No, you say both sides because you can’t admit your “team” has a problem that isn’t ubiquitous.
Again, I show you dozens of individuals intentionally voting multiple times, dozens of campaigns and the party itself engaging in ballot harvesting and other schemes that together equate to hundreds of thousands of stolen votes, you answer “both sides” with absolutely not a single case on the Democrats side (besides the one entrapment case I handed you)….and pretend you won’t provide examples because they’ll be dismissed not because you have none….being dismissed doesn’t stop you from posting all the other propaganda. Knowing you will dismiss the verifiable facts I present you hasn’t stopped me from posting them in contradiction to your baseless propaganda.

I admit Democrats self deal, do insider trading, and sell their votes to deep pockets….but on a scale that’s microscopic compared to the complete lack of ethics and morals on the right. The right was significantly less honest, more money hungry, more corrupt than the left BEFORE Trump….after Trump it’s comparing the Mediterranean to an Olympic sized pool. Technically both have water. Comparatively the pool is completely insignificant….but you only want to focus on what happens in the pool.

Trump and family made literally BILLIONS selling favors. Never been a bigger crook in any office in the land. Greene went from pennyless to a multi millionaire in 2 years. Same for Santos who is a total fraud in every way, a fugitive, and supported by your party…apparently made millions from his campaign. You’ll be hard pressed to find any Republican that hasn’t made millions in office by ignoring ethics completely. You won’t find ANY trying to get big money (bribery) out of politics…only the left is interested in that, the right wants MORE bribery legalized (citizens United was their case, proving Republicans fight for MORE corruption in politics while Democrats fight to end it), the right refuses to divest, and opposes any strengthening of ethics rules EVERY TIME Democrats push for more/stronger ethics rules/laws.

Of course I’ll dismiss your hyper biased, unthinking, no fact idiotic claims, especially since they NEVER have references (because everything you believe is partisan nonsense and lies). It’s not worth the time because it takes no time at all to debunk your constant consistent lies and pure fantasy. If you had any actual facts it would be worth posting them, but you just don’t. You don’t bother to post lately because the stupid lies have gotten dumber and are being debunked as fast as you guys can lie them. It’s past the point where it’s safe to simply deny anything you say as a partisan lie with no investigation at all….chances are 99.96% you are lying or repeating lies any time you type. You never have facts or even references to show where your lies came from….which is totally intentional because you know that only makes debunking them much easier.

In congress….98% of corruption, 100% of child molestation, 100% of treason, 100% of calls to rescind the constitution, voting, and democracy and become a dictatorship are on the right. You call that “both sides” and pretend it’s really mostly a problem on the left with a very few outliers from the right….ignoring the facts….as usual.

You know the old saying….
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” -Thomas Paine

You sir abandoned fact and reason well before the Traitor Trump rode his golden escalator of lies into your heart. I don’t argue with you except as practice, you have no actual argument to offer, only the far right party lines. I simply tell you the verifiable facts. You then argue with the facts and pat yourself on the head in congratulations. Silly boy.

BTW…have you grown up enough to discuss Ashley Babbitt yet? The treasonous traitor who violently attacked the capitol with an armed gang of thugs trying to overthrow democracy at Trump’s urging and got what they all deserved….your hero.
No, I’m sure you’re still just too embarrassed of how idiotic supporting domestic terrorists is and just hope everyone will forget you stand firmly with the treasonous terrorist traitors against democracy, law, and order.

Mary Barra GM CEO. Her job is to "say" they are the leader, even when they a are not and wont be. Don't believe her.


There are few YouTube channels to watch on EVs. Sandy Munro is 1 of them.

Ford and GM are the Blackberry of their day.
They may make it through the decade but will be insignificant in the market.


Do you think CNBC would positive spin GM because of all the advertising they do? Would they be 100% honest?

Yes people die from a lot, so the goal is to reduce it where ever possible instead doing the digestive equivalent of the bird box challenge.

And again, even if it was just 1%, that is millions of of people 50,000 people's mourning families would disagree that it's statistically insignificant.

And with this video I rest my case that we are not so insignificant.

For example, the Sun is as much a part of us as the beating hearts in our chests.

When we look at the universe through a telescope we see ourselves in the same way as if it were a microscope.

This also means you weigh a lot more than you thought you did.

What would you recommend for an alternative here? There are inevitably going to be seniors who don't have family available to help them, and who reach a point where they're unable to care for themselves. I can only think of four options at that point:
1) Hope there's a local charity that is willing to take care of them, has adequate funding to do so, and isn't abusive. If this is unregulated there's a high likelihood of abuse occurring, and if it is regulated then you have government involved, which appears to be something you'd oppose. There's also the issue of unequal access - if it's charitable then it's inherently not mandated, so it's nearly certain some people will not have any such charity in their area (see #3).
2) Somehow have private, non-charitable entities handle it? I've no idea how this would work, as any non-charity is pretty much by definition motivated by profit, and a profit motive plus caring for the elderly is certain to lead to abuse (perhaps not in all cases, but I'd expect it to be quite common).
3) Nothing / good luck, oldies.
4) Government intercession.

In this case, a safety net facilitated by the government strikes me as the best of the available options. The problems highlighted in the video seem likely to stem from insufficient oversight and planning. I'd wager that's due to lack of funding, as this is exactly the sort of program which would be seen as a low-risk target when budget cuts come around, at least from an electoral perspective. After all, if the people impacted by this are those who don't already have people in their life who care for and can advocate for them, and being put under guardianship removes their voting rights, then where's the harm to a politician in reducing the funding?

It seems to me that a well-funded guardianship program, with proper oversight in place, would have the best chance of minimizing the suffering of elderly individuals who can no longer care for themselves. I can understand the libertarian preference for minimal governmental interference in the lives of the public, but this strikes me as a case where that simply doesn't work. If you can think of a viable option #5, or can make a case for 1, 2, or 3 being legitimately more helpful than a well-run option #4 (which is clearly NOT what's discussed in the video), I'm absolutely open to considering it. At the same time, implementing #4 in a way which doesn't leave it vulnerable to budgetary volatility is also a not-insignificant challenge.

Damn, I'm procrastinating really well tonight. That was long.

Pretty good video. Specific things:

Too many prostitutes: Most of the non-Thai people that complain about this went to the wrong places in Thailand. Pattaya was a tiny fishing village before the Vietnam war. Then, soldiers started getting shipped into the country for R&R. The Thai government didn't really know what to do with them, so they sorta passed the buck and decided to send them to Pattaya to relax. Bunch of stressed out dudes there, nothing to do, high demand for alternate activities ... the market answered.

Fast forward to today, and Pattaya knows exactly what put it on the map. I hate that place -- it is like what would happen if you took the worst/sleaziest elements of Vegas and Tijuana, and then built a "city" around it. Shittiest beach in Thailand, chock full of sleaze, disgusting. However, it is one of the most major tourist destinations. Gee, why could that be? Is it in spite of the nature of the place, or because of it? No false advertising here, you know what you're getting when you book a trip there. And if that is your thing, more power to ya.

Now, I don't want to act like prostitution exists in Pattaya and Soi Cowboy / Patpong in Bangkok, and is absent elsewhere. Far from it. Every town, down on to tiny ones, likely has a red-light district and brothels. The ones you hear about are sex tourism pits like those major ones, but the trade is alive and well pretty much everywhere -- and mostly caters to local Thais.

I've honestly never been to such an establishment or sought those services (in 11 years of being here), but I don't care that they are available. The most significant negative is that they are NOT well-regulated like, say, what I've heard about Amsterdam. Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand. So the de-facto situation is that brothels have to pay protection money to police in order to avoid getting shut down or "inspected", etc.

Corruption is a major problem -- much worse than prostitution, in my opinion.


Too many ladyboys: It is certainly true that there are more trans people per capita here than pretty much anywhere else that I know of. It took me a while, being a country kid from Kansas, but I see that in pretty much the same light as the German narrator in the video at this point. Acceptance is good. You do you, man.

As a stereotype on the flip side of the coin, I think the ladyboys tend to be great in custom interaction kinds of jobs. Cashiers at 7-11, waitpeople at restaurants, etc. Polite, attentive, helpful. And often the most willing to attempt to use English. A lot of the best students that I've taught English to have been ladyboy leaning.


Freedom: I'm with @Mordhaus here. When your personal liberty is mainly due to the apathy / incompetence of the governing authority, and they may choose to get off their asses and revoke that at any time ... perhaps it isn't something to brag about. Very basic stuff like dissenting speech and protesting is met with being carted off for little re-education chats, etc. Pretty scary shit, actually.


Basically I tend to think that just like anywhere on Earth, there's a lot of good here and plenty of bad too. There's plenty of legitimate gripes with cultural elements and stuff in Thailand, but the most common ones (that the video pretty accurately listed) are pretty insignificant in my opinion.

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

Pakistan are 95%+ Muslime They follow a higher power..
371 murder cases, 28 cases of gang murder, nine of abduction for ransom, 4 terrorism incidents were registered in 2015,
not quite as violent as America.

Then look at who is doing the shooting?
Lone nuts--- insignificant
Pissed off spouses -- insignificant
Inner city gang bangers -- root cause of American gun violence

Inner cities have excessive gun violence. Why is that?
No jobs?
No respect for life?
No desire to educate oneself to get out of the situation?
No real deterrent for gun use?

Would a strict gun free zone in such high gun use are be an OK solution that carries the strictest punishment for those that commit crimes with guns ( as apposed to guns being used to defend)? Ho about a 1 year of PSA on the local media before it goes into effect? then strictly enforced?


Until you can get people to respect life and or use the strictest punishment -- I think this will continue.

Better mental health links to ATF where friends and worker can nark to the ATF? This also might help send a flag to re investigate and or to investigate even more on the background check.

Longer waiting period to give ATF more time to do more thorough background check.



What would you propose?

I gave him? Are you under the impression I represent all media?
Edit: I do agree he's playing them with insignificant but sensational tricks/scandals to get less coverage of his administrations actions, but it's working less and less as people realize it's all intentional distraction.
I would say lip service was 40% his votes, racists 20%, DNC tricks 20%, and unearned, inappropriate free media face time 20%, with a 10% margin of error.

Being able to read well is not at all trivial, it's essential for ANY other improvement. If he can't read, he's forever under the thumb of non elected advisors that can legally lie to him about what he's signing into law.

He's already under at least 3 nonpartisan investigations that may do just that, with more coming. The only hope there is to erode enough support for him that the Republicans can't halt or ignore them without committing political suicide. His actions are doing a good job of that, but not good or fast enough....yet.
Maybe if they realize that stances like pro coal means pro coal companies, not pro coal miner, they'll come to their senses....fingers crossed. I just wish his supporters would read his (ghost written) book and realize what he's done to them.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Ok, then, just to destroy your contention that there was no argument offered AFTER "Fuck off"..."it's a fucking Muslim ban, he said there was a Muslim ban, it's a Muslim ban." Is just one of many arguments that followed.


Jesus fucking Christ, you Trump supporters are fucking impossible to have a discussion with, because when given a cogent argument against your claims, you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"", when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit.

Better? I'm not sure.

Sports where the advantage men have is diminished (which is what I meant): some non-contact sports (e.g. netball), shooting, lawn bowls (which is quite fun), dresage, etc. There is still a difference at high levels, but in casual play the difference is largely insignificant.

Ah thanks, that's an interesting rule.

There is no benefit to the helper but quite clearly a big benefit to the person being helped. He retained 2nd place in this case which is not insignificant, it seems strange to do that with assistance.

I do like it but it is surprising to learn there is that level of compassion written in to the rules.

That is exactly what i feel, when looking up to the stars ... not frightend by my insignificance, but elevated by being part of something much, much larger. It calms me.