.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Si Thea01
-
Posts
2,960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Si Thea01
-
-
Just now, observer90210 said:
My god, poor chap!..sorry for what's happening!...allow me to ask which area do you live and who built your house?
Thanks for your thoughts. I live in Loei province, Isaan, and unfortunately, right on the Loei river. Absolutely magnificent when there is no flooding, a great view and lush gardens but now it will take a little time for them to recover. The home, my wife built about 30 years ago, before I met her.
The main section is up two metres above ground level so no water got in but the area that was flooded is only about a foot above ground level, thus allowing the water to flow through from one side to the other. It came up so quick that I had no time to get sand bags. Bit of a fright as have never experienced such a water flow before but one does live and learn even at my old age.
-
4 hours ago, maybefitz said:
At 79, on retirement extension, impossible to get insurance. I have an emergency fund, but wife borrows into it, so no proof in a bank account. I'd be stuck if they brought this in. I don't have the option of returning to UK, aim to see my life out here.
I was able to obtain a life policy, health and accident cover at 65, and it lasts until I am 80, if I don't fall of the perch first. Anybody who does not have cover, tourist or otherwise is a dang fool. I do understand that there are people here who cannot afford cover but to come to foreign country, without sufficient funds, is also foolish.
-
33 minutes ago, observer90210 said:
Recover as much water as you can or purchase a rainwater recovery tank....could be used later for watering the lawn or washing the car in a sustainable way
One has to appreciate your thoughts but when I have three recovery tanks and the water keeps coming and coming and ends up knee deep around the house and actually gets into three rooms, is brown and muddy, hardly anything sustainable about it I can assure you. But one good thing did come of it, it brought some very good top soil with it and now my grass is lush, thick and greener than green.
-
1 hour ago, Brunolem said:
The Paris agreement is total crap, and was denounced as such by James Hansen himself!
Not only is it non binding, but it doesn't take effect before 2021...talk about an emergency...
This is a "feelgood" document so that when the shit hit the fan, the governments will be able to say "we did our best".
I have to agree with you 100 percent.
-
1 minute ago, Brunolem said:
Without going any further into that subject, please let me know who you are refering to when you write "they are trying to redistribute..." who are"they"?
The UN and those countries who signed up to the non binding Paris Agreement.
-
7 minutes ago, Brunolem said:
My comment came after a little exchange between you and Stargrazer, above.
It was not meant for anyone in particular, but for the deniers in general whom I refered to as "guys".
Yet, I have to acknowledge a mistake in the last sentence, where I should have written "where did they get" instead of "where did you get".
My bad...
Ok but I think you will find that most educated and reasonable people do believe in and accept that there is climate change but do not accept that they are trying to redistribute the wealth and damage the western world's economy. I will leave it at that as we are now drifting off the topic.
-
3 hours ago, mogandave said:
It was a joke, sorryOne doesn't know sometimes with you but at least you had the decency to come back and explain yourself.
-
Just now, sujoop said:
My original thoughts remain the same:
'True but it IS illegal to discuss removing sanctions as Flynn did. #1 question in all this is, who instructed Flynn to do so?'I hope you're not asking me to respond in that regard, as I have no idea. Let's wait and see hey, but then there are others out there who think they know it all, maybe you should direct that question to them. If they don't know, they will surely make it up.
-
1 minute ago, attrayant said:
If you're going to respond like a petulant 7 year-old when people call you on your nonsense (and provide factual citations), don't expect us to waste our time on your in the future.
Be kind enough to put the whole response, not just what you feel like selecting. And another who has to resort to name calling. This is not about me despite you making it that way. It would be the greatest pleasure not to have to deal with someone who does not have decency to be civil with their responses.
-
26 minutes ago, stander said:
Did CNN finally tell the truth? I can't believe it!
Hard to believe I know considering how they have flirted with the truth over the past 15 months or so.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:
Actually, his lies are printed verbatim, then fact checked for veracity. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/100-lies-and-false-statements?utm_term=.ynKklbmX7#.mtmqGN5bM) He fails miserably. That you are willing to swallow his bovine fecal matter and want to compare it to prime rib is your choice, but don't ask people with actual functioning brain matter to go along with you. This walking lump of bloviating adipose tissue lives in an alternate reality where only he knows the "truth", is omniscient, omnipotent, and adored by all. Sorry, but someone who lies then lies about having lied, is not someone to be "trusted". And anyone who chooses to trust a known liar gets exactly what they deserve, which you have. Failed health policy, failed tax policy, and working hard at a failed infrastructure policy. Hell, the idiot can't even corral those in his own party...who are the ones fighting him the hardest.
Actually, no one has to regurgitate anything. All one has to do is listen to the orange one's own words, then spend a little time with Google. His lies are really pretty childish, as the vast majority of them are proven to be prevarications with such ease it is sad. These falsehoods proceed from his mouth as easily as he exhales, and with about as much forethought. Many of them are little more than pathetic exaggerations meant to enshrine himself in a halo of reverence for his fans to bask in, but a not insignificant portion of them are constructed with the clear intent to defraud, like his endorsement of Trump University, where he promised those forking over their money that the instructors were "hand chosen" by himself, or the many developments where the actual builder simply paid the con man a fee to slap the name "Trump" on the development, followed by advertising material mean to convey the impression that it was Trump himself who was the developer. There was even one such development that he was sued over, and he even attempted to lie on the witness stand about his involvement with the developer (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/10/1670589/-Trump-with-a-long-record-of-lying-under-oath-says-he-will-tell-us-under-oath-that-Comey-lied).
So a guy who has no problem attempting to lie under oath says he's willing to testify under oath. Yeah, that should carry a lot of weight. Oh, sorry...I know you will believe every word. But, those of us capable of engaging in rational thought won't.
Wow, I am impressed. How long did it take to put these meanderings together. Fact checked by who, those who keep changing things around or seek out different meanings after scrutinising every word in order to demonise him. No, I don't swallow everything he says, I can be critical when the need arises but unlike yourself, another who appears to be so entwined in hate, that you must denigrate the guy at every opportunity.
Just look at yours and many other posts, they say ample about those responding. And please, don't be so childish as to assume anything about me and what I will or will not believe. And as for the so called lies, maybe you live in cloud cuckoo land, where everyone on one side is perfect and on the other, well we cannot take being beaten by them so we will just throw slurs at them, insult them, demean and denigrate at every turn hoping they will go away so we can return back to your inevitable posturing. I hope this post is not an example of rational thought. Heaven help us if it is.
-
59 minutes ago, Thakkar said:
I couldn't help noticing that, after I provided proof of Trump lying under oath, you have subtly changed your query from:
"Please give us an example where he has lied under oath. Has he been charged with perjury,"
to just:
"Has he been charged with perjury"
The example I gave was a civil case, which Trump lost. As far as is known, he has not lied in a criminal case, hence not charged with perjury. Perhaps he has the wherewithal to only lie when there is no risk of being charged with perjury. He has, however, in another case where lying would have risked a perjury charge, pleaded the fifth 99 times rather than answer truthfully.
Good luck to him, the 5th is available to anyone so if they choose to use it, it would no doubt be upon legal advise so why go into a tizzy over it. And you have no idea why he pleaded the 5th, the same as I don't. So why pretend you do? Can't win with you lot, you answer part of the question, therefore why would I want another response to what has been responded to. It appears, according to you, I have no right to push for a complete response?
-
1 hour ago, Berkshire said:
Thakkar in post 84 answered your question. Why are you ignoring him?
Because I can. He answered only part of it, and with something from the Washington Post,. give me a break.
-
1 hour ago, Credo said:
Because someone lies under oath does not mean they will be charged with perjury, it means they can.
Given it allegedly relates to Trump, you bet they would.
-
17 minutes ago, Berkshire said:
Geez man, what is your malfunction? I said "if" he were to testify under oath. Testifying before a congressional committee or special counsel is not the same as testifying in a civil case, e.g., Trump University. Especially as President. With a Republican Congress, there is almost no way Trump will be impeached...UNLESS he does something insanely stupid. Like perjure himself under oath. Trump is literally incapable of being truthful, so I hope he does testify.
Politeness goes a long way so why are you asking if I've had a "Malfunction?" Of course you said that but you also said and I quote, "Trump lies constantly and can't stop lying, even when under oath." Doesn't matter whether he is before a court, civil or criminal or congress, if he lied under oath then he would be charged. So please, make up your mind, either he did, as you put it or he didn't like you say now, "Like perjure himself under Oath. Can't have it both ways, so again "Has he been charged with Perjury?" Requires a simple yes or no answer.
-
3 minutes ago, mogandave said:
No need to rebuild the whole house, you only need to rebuild the bottom...It is a single story brick dwelling, so to have a two storey, I would say it would be a knock down rebuild I would guess.
-
17 hours ago, Berkshire said:
If Trump were to testify under oath, he will be impeached...GUARANTEED. Trump is incapable of being truthful and will perjure himself. This is not an opinion or a guess. Trump lies constantly and can't stop lying, even when under oath.
Of course not an opinion or a guess, just a fabrication. Please give us an example where he has lied under oath. Has he been charged with perjury, which is what happens if this occurred, as you are so adamant it has?
-
3 hours ago, Brunolem said:
Strange that when it comes to climate, many guys pretend to know better than scientists, like James Hansen from NASA, who have spent their lives studying this subject...
When it comes to sending rockets in space, these same guys generally abstain from contradicting NASA scientists, and they don't also pretend to know better than neurosurgeons when it comes to perform surgery.
Why the difference?
Where did you get your expertise in climate science from?
I do not need any degree in the so called Climate Science doctrine that you are quoting from, as I am not denying that the climate changes. Nor I need a degree or any expertise to look out my window and see that the rain fell for 5 days and my home was flooded.
This has nothing to do with brain surgery so why this little ditty and you last sentence I don't think is needed either, that is unless you are trying to bait me or are just trolling, which, in either case is against forum rules, so please refrain with these silly little antics.
-
19 hours ago, djayz said:
Less than 3 months/90 days... tick, tock, tick, tock...
He has evaded the authorites for so long now that +/- 90 days aren't going to make sod all difference!
Little s***!
Bet ya he'll land back in the LOS 2 - 3 days after 3rd Sept. - scot free.
Daddy! Daddy! I need a new car - my old one is all bashed up...
yes, it is a joke but I doubt very much if he would return of his own volition any number of days after the specified date because he still has one charge left where the statute of limitations does not expire until 2027. So hewould not be getting offscott free or at least we would hope he doesn't.
-
33 minutes ago, sujoop said:
If one is so that blinkered in their defensive support of President Trump that this prevents them from acknowledging that he is indeed a serial & daily liar and also that he has and will in a heartbeat causally throw any and even key staff under the bus to protect himself, then there are several Whitehouse positions waiting (which fewer and fewer would want any part of for these very reasons)
Thank you oh wise one. All you are doing is regurgitating what is being put out by the MSN and certain tabloids. Put your own thoughts out there, not those of others or is it you don't have any?
-
9 minutes ago, mogandave said:
We're we to do that there would be nothing to post about...Well that is what you are doing now.
-
Just now, mogandave said:
I think you were watching while I was listening.
No doubt you're going by the "Rush Notes" summary...Ah, selective hearing also. And I have not referred to any summary, just what I saw and heard. Sorry but I do not agree with any of the responses you have outlined and you will find that Comey may have gone where angels fear to tread. Instead of being the judge, jury and executioner, it would be wise of you to wait and see what happens.
-
4 minutes ago, mogandave said:
Comey did not deny there was collusion, he nearly stated he could not answer in an open hearing.
He has a responsibility to protect both the investigations and the President.I don't think we watched the same testimony. He said that none was found but then the investigation is ongoing and it will be up to the Special Counsel to determine what, if anything, occurred. Protect the president, I am sure that calling him a liar and that he would lie about the meetings is truly protecting him, I don't think. Only an opinion by someone who may have a few reasons for embellishing his testimony.
-
3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
I wasn't aware that "Comey's testimony" excluded Comey's testimony about other people.
It does when certain people want it to but they cannot escape the fact that it occurred and forms part of what we are discussing. It appears that they forget that it is about Comey's testimony damaging Trump, who is still standing? You know how selective some are.
Trump still standing, but damaged by Comey's testimony
in World News
Posted
What a vivid imagination. The last paragraph is a lulu and irrelevant. Why is it that you speak as if what you say is factual, has been proved and Trump in in the deep end.
"Additionally, there are another slew of issues re; other law-breaking, such as obstruction of justice, abusing the powers of the president, nepotism, self-enrichment using the prez office, laundering oligarch money, etc."
This part of your post is preposterous. You speak as if totally qualified to exhort your virtuous propaganda in an open forum and expect that all an sundry believe it. Please, you can talk about it all you want but let if be factual and not just your hoping and wishing.