stephen tracy

sing

Quote

 

As always... speak first, think later.

8 hours ago, soalbundy said:

still better than him singing though

Give it time.

Dear Junta/Prayuth supporters , would you care to comment on this latest bit of insanity?  It is, of course, very easy to urge poor people to be resilient when you're obscenely rich.

22 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Absolutely not. You can bet he does the bidding for some, who are far more powerful than the little man. And you can tell from time to time, that they reign him in. He was installed, not self appointed, as they would have you believe. And he was installed to protect the status quo, the elite, the wealthy, those in power, and the connected. Those are his chief duties.

Exactly right.

58 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I thought he had been instructed by the higher powers to stop insulting foreigners, blaming everything that is wrong with Thailand on foreigners, and behave himself. Here he goes again. His ignorance knows no bounds. 

One wonders what these guys are thinking. Are they thinking? Do they want us out? Are they deliberately trying to discourage us from living here? Sooner or later many of us will move on. A lot of foreigners who live her, bring alot to the table. They contribute to their communities on alot of levels. Whether it be through business, a different perspective (that this place so desperately needs), or just the income they spend here, they are enriching Thailand with their presence, in my opinion. And a smart, forward thinking, and visionary government would take that into account, and make things easier, not harder. Granted there are some here who are undesirable. But, there are ways of screening them, without putting the burden on most of us, who are hard working souls, or retired individuals, who lead good, honest lives, and do not bring harm to anyone in the process.
 
To the new commissioner, and Little P., I have this to say: Get a life, and try to peer outside of that ridiculously tiny box of convention that you live within. There is a whole world out there. Repeat after me 100 times. Thailand is not the center of the universe.

I don't think he was talking about foreigners.  I think he was speaking about anyone that is technically speaking Thai but that doesn't agree with him and love his poems. I think he must already know that foreigners and those pesky Thai expats that live abroad think he's a clown.

9 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Well said.  I toast this "Sing" to you... 

And I give you (wait for it)... the drinker who disagrees with the sale of drinks. Because he's - apparently - I Buddhist, no less.

5 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

You're being obtuse and I've no time to discuss these matters with someone who believes that repetition is a credible substitute for reason

 

 

You have been unable to answer how the Thai economy, and therefore society, would benefit from an annual 3-month prohibition law.  The reason you have been unable to do so is that you have no answer because you are aware that what you are proposing would fail miserably in numerous respects but are unwilling to admit that it is a ridiculous idea.  Answer the question and stop deflecting. 

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

BTW opened a very nice bottle of Shiraz to share with my girl at lunch.  Out on the balcony.  Beautiful breeze and view of Pattaya Bay and down town from Naklua.  Got a few ice cold "Sings"  in the fridge sounds pretty good about now.  Think and plan ahead... 

So you participated in a "sinful" act. In your opinion, the seller committed a sin, but you can't sell something without a buyer, meaning the entire transaction is a sin. Enjoy!

3 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Well, it is because you don't think laws should impinge on someone's choice to buy what they want.

Where do you draw the line?

Alcohol, narcotics, assault rifles? Explosives, perhaps??

 

First, I think you ought to have a look at the definition of "anarchy". Second, what one chooses to do with oneself in terms of consuming alcohol, cigarettes or recreational drugs is up to oneself.  No one has the right to impose their personal beliefs on others in that regard.  Do I have the right to impose my personal beliefs on you with regards to how you choose to live your life, providing you are not harming anyone else?  If the answer to that is no, then you have no argument.

1 minute ago, Thai Ron said:

Definitely you, mate.

 

So you're basically calling for anarchy?

Just how long do you think you'd last in an anarchic Thailand?

 

Actually, don't bother answering. I realise you want to flex your "debating" skills but you're just sounding particularly naïve.

I'd hardly call the right to choose the road to "anarchy", whatever that means. 

6 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Show me stats on how many Buddhists disagree that religious sentiments should dictate someone's right to choose.

We're not talking about how the Thais feel about it, we're talking about how self-important, entitled, high-and-mighty, free speech-loving farangs feel about it.

 

Your argument is full of holes.

You're basically saying that if you want to get high, it's wrong that the law prevents you from buying weed or narcotics because someone's beliefs are impinging on what you view as your right to get stoned.

Grow up and deal with it

 

"we're talking about how self-important, entitled, high-and-mighty, free speech-loving farangs feel about it."  Are you talking about me or you?

4 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Show me stats on how many Buddhists disagree that religious sentiments should dictate someone's right to choose.

We're not talking about how the Thais feel about it, we're talking about how self-important, entitled, high-and-mighty, free speech-loving farangs feel about it.

 

Your argument is full of holes.

You're basically saying that if you want to get high, it's wrong that the law prevents you from buying weed or narcotics because someone's beliefs are impinging on what you view as your right to get stoned.

Grow up and deal with it

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. And no one's religious beliefs should be imposed on others.  Want to fast during Ramadan?

Just now, joeyg said:

Again well said.  The CIA/DEA doesn't like competition.  Off topic but too your point... https://www.google.co.th/search?q=youtube+cia+biggest+drug+dealers+in+world&oq=youtube+cia+biggest+drug+dealers+in+world&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.12581j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Guilty.  I know I do...  

I would say not enough. Give it a try.

Just now, Thai Ron said:

By that logic outlawing the sale of cocaine in Boots, the state is infringing upon the rights of the pharmacist to make a living.

Does the catering industry only make money on the sale of alcohol or do they also make money on the sale of food?

They're not personal beliefs - they're the beliefs of the Buddhist majority in this Buddhist country.

Those for whom it represents such an infringement upon their "right" to drink alcohol, can go somewhere where they can piss up day in day out to their heart's content

Show me some stats on how many "Buddhists"  agree that religious sentiments must dictate with regards to someone's right to choose. And having been a restaurant owner I can confirm that at least half of our revenue was generated through people ordering drinks with their meal. Once again, it's not about pissing it up, as you say, it's about not being dictated to by someone who holds a different opinion. Do I have the right to impose my opinions/beliefs on you? No, I most certainly do not.  Your comments hold no water.  This is not about alcohol per say, it's about the right to choose. It's about business owners not having their right infringed upon. 

2 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

Relentless, aren't you?

Stop evading the question.

4 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

https://www.greenfacts.org/en/alcohol/l-2/05-social-economic-problems.htm

So put your money where your mouth is and stop purchasing and consuming wine, and while your at it, answer the question regarding the economic impact an annual 3-month ban would have. 

Just now, Thai Ron said:

Well they're not imposing their beliefs on others, are they?

The just don't allow the sale of alcohol but if you drink alcohol you've already bought, you're not in violation of their beliefs, are you? You won't be carted off to jail, will you?

 

You people will find anything to whinge about, won't you

By prohibiting the sale of alcohol within the catering industry you infringe on peoples' right o make a living and you infringe on peoples' right to make their own choices.  I am not "whinging", I am merely pointing out that dictating to others based on your personal beliefs is wrong.  Yes, they very much are imposing their beliefs. 

10 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

Just wouldn' buy it. Look at my post that started this somewhat heated exchange....

So in a nutshell: you regard the sale and consumption of alcohol as a sin, as you put it, but the purchase of alcohol is not a sin.  So, while you are happy to purchase and consume alcohol with your wife twice a month, you regard, at least one part of that transaction, as sinful but not your part?  By purchasing the wine you are in fact perpetuating the sale of the wine. If you feel so strongly about the issue, why do you purchase and consume alcohol at all?  And it was rather conspicuous that you didn't respond to obvious scenario I pointed out earlier, in that do you realise how many peoples' livelihoods would be destroyed by an annual 3-month alcohol sales ban that you advocate, not to mention the overall knock-on effect on the economy?  Do you think most Thais, Buddhist or otherwise was support such a thing?

1 minute ago, Thai Ron said:

 

Does abstaining from smoking for a day on No Smoking Day in the UK or elsewhere make you a better person?

No, but people still do it and the day is still set aside as such.

 

No alcohol days are common here - at least tourists have reason to be annoyed because they don't know.

Expats can just plan ahead by stocking up on whatever they need to get them through this trying time away from the barstool.

You completely miss the point. As I stated earlier, alcohol here is the context. The real point is that no one has the right to impose their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, on others.

1 minute ago, oldhippy said:

My wife makes mulberry wine, but sorry, I am not sharing.

 

 

Shame.

1 minute ago, Momofarang said:

Yes, there is a world between getting rich destroying peoples lives, and giving in occasionally to our own weakness. In most "civilized" countries the use of illegal drugs is tolerated while trafficking is severely repressed.

Where would you buy the wine you drink if no one was allowed to sell it? 

1 minute ago, Momofarang said:

Man, to me the distinction is obvious, you must have started at breakfast today...

You mean, it's a "sin" to sell alcohol but not a sin to buy it?

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Well said... 

Huh?  He accuses the guy who sold him the wine of being a sinner but he buys the wine off the sinner and drinks it with his wife? What are you boys on?  Obviously something stronger than alcohol.

2 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

As far as I am concerned selling alcohol, is just as sinful (and I don't say unlawful)  as pushing illegal drugs. I am not a teetotaler either, I share a couple of bottles of wine, a month, with my beloved wife.

Hang on a minute. So selling alcohol is sinful, but buying a couple of bottles of wine from the sinful seller is ok?  I'm a little confused about that.