And that was good, right? Real good!
When you’ve seen the things out in the cornfield that I’ve seen, you’ll understand why I’m so quick to agree with that sentiment.
So, what you’re saying here is that Sineenat Wongvajirapakdi isn’t the first dog that Phrabat Somdet Phra Vajira Klao Chao Yu Hua Chin Swn Ri Kha Xu has been fucking?
No, because I don’t call women dogs. Seriously you should retract that comment.
You’re right. I wrestled with it because (a) the woman’s not ugly, and (b) dog can also be use to describe a person’s behavior/character. Given the incredibly more common usage of the term as a pejorative, I agree with you.
Well, what do you know? Thai protesters openly criticize monarchy. Let’s hope they don’t get railroaded by the still really in charge military. The protestors seem to have carefully couched their protest language to ensure they are asking for an actual constitutional monarch and not a figurehead to be used as a weapon against the miltiary’s critics.
Not our country, not our business … that being said, I personally have no problem with not defaming any of the above, and staying out of the judicial system - because exactly that - not MY country, not my business. If the people wanted to they could revolt or move elsewhere. As was pointed out above, they seem to have a fairly stable country. Discussions on this board previously have included how many officials are corrupt, but again, their country, their business.
Are you actually arguing that no law in another country can be wrong? Or are there some restrictions on your novel position? I assume you wouldn’t argue that, say, North Korea is fine, or that Nazi Germany would have been fine if they’d just not invaded anyone and just Holocausted their own Jews. So there must be some limits on your position.
Anyways, your position would make it impossible for the royals to face any consequences for bad actions, or for the people to decide they don’t want a monarchy. By law, they can’t choose either of those things. Royal murders people? Can’t do anything about it.
I personally cannot see how that’s not wrong.
Also, I can’t see how corruption can ever not be wrong. It is an act that prevents the laws–the will of the people–from being enacted. If corruption is okay, then that means no one who objects to it could stop it.
So it seems to me that your position runs into contradictions. If the people get to decide, then any law that stops them from deciding is wrong.
i am saying that it is up to the people of outer slobovia to revolt if their god-emperor is dancing naked while smeared with the blood of the ritually sacrificed babies. while it is horrific, not our country. it would be like the king of saudi arabia and the ruler of malysia invading us to establish sharia law and stoning your sister for living with her female lover.
and while i hate the actions of little kimmy, unless the north koreans rise up and depose him, nothing we can do. just like nsdap germany, they were fine until they got into it with countries we had mutual defense treaties with, broadly speaking.