fredwiggy

It would be much easier if she came back here and we went to the office in Ubon. Like I mentioned, my car isn't good for that long a trip right now.And I have to make sure the passport comes back to me in time. Sometimes it takes a couple of weeks for them to return the passport. I do have a little time to spare.

Yes, I need to get her to sign a letter with phone number. if they need to call her. She doesn't have a problem with my taking her to visit her family

That's another thing I saw. Hers is valid until January. Mine is just recently renewed.

That's why I was asking, because a few searches said I could use her US passport to leave, and Thai to re enter. Passports have never been used.

Would be okay except the car has a few problems I'm going to get fixed soon, and traveling that far isn't wise. Ubon's an hour away, so having my ex come by bus would be much better, I will compensate her for the lost time. Just messaged her so waiting on reply. I searched but couldn't find any topics just like this one. If I can get her back before we leave, which is probable, renewing isn't a problem, as it only took a few days to get sent her first passport. If I could just use her US passport, there wouldn't be a problem.

Not a problem except her mom is working in Bangkok and would have to return and go with me to the UBON counselor to renew, leaving work for a couple of days. We aren't married anymore.

That's another thing I've been told, so I'm not sure what's true. Her US expires next June, so if that would work, it would be fine. If we leave using the US passport, coming back in December, that wouldn't be a problem, because the Thai expires the next month. Some have said it has to have 6 months after trip to be valid, but if I only had to show her US passport, I could renew the Thai one when we return

I will, just wondering if this trip will be okay with what I have now

Traveling to the US in November with my daughter. She has both Thai and US passports. Both expire next year. The Thai one expires in January 2024. I've searched a few places and get different stories. One said as long as it doesn't expire during the trip, it's okay to use. One said it must be 6 months after the stay period. We are coming back in December, one month trip. Another said as long as it's valid when we go, it would work. Nee ed a definitive answer as the embassy doesn't answer calls, just appointments.

I'm against killing these dogs with rifles, and instead prefer the only way to curb the population, which is spay-neuter, and hopping it up to where it's done countrywide and not just certain areas. Your response is ridiculous because you don't understand what a legitimate gunman could do. They would be in vehicles, after gathering a certain amount of dogs in an area with food. Using suppressed rifles, they could shoot many in one sitting. A "gunman", like many hunters like myself, is capable of head and torso shots, which are instantly fatal. Dogs hear fireworks almost every day with all the funerals going on, so even a gunshot that wasn't suppressed wouldn't scare them away from inside a vehicle. This was done with deer a few times in Princeton, New Jersey, where people stopped legal hunting and the deer population of course exploded, causing hundreds of traffic accidents and some deaths, besides the destruction the deer did with flora in that area. The man killed a few hundred deer, by himself, with a suppressed rifle, with multiple kills before the deer realized what was happening. If a dog doesn't see the shooter, they aren't smart enough to understand what's happening to others going down while they're eating. Again, I'm against this sort of thing, and would like to see the numbers controlled in a humane way, keeping the population from going out of hand like it is now.

Guess it went over your head

It isn't necessary to tell anyone facts that are easily seen. Dogs that are raised to be vicious, besides those that are in the military and on police forces, are unnecessary and shouldn't be allowed. This isn't rocket science. I've been bitten twice by pets which were loose, and of course i didn't like it, and if I or my family was attacked by one, I would kill it, because it wasn't supposed to be allowed to roam freely. My statement was to see how many dogs save lives. Which means they serve a good purpose besides just being pets.

If you bothered to look up those links, you could have done a little more research on how many lives have been saved by dogs, or would that make too much sense?

No, I'm a realist, knowing certain animals are here as food., just as vegetables, grains and fruits are. God doesn't have to tell us what is obvious to anyone. People who don't want to eat animals don't have to .And God isn't about a certain religion anyway. Religions are man made. If you don't like steak, ribs, chicken with rice, Italian sauce with pork sausage and beef, grilled swordfish, cheese omelettes, a New York hot dog, pizza with thin sliced sausage, roast beef, meatballs, deer sausage, jerky, blackened redfish, crawfish etoufee, shrimp scampi, lobster with drawn butter, pork roast, stuffed turkey, cheeseburgers with bacon, and shall I go on? ,you don't have to eat them, and can eat all the vegetables you want.

Yes, in certain amounts, but not when they are a nuisance to people and animals, sting or bite people in their own homes, and kill over a million people a year. Locusts, mosquitoes, grasshoppers and other insects also are necessary for the ecosystem, but when they reach plague proportions, they are trouble. Birds are here to eat insects, so they are an important part of the ecosystem. If there weren't birds, lizards, and other insect eaters, we would perish.

I think I already asked you to research before replying. that way you would understand the definition of narcissism. Pet owners, especially those that also like people, and have emotions and feelings, can put themselves in others shoes to understand what they are going through, are called empaths, which is the opposite of a narcissist. Animal owners, at least myself and all the thousands I've known, don't expect others to make allowances for their pets, and train their pets not to jump on others, or at least stop them when a dog is trying to make another friend. Pets which go after others in a violent way, aren't trained and aren't supposed to be running free. Barking dogs are a nuisance, and shouldn't be outside where they can bother others, UNLESS people are coming onto that property, and they are warning their owners, which is always a good thing. I don't go for breeding vicious dogs, unless those are dogs in military and police, and are under the supervision of their owners. A god pet is a pleasure. A bad pet is trouble. You can't call people hypocrites because they eat meat that God has provided for us. Some animals are meant as food, and some to domesticate. Eating dogs, cats, monkeys, some birds, and some others isn't right, but a lot of Asians eat everything.

Actually, it's narcissists, power hungry and controlling people, those that blame others for their own problems, people that break things during arguments, that are cruel to animals, children, elders, that have parents who are were) abusers, the extremely jealous, manipulators, have a poor self image, etc, that are more likely to abuse people. 80% of the world's population are meat eaters. Your saying that means they are more likely to abuse people? Like I said, research more, post less opinions, because opinions aren't facts. I'm an animals lover, eat meat, and a hunter, but don't abuse people.

You need to research more and post less. It makes you look very silly

Yes, birds kill other birds. And birds have many predators against them. Cats are vicious killers of all small wildlife,billions yearly, and the bigger cats kill most everything else, including hundreds of people.

Yes, birds kill millions of insects daily, which helps us tremendously. (wondering what emoticon he will use with his reply)

I'm guessing you don't read daily news much? Besides the fact that over 60% of people own a pet in the US, worldwide it's almost 40%. I don't think you can call this many weak or pathetic. I've been an animal owner all of my life and been a weightlifter for 48 years, and even though I'm now 66, I'm still stronger than most of the population and when I was in my 50's, I was extremely strong naturally, so I'm hardly a weak person, along with millions of others who train weekly. Dogs save lives almost daily worldwide, sniff out drugs to help with arrests of criminals, help disabled people get around, provide companionship to all pet owners, and these are people that have wives, husbands and children. they help emotionally with people who have suffered abuse, PTSD, molestation and diseases. Dogs save many lives protecting their owners also. There are some people who show off their pure breeds, but those are the rich, pathetic people that use money and things to boost their egos. The problem here is that people really don't care about their pets once they've grown past puppy or kitten stage, and they are allowed to legally roam free, which isn't allowed in many places where I'm from in Texas, as well as all other states, especially in cities. Farm animals here roam and do cause problems, and that's because many of them don't have owners. I've had 5 dogs poisoned by some sick imbecile in our village, along with many other neighbors dogs, because he (she) doesn't like them running around, but this is farm country, and they aren't much trouble here. The neuter-spay program helps by lowering the population of viable animals, thereby reducing the population in the future, but it needs to be done countrywide and not stopped, and have help with funding by the government. Cats should not be allowed to roam because they kill many birds, along with lizards, which help reduce the insects. They can be allowed out but monitored. I love cats but they do kill more than most other animals. Pets are a very valuable addition to humans lives, and people that hate them have been raised by parents with this hate, and it's passed down to their children. People who abuse animals are very likely to be abusers of people, and most serial killers get their start this way. It's a power issue, because they have low self esteem and have to take their pent up anger out on animals. In any event, keeping the pet population down by neutering and spaying is only going to help everyone, including the animals.

Read the report

If you read the report, the kids, many of them, were running from a noise complaint. This incident does not warrant a police chase. The police do chase people all over the world for a variety of crimes, and some of them are legitimate. Kidnapping, rape, murder, bank robberies, and they do result in accidents which sometimes innocents are hurt. That's a judgement call the police has to make, if it is worth the chase to capture the criminal trying to get away. In this case it wasn't. The laws here aren't good if they don't punish a young child for doing something criminal, or at least put the blame on parents who should have taught the child better. Using a motorcycle is a way they know they can elude the police, at least some of the time. The kid, hopefully he recovers, will surely learn a lesson from this, but depending on his thinking and how he was raised, might never do anything like this again, or look at it like, hey, I lived from this, and think he is invincible. The police have to do a better job here, as everyone knows, of enforcement. Paying fines for no helmets, speeding, driving without a license, is one step towards less accidents daily, because losing money is one of the best teachers, especially if you aren't well off.

This topic has been going back and forth with infighting and it's gotten old. Like many here have said, this person was allowed to enter a contest for Miss Netherlands. Miss means miss, female. It doesn't mean a man who has changed in any way, either physical or mental. Yes, the contest allows trans women to enter, and this is the mistake a lot are arguing over. And it makes sense. Trans should have their own contest, because a lot of them go through a hell of a lot of trouble and work to become what they are. It's their choice, and no one can argue this. No matter how good looking some trans get, and a lot of them fool us very well, they still should not be allowed to enter a contest of females, because they aren't females, and like I had mentioned awhile back, it makes the "losers" feel pretty bad, because they lost to what is in reality a man, no matter how pretty she (he) may be. Everyone has opinions because everyone likes their own types when it comes to attraction, so some might think she was pretty. She looks mannish to me, although some women have that look, so this should have excluded her from the winners circle. I haven't seen the other women besides the runner up, and she is definitely prettier and more feminine looking. Yes, the contest isn't all about looks, as we can all see in the choices of other contests throughout the years, but still, this is looks first, and if you have a few that are very attractive and you have to choose then, you go by appearance, style, grace, intelligence and vision. It's okay to stick up for a trans person,as that is their life choice. I have gays in my family, and although I don't agree with their choice, I would never look down on them. We are not to judge others about their choices unless it hurts someone else. Bringing children into this discussion is way off base. There are many sick people in the world who allow things to happen to their children, and they should be punished, but this isn't about that. Thailand has a trans woman who's rich that supports this, and money talks, even though it shouldn't happen. What's become "normal" in the last few decades isn't. but that's the new way of thinking, and if you come from the US as I do, you understand freedom and what happens because of it. Some good, and some bad.

Researchers analyzed every antidepressant study they could get their hands on--including a bunch of unpublished data obtained via the U.S. Freedom of Information Act--and concluded that, for "most" patients, SSRI antidepressants are no better than sugar pills. ___________Only the most severely depressed get much real benefit from the drugs, the study found. .......................... Guess they do work for some. When you argue a point, you have to research the link, and not just post links to rebut someone statements. Studies, although involving a lot of people, do not involve all of the people who have depression. Placebos do work for almost every ailment, but not all the time.