hawker9000

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Sure US is a sovereign nation, and a very important powerful one. As such it should not be acting illegally, because Israel is not sovereign over Jerusalem. By international law it is illegally occupying it. The UNGA will be confirming this on Thursday. I hope the USA listens when friends point out that the US and Israel are out of line.

Was it "legal" for China to annex the entire S. China Sea?  The International Court said no, and the UN does absolutely nothing.  Does Kim Jong Un take UN resolutions over his nuclear program at all seriously?  Obviously not.  So they can just take the rest of their dues-sucking Big Top act and stuff it.  The UNGA does NOT "make" international law.  It merely passes resolutions based on what each self-serving member nation WANTS international law to be, which individual nations, such as China for example, then ignore, and wingnuts try and obsess over.  The US and Israel are certainly not out of line simply because the UNGA, largely a collection of otherwise unemployable nobs to begin with, says so!  LOL

They are not an elected body and have no constitutionally based jurisdiction whatsoever over me or my fellow citizens, or over Israel and Israel's citizens, or over anyone apparently.  They get together to rant and posture over their own country's interests, find new and ever better ways to waste money, and that's about it.

The U.N. has absolutely nothing to say about what a sovereign nation chooses to recognize or not recognize.   Issues of sovereign right have never been the U.N.'s strong suit, but even after 72 years, these jobsworths still don't get it. They've got precious little to say about China annexing half the western Pacific, or N. Korea threatening global nuclear war, but want to scream and holler and stamp their designer footwear about a country recognizing another country's choice of capital city.  FPS just cut the cord on this circus.  They are not anybody's "best hope"; instead they're a complete waste of time, attention and resources.

7 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Man, now you're just being ignorant.  Perhaps you can tell me how much the stock market has risen during Obama's term.  Or have you forgotten that he inherited the 2008 financial crisis.  The stock market has been booming these past few years.  Big corporations are making record profits.  Yet, has wages kept up?  Why is that?  If you would take your head out of Trump's ahole for just a minute, you will see that these tax cuts are not about helping the middle class.   

LOL.  I'm middle class, and they're certainly helping me.

You really don't want to start a conversation about where your head is...   FPS, the moron-in-chief left office almost a year ago, and it's still parked there!

7 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Thailand implemented their APPS (Advanced Passenger Processing System) on/about February, 2016.

 

Participating airlines typically transmit a preliminary passenger manifest 24 hours prior to departure to the RTP/Imm. center at Suan Phlu. There the Thai Immigration Bureau will pre-process every passenger arriving, departing or transiting through Thailand and reply back to the airline with boarding directive Such as, “Board if DOCS OK” or “Do not Board”.

 

Other non-participating airlines are required to transmit an actual passenger manifest after departure, which is reviewed for undesirables who would be flagged at arriving immigration.

 

Resolving the underlying issue with Thai Immigration may require some patience. It's not unheard of that names are mixed up. Maybe start with the Royal Thai Embassy in the U.K.?

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/New-immigration-screening-system-unveiled-30278217.html

http://www.thai-apps.com/en/about/participate-agencies.html

So which airlines "participate" and which airlines don't?  What's the "mandate" to "participate", if any?  If the vast majority do, or all oceanic or long-haul flights do, I'm impressed.  If just Thai-flagged airlines do, not so much.  "Non-participating" is pretty much just a fancy term for "status-quo".  

Just now, sanemax said:

As I previously stated, not everything revolves around money , whether it be aid money or money drug takers spend in Thailand on holiday , Thailand just doesnt want people with drug convictions coming to Thailand , maybes its to do with "In with the good, out with the bad" policy

"As I previously stated, not everything revolves around money"

Yeah, OK, you stated it.  So?   Does your not merely stating something, but previously stating it as well (oh my!) mean you've been to the mountain and received it on stone tablets or what?  LOL 

Oh, all right, almost everything...  Like most other "policy statements", that whole "in with the good, out with the bad" thing is mostly just to feed the xenophobes and the gullible public.   If the "bad" have enough money, they'll have only incrementally more trouble perhaps continuing to find their way "in".  Obviously our heroine here didn't quite make that cut.  That said, a step forward, even a baby step, even a baby step that stomps on less well-to-do druggies, is still a step forward.  If some druggies are persuaded by it to take their crap elsewhere, great!

3 hours ago, Get Real said:

That´s almost all correct, and why more and more people, exept the chinese, are going to other places in Thailand. Myself, I wouldn´t set down my fot in Pattaya. It´s a nightmare of crime, violence and sexindustry together with far to much booze in combination with everything. Just a big black colored mess on the picture of Thailand.

Maybe, but it's one of Thailand Tourism's shining stars, even if painted red.   Or maybe the golden goose metaphor would be more appropriate, because they can be strangled.

5 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

All I can say is that the US taxpayers will have little over a year to see how this effects them and the Republicans should be very afraid

 

The 2018 Mid Term Elections are coming 

Yeah.  We agree.  It's all you can say.

LOL ---  complete nonsense.

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Perhaps you can tell me what Trump has done for the economy, since he has yet to pass any major legislation.  The stock market loves these tax cuts, which have yet to be passed into law.  Of course, that really doesn't relate directly to the economy.

Oh, now you're killing me with laughter!  "Of course, that really doesn't relate directly to the economy."   Says who, the 'First Grade Teachers' and Berkshire Business and Beer Review'?   ROFL   Obviously you want to throw out the stock market, yet I have to assume you at least dimly recognize that it's a universally recognized leading indicator.  And the economy IS doing GREAT!  Ask the Fed! 

Of course, you really don't know the first thing ABOUT the economy.

21 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Everything isnt always about money .

Thailand doesnt want drug takers , simple as that .

Mmmm.  Maybe.  I think what they don't want more is to lose some of their foreign assistance which might be based on cooperation in the "War on Drugs", and their international "standing" on all those "lists"...   Pretty much the same story for human trafficking.

My only problem with that is the kabuki it tends to precipitate.  Doing things "loudly" and for appearances' sake rather than with genuine substance.  (And, of course, where the aid money actually ends up...)

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

 

It’s the truth. 

Get a grip.  It's your opinion.

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Blame Forbes and others for reading the law and applying its consequences.

Congress would have to repeal the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 if it wants different results.

When it comes to the budget and tax measures, 'happens all the time. Cherrypicking citations from laws they don't like apart from legislative practice and history is, as is typically the case for wingnuts, only half the story.  There was a whole laundry list of stuff in the "Affordable Care Act" that nobody knew about until after passage, and wingnuts were famously ok with that!  That moron Pelosi declared gleefully she wasn't even going to trouble herself with reading it!!  So please, take your rubbish about "reading the law" and sell it somewhere else. 

So, as I said, scaremongering by the usual naysayers.  I'm somewhere deep in the heart of the middle class, and this Tax Plan certainly won't hurt me, though the talking heads are practically tearing their hair out trying to get the middle class into all believing - no, not just "believing", but FEARING - otherwise.  'Course for those in blue states who've gotten addicted to having their socialism subsidized by taxpayers in other states, yeah, some of them will feel some pain.  Boohoo. 

19 hours ago, topt said:

Bell bus service

http://www.belltravelservice.com/

 

whether rip off or not no idea

Bell picks you up in a minivan from your hotel in Bangkok, transfers you to a regular coach at their station, and delivers you to your hotel by minivan again in Pattaya.  They have a bus from Suvarnabhumi as well.  If you take the public bus from Ekamai, you have a bus which leaves much more frequently, is cheaper, and does not require advance reservations, but you have to deal with (and pay) taxi or baht bus drivers at either end to go the first and last mile.  It's a choice.  But Bell isn't a "rip off"; it's just added convenience that you pay a little extra for.  'Have used them for years.

18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

It doesn’t. 

ROFL.   Well, your arrogance aside, that's one vote in the Doesn't column...  

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

They may in 2018 and the middle class may share their pain certainly beginning in 2019:

• The tax cuts also repeal (in practice) the ACA individual mandate that will result in 4 million losing coverage in 2019 and 13 million losing coverage in 2027 by causing more consumers to become priced out of the market, ie., "lower class" (sic).
• As per the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, if growth fails to occur to cover the $1.5 trillion debt caused by the tax cuts, deep cuts to certain programs like Medicare, Medicaid will be required and outright elimination of some programs is possible. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/12/12/why-big-medicare-and-medicaid-cuts-are-likely/#67086f3e23d8 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-medicare-could-see-a-cut-thanks-to-the-house-tax-bill-2017-11-06

'Will be "required" only if not taken up again by Congress, which such measures routinely are and certainly will continue to be.  'Typical wingnut scaremongering...

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

It's like giving Trump credit for the current state of the economy.  We all know it's Obama's economy.

ROFLMAO.  Yeah, sure it is.   hahahahaha

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 1:09 AM, Bluespunk said:

rac·ism

ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

   "a program to combat racism"

   synonyms:

   racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism "Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

     noun: racism

     "theories of racism"

Then profiling does not fit this definition because it's not done based "on the belief that one's own race is superior".  It is done rather based on evidence that those fitting a particular physical description or of a particular nationality are statistically more likely to be violating particular laws, based on a history of others fitting a similar description or of the same particular nationality, actually found to have been violating those same laws.   The belief that one's own race is superior is a completely subjective thing.  The determination that those of a particular physical description or nationality are statistically more likely to be violating a law based on historical record is entirely objective.   Wingnuts would have us believe that profiling is a reactive thing; it is in fact predictive.

Wingnuts have hijacked the term "racist" to further their agendas with simple-minded, unquestioning listeners, not to correct any actual injustice.  It's an emotion-getter.   No different from 19th century medicine shows.  Consequently, the vast majority of the public has become totally desensitized to it.   Wingnuts do no service to the group(s) they actually pretend to be advocating for by continually employing this cheap trick. 

Tanya S. Chutkan - Obama appointee, 2014.   (So is her husband, BTW...)

4 hours ago, kamahele said:

Ready to pass tax legislation that  the majority of citizens overwhelmingly dislike and do not want..... 

Rubbish.  According to whom?  YOU??  Yeah, that's what I thought.   'Disliked by wingnuts in high-tax blue states - yeah, baby!!  Subtract THEM (and we're talking states like CA and NY) from the "polls" and then tell me how many are left disapproving.  And of COURSE THEY disapprove - they're losing state & local tax deductions by which they were essentially being SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers in OTHER states where some sanity prevails.  LOL

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonsense. 

Really.   WHERE in the world do Muslims "get along" - other than by violent conquest that is - with their host cultures when they decide to "drop in".  Where have they EVER successfully "assimilated"?   What happens on the macro scale is all too often the case on the micro scale as well.  What is "nonsense" is the political correctness through which all discussions such as this one must be filtered.  Only the slowest learners continue to steer by this social mirage.   Here on TV just about every nationality is shamelessly pilloried when one of "theirs" does something stupid or inciteful; national origin is NEVER left out of the discussion.  Jews are constantly the subject around here of rants that sound like reruns of 1930s Germany hate straight out of Nazi playbooks.  Christians, Buddhists -- all ridiculed continually for the sins of a few of their number.   Why the heck should Muslims be treated any differently when they make a scene?  You can argue that their religion has nothing to do with it.  Well maybe it doesn't and maybe it does. 

4 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

At least he has more ethics than his President, but then so do most of the women working the coconut bar

And at least "his President" wins the ethics competition, not to mention the sanity & competence competitions, against his predecessor hands down.

12 hours ago, bleble said:

 

What is your problem with drug users ? Just that you know nothing ? So ridiculous. Wish you the worst, in jail if possible also.

 

 

 

 

A:   Uh, they use (illegal) drugs, and by being part of the culture and the industry, are part of a global scourge that murders and brutalizes tens of thousands (Mexican govt reports more than 164,000 murders between 2007 and 2014 in Mexico ALONE!).   And THIS particular moron had enough other stuff seized to more than suggest that he was NOT MERELY a user.   

I'm sure the fellow you responded to is just scared shirtless by your best wishes.   LOL   (But my money, and certainly my hopes, are actually on you...   Maybe you could take your next holiday in Cambo & join him?)

19 hours ago, sirineou said:

what difference does it make if he was a muslim or not??

 

None really as it's a matter of the tourist's behavior.  But for the record the most disgusting, flagrantly abusive, loud & provocative mistreatment of a local by a foreigner that I've ever witnessed - worse even than any Chinese rudeness I've ever seen - was in a hotel lobby by a pair of self-important, arrogant, imperious muslim women when a taxi they had apparently called down for wasn't ready & waiting for them.  The two girls on the reception desk, who I don't think had any actual prior knowledge of the taxi call, were the victims of an incredible verbal assault I'll never forget.  (The husbands arrived a few minutes behind their wives, and just stood by uselessly while their wives finished acting like shrill idiots.)  So I find this incident believable.

If current & valid perhaps yes, but NOT for motorbikes or motorcycles unless it carries a specific, explicit motorcycle endorsement and is accompanied by proof of valid insurance which does not exclude motorcycle operation, both of which should be required before a rental is made in the first place (penalty for non-compliance being permanent confiscation of the motorbike plus fines & business license revocations).   (For whatever good it might do, Thailand might require its insurors to issue a reasonably standardized insurance card that includes itemization of this.)

17 hours ago, coulson said:

They are, it's called racism.

Yes of course.  Blah blah blah.

(For the vast majority it's called common sense.)