politicians swear to uphold -

 

Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/

 

However, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and upholding international law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

Funny that they swear an oath to a bunch of Germans and not the Constitution of the country

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The people absolutely get the government they deserve.  The government is literally a reflection of the people.

But none of the candidates have anything in common with 'the people'.

They were educated in schools and universities 'the people' couldn't attend. 

They have health care in facilities 'the people' couldn't afford.

And they live in places 'the people' can't afford to live.

 

In fact those who purport to represent us, have lives that share nothing in common with us.

I believe if one were to examine the beliefs held by each one would find there are commonalities that connect the two.  Flipsides of the same coin, as it were, therefore opposites.  Certainly opposites in the assumed roles played by each side.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I'm not surprised of your non understanding of a wider picture or a more open minded approach you sound brainwashed.

 

I'm not surprised by your unwillingness to debate any specific point or elucidate on your vague statements.  Wider picture, for instance.  You throw out an accusation of "non understanding" without ever defining what your wider picture is.

 

And again you defer to disparaging the character of your opponent so that you can easily dismiss yourself from actually having to debate the merits of a viewpoint.  Not a winning strategy as far as I'm concerned.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Lockdowns always stop. 

IMO they stopped because the populace either ignored them or were threatening to not re elect the politicians.

IMO if they could have got away with it we'd still be in lockdown. Total control, total power- what's not to want?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, seedy said:

Funny that they swear an oath to a bunch of Germans and not the Constitution of the country

Do you not understand that Britain is a kingdom, not a republic, and the people are subjects, not citizens?

[The Hammer2021]

What a dirty, scruffy, badly dressed tramp!

[HAPPYNUFF]

Not being from the northern hemisphere, I have never heard, before, of Neil Oliver,  and make no comment  on his   broadcast.   However,    he does talk of trust,, I  would  assume  he also means respect, and  o n those  points  I would  just say,   who now, in  these troubled times, can we look to, to respect and trust.    Religion, of   nearly all denominations,, have failed and  are hardly to be looked upon favourably.  Politcians,,, what can one say about the  greater majority of them, self serving power hungry  individuals, only concerned about  getting re elected next time around.   For the British Commonwealth people,  their monarchy  is  going through  turmoil and embarrasment due to the antics of some of their members.  Polls taken show  doctors, and medical    peoples are   amongst  the few to whom people look up to these days..That  is individuals,   it should be  institutions  as well that   have  our trust and respect.   It is sad, as I believe  we need someone, or something, in our life  to look up to, respect and trust, otherwise   it  quite dispiriting.