Jump to content

Tounge Thaied

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tounge Thaied

  1. 52 minutes ago, Salerno said:

     

    Yes I do, doesn't necessarily protect them from the laws though nor does it protect the westerners that "work" on the site that are in Thailand (as a percentage obviously do) and can have their permission to stay removed on the whim of an arguably archaic "justice" system.

    We all have our own FREE WILL choice. Immorality is a choice. Great example of doing the right thing in journalism is the recent happenings with Glenn Greenwald. That's what morality looks like. 

  2. 13 minutes ago, TooBigToFit said:

    I often wonder why the news and forums post topics that they won't allow people to comment on. Are they posting those stories as a warning or threat to others? Human lives are at stake and literal human rights abuse of teenagers is the topic so you would think they would stand on the right side of history and do the right thing rather than be silent in the face of human rights abuses. 

    You bring up an excellent point. Why do the news forums post topics that are often clearly going to incite robust discussion... to then only censor that discussion? 

    • Like 2
  3. One can understand why the student, why the young inherently rebel... they intuitively know the truth.


    Some people might be deeply shocked by words, images, arguments and ideas that are sometimes put forward in a free society. But in a free society, we have no right to prevent free speech and block other people’s opinions, even if we all disagree with what is said or find it offensive or immoral. There is certainly a case for curbing language that incites people to violence against others, or that recklessly endangers life and limb – like the obvious example of shouting ‘Fire!’ in a theatre. Likewise, there is a case that children need special protection also, which is why, for example, we have age classifications on movies and games.

    However, it is very different from preventing particular words, images, arguments and ideas from being aired at all. There can be no such censorship in a society of free individuals – for then they would not be free. Chog Dee... Lets all remain free shall we. 

    • Like 1
  4. 1 minute ago, placeholder said:

    What are the rates of people who suffer long term damage from the disease?

    What about hospitals that are actually having to send patients to hospitals farther away because they are at capacity?

    What about the shortage of N95 masks (thanks Trump)?

    I've made my point... caveats abound. I realize my opinions here are contrary to the usual narrative... but in my humble opinion, it is important that we consider all the facts and allow ourselves to draw our own conclusions. It doesn't mean of course my opinions here are entirely correct... but a healthy debate at a minimum should include someone to play "Devils Advocate" for the sake of establishing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

  5. Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

    What about reports on how something that Trump said would be gone by Easter has killed over 233,000 Americans and is still killing?

     

    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

     

     

     

     

     

    It was my understanding that Jeffr2 was asking about long term case specific health effects. You've taken my comment out of context. My comment was responding to any long term health effects an individual may have after recovering from the illness. 

  6. 3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

     

    Giuliani represents Trump only on TV, not in any legal proceedings for which Trump has ample other legal representation.  No decision to allow or disallow observers at any polling place would be within the purview of the Democratic Party.  The local board of elections would make all such decisions.  Since they are local authorities there could not be any national lawsuit against all of them.

    You're wrong... if they are breaking the law... there will indeed be a lawsuit against them.

  7. 1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

    One thing is for sure. Other countries aren't knocking down the doors to try to copy the US system. Shining city on a hill, my <deleted>.

    No doubt... if you are honoring the truth... the America experiment at freedom is dead. But as one wise man once said, it is the truth that shall set you free... and that immutable truth is certainly applicable today. Chog Dee America!!!

  8. 14 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

    So, while the Supreme Court has no legitimate role in deciding elections that can and have intervened illegally, unconstitutionally, and corruptly to decide a presidential election for political purposes.  I expect them to do so again in the coming month.  

    You're opining, which is fine. And I see your argument... I see where you are coming from. However, seemingly you are resolving to the original idea that the Supreme Court will be eventually called in to hear some form of legal arguments. As I understand it, because I have no legal training and not having spent that much time on this, that Trump's Top personal lawyer, Rudy Gulioni (however you spell it) is suing in several states and is considering a larger federal lawsuit, primarily surrounding the Democrats illegal practice of not allowing a bi-partisan "observer" process of counting votes. Anyway, your thoughtful comments are well noted.. so we shall see in about a month or so?

    • Like 2
  9. 2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

     

    I think you underestimate the creativity of the 4,000 lawyers that Trump has attacking the election results.   Since Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are on the Supreme Court today, because they were part of the successful judicial coup that was Bush v. Gore in 2000, it strains credulity to imagine that they would scruple to hand the election to Trump given the chance.  

     

    But it could play out this way:  They tie up the count in the courts until Dec. 8, the deadline for reporting the winning electoral slate to Congress.  Then the Republican legislatures can pass a law picking the (Republican) electors themselves under the claim that to fail to do so would disenfranchise the entire state.  But the Dem governor sends in the slate of electors who actually won the vote.  So now Congress has two competing slates, the Senate and the House each vote which to accept.  The Senate will be either majority Republican or tied at 50-50.  If Republican, the Senate accepts the Republican slate.  If 50-50 does Pence get a tie-breaker vote?  Damned if anyone knows given the poor drafting of the Electoral Count Act of 1888.  But there is a high risk that the House and the Senate will not agree on which electors to accept, despite that the law is clear that they must accept the governor's.  If that all results in neither candidate getting to 270, the the House elects the president with one vote per state and Trump wins.

     

    If you think the Republicans would disdain to display such contempt for the voters, you haven't been paying attention.   

    Cool story bro!

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...