Buckwheat Flour

9 hours ago, observer90210 said:

of course many people do not know....myself for instance

welcome back

I'm glad someone finally explained the 555 thing. 

15 hours ago, brain150 said:

Well ... that's why Dictatorships turn into Tyrannies !

It's because people like you follow orders without ever thinking or questioning.

Just like soldiers become murderers by just following orders.

 

... all the misery could be ended if people would just simply start to think !

Are you a Thai Citizen, or are you just hanging out with an opinion?

3 minutes ago, Toshiba66 said:

Hard to do in a Bar Buddy.

 

I did find this test however.

 

Or the old reliable flame test

2 hours ago, Toshiba66 said:

I have seen bottles of spirits on shelves in Bangkok Bars that I know you can only purchase duty free and not from local suppliers. So where they come from and whats in them is anyone's guess.

 

In some of the cheap Bars if I drink my favourite spirit I can feel my lips burning. I suspect this is blended methanol or similar. It makes me sick the next day if I stupidly drink too much of it. Never happens with the good stuff.

 

Does anyone know if there's a way to test to methanol? A test kit maybe? 

 

 

Add 1 liter of sample product to your petrol tank. Thereafter, if you notice an improvement to your vehicle's n acceleration response, it is probably Methanol based booze.  

3 hours ago, laochef said:

Nope, it was the Chanote, aka Titledeed.

Hope someone responds to your query....Interesting story 

Best Regards

19 minutes ago, Paruk said:

Right you are. I dare to bet anybody a considerable amount of money that they won't end with a profit after a couple of years stock exchange gaming. Not here or anywhere else.

Assuming the value of your property holds up you are correct.  Markets provide plenty of examples of gains or losses in both equities and real-estate.  However, using debt to finance ownership of any asset risks a spectacular loss of capital.

Be careful when investing, and never take anything for granted. Sometimes the winners are the ones who loose the least. 

17 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

No, not the same at all. Not even close.

 

 

Come on, impulse was speaking rhetorically,  and surely you can discern his or her point.  You might not like impulse's suggestion that governments have ultimate control of personal property,  but the observation is certainly related to this conversation.   

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Got to laugh, even the Irish Prime Minister is lecturing Trump!

 

 

 

Edited to add - Trump really has got small hands 

Said the blind man to his deaf friend who wasn't listening...I doubt his message had any impact on Trump.  You'd better watch out for the off-topic police.

10 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Actually the original OP is More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court.

 

 

Your assumption of my intent is incorrect. My 'more to the point' comment was directed that if Trump had not opined with his bigmouth during the election process to "Ban Muslims" his EO would possibly not have faced the challenges in the Courts they have to date. 

Sorry for misreading your intention. I absolutely agree with you on this point.  

On 3/17/2017 at 8:29 AM, Rhys said:

 

Well somewhat understandable, but they are still dealing with the Hawaiian Sovereignty Issue.  The missionaries, the sailors, and Capt Cook intrusion of the Hawaiian nation and culture, provided a rationale for this political action?

Long live the aina

Doesn't seem so because other states are involved.  Moreover, 58 years ago Hawaii voted to join the United States. However, I guess one can now claim that was a rigged election and James Cook was really a US agent. If the population doesn't like the current statehood arrangement they can always start by supporting  Hawexit

16 hours ago, simple1 said:

I read the VOX article and it does seem to support my observation that Trump is his own worst enemy. Have to wait and see what the outcome is of the legal reviews of Trump's latest E,O. To my mind the judiciary in the US do currently have a major issue with political interference from the highest office in the country.

 

I have a UK background so don't understand US citizens going on about the  "leftists" HRC & Obama and in fact likely off topic comment.

Original topic:  Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect 

Hmmmm....You responded with a sermon berating Trump, claiming that was "more to the point".  Do you believe your comments were not weighted with ideology?  So, if someone counters to your sermon with a different ideological perspective, it is that person, not you, that has posted an off-topic comment?  Essentially what you are saying is that only malevolent anti trump comments should be allowed on this public forum.  Jeez, I don't even like Trump, and agree with you on some things, but he's starting look like a saint compared to some of you.

Back to the topic, in case any of you are still interested and wish throw in.

If framed as a matter of national security, it seems clear that, with good cause,  the President clearly has the legal authority to impose temporary travel restrictions on citizens from any country. The Federal Courts are not directly responsible for matters of national security. The judge's argument against President Trump's executive order is based on an assertion that the order is motivated by candidate Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric.  For constitutional reasons the federal district court has stepped in to interfere with the Executive branch's responsibilities. This is unusual, because it largely affects citizens from other countries, and depending on your point of view, could either be seen as judicial over-reach, or as judicial protection to uphold the constitutional rights of US persons who are affected by the ban. To uphold their position, I'm betting the federal district court will have to prove at least two things before the Supreme Court: 

1) The travel order discriminates against a specific religious group (Meaning all Muslims, regardless of country of origin)

2) The National Security concerns surrounding the affected countries are not strong enough for the President to have imposed temporary travel restrictions.

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

More to the point is Trump's loudmouth statements during the elections concerning Muslims that have now backfired due to Constitutional Law. Trump today doubled down on his anti Muslim sentiments, the man has / is creating his own problems. One can only conclude the job of President of the USA is beyond Trump's emotional and intellectual capabilities. IMO Trump is creating an 'idiocracy'.

The presidents actions was overturned by a Federal District Judge. Ultimately the constitutionally of this matter will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. 

I acknowledge you appear to be moral outraged, I don't agree with much of your assessment, other than the fact that Trump is an ass and makes loudmouthed statements. I would never willfully vote for him, but certainly would prefer him to politics of HRC or ideology of Obama.  Bottom line is that you don't have to like Trump to hate the Leftist. 

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

By calling a judge's decision against Trump "political activism" you've already revealed where your prejudices lie.

Good observation but what point are you trying to make?

Are you simply stating that, unlike yourself, I should not have any political predilections, especially if my perspective doesn't agree with yours? 

The judges ruling is normal, and couldn't remotely be seen as political activism?  With reference to the below link, I think you'll find this article objectively address this question. You can decide for yourself but this is clearly not normal for a district judge to involve themselves is such matters.

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/7/14514792/trump-muslim-ban-lawsuit-judge

In case you missed my point, I believe it is quite possible that this judicial action is on tenuous ground constitutionally. The entire matter hinges on proving the President’s action is motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice and in no way is based on national security.  In your world that might appear to be the case, but if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or events that I mentioned were to occur, it will be very difficult to contest future presidential actions if he/she chooses to deem them matters of national security.

4 hours ago, webfact said:

UPDATE:

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin answers questions from the media at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit after presenting his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump's new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

 

HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Hawaii dealt another legal blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, issuing an emergency halt to his revised travel ban just hours before it was set to go into effect early on Thursday.

 

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/973789-hawaii-judge-halts-trumps-new-travel-ban-before-it-can-go-into-effect/

This is a tug-of-war that will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.  However, an act of religious terrorism committed by any passport holder suspected of having even remote ties to the affected countries could destroy future discrimination arguments opposing an Executive Order issued under the banner of "national security" My point is a Federal judge might believe his political activism is a righteous cause, but it might have unintended consequences beyond the age of Trump-ism. 

On 3/14/2017 at 9:03 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Really?

No... both parties mean well, but doing well in the aggregate is measured differently. So what was original the topic again?

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And thank you for providing the evidence to support my characterization. For your sake, I live in hope that someday you will provide some contrary evidence.

Thanks for your concern.  Narcissist are not swayed by "evidence", and in that respect we are joined at the hip. 

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe we should give a new

 

Maybe we should rename the Republican Party. How about The Vandals?

Didn't the Vandals recently beat the Kumbayas in the arena Maxiumus? 

8 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

Bestiality is as old as time it self, and there's nothing new here, people in remote

area have often resorted to such activities with all kind of live stock,

( not withstanding doing it with people who resembles animals )...... 

Good observation.....I was once assigned to a team to assist with moving drilling rigs in the Middle East.  Moving drilling rigs to a new location required large tractor/trailer vehicles to move the rig components over hundreds of kilometers.  During these rig moves the drivers would stop for R&R at village tea houses along the route. Some of the tea houses offered the drivers an optional service to have sex with their donkeys.  This was not considered a serious social taboo, but it caused costly delays to the rig move, so we eventually had to threaten the drivers will dismissal if they did this while on the clock.     

Please do not waste public funds to prosecute this guy,  just arrange for him to escape into the hands of Lehava activists . 

You are correct, I shouldn't have generalized. 

On 3/1/2017 at 2:34 PM, ilostmypassword said:

 

What's truly simple minded is denouncing someone who actually agrees with you. If you're dyslexic, I apologize.

Yep...I think he/she just flew off the handle, and didn't detect my not so veiled criticism of the EU politics.  However his/her remarks were justified in a literal sense.  I shouldn’t have posted anything about this. It’s best if outsiders let the Europeans work out their own problems. The rest of the world is certainly has their fair share of failed approaches to governance.

As an outsider,  I don't understand why "publishing violent images,"  that actually happened is considered a grievous offense. Moreover shielding the population from the truth, only disarms their will to resist such violence.   But again I am uneducated simple minded outsider, who doesn't understand the European mind.  

On 2/15/2017 at 1:14 PM, craigt3365 said:

Countries bordering Russia are quite keen on this treaty, with several trying to get in. 

Yes I know, but most of the Eastern European countries struggle with making a reasonable financial contribution.  Check out the below funding report.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

Please pull the plug on this broken-down treaty.  Other than the defense Bureaucrats, there doesn't seem to be much keenness to keep maintaining it.

3 hours ago, maoro2013 said:

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder, what a ridiculous statement by the police.

 

Has obscene been defined.

It is Momma's discretion on when to use the switch that should determine what is obscene.