Fat is a type of crazy

58 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

You've mixed up my quotes and had a lot of attitude which is a very Liverpool Lou thing to do. I concede though you have a point that I am not in a position to know in detail but I acknowledged limited knowledge. 

The topic was to make a prediction. Everyone here probably  has limited knowledge with the odd exception. 

My 2 cents was that I consider if someone leaves there home, and goes to a protest and waving around an AR-15 and people die, there should be implications. 

This is a chat - people's lives aren't hanging on my words. 

See my other post about the racial element. The point being that I think many Americans, including some posters here, would be less likely to be sympathetic if a young black guy did the same thing. 

30 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

This has nothing to do with the criminal trial underway in WI.

What is the racial implication you are alluding to?

My point was probably not well explained. I just think if a black man had the gun and shot three protesters rather than a wide eyed white boy it may have been looked at a bit differently. I do believe that people, especially given 11 out of 12 jurors are white,  can see Rittenhouse and be more likely to think he could be innocent and trying to do good as compared to if he was a black boy of the same age. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Do you let your hired servants take part in households decisions?

Should a woman who didn't attend high school be allowed to choose your kids high school?

Should a woman who abandoned her kids in the village with grandma be allowed to play any part in your kids upbringing?

 

In fact, should a woman who's career choice was to have sex with random guys for money be allowed any say in any decision?

 

I gave it a smilie face when you just had the first line only but that stuff you added later is a bit depressing. If you did have kids with her then..I guess.. she does have a say.

I kept a diary as a teenager and young adult. Peak of my dating. Includes a day to day account of a trip with my girlfriend on a first trip to Thailand and Myanmar. Haven't looked in decades. 

I remember details of the 80's better than I remember the 10's. Probably because stuff is changing more then while in the 10's it's a bit same same.   

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If she paid for 50% (or more) of everything, fair enough.

But as it's 100% my money, I make 100% of all decisions.

 

As for Google tracking my every movement ........

When accused or wrongdoing, you can just say "Google says I wasn't there!"

So, to put my Nice Guy or Political Correct hat on, doesn't the fact that she does things for you give her some bargaining power - even if sex. Surely she works hard for her money so that gives her rights to help decide on - best school, how to bring up kid, food to buy, what movie to see etc

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which USA laws do you think are unjust and should be changed ?

I live in a country where you can't hear about a public disturbance somewhere and go out in the streets with an AR-15 with wide eyed excitement and see what fun is to be had. You can't own a gun let alone an AR-15 without stringent conditions. 

I won't pretend to know all the specific laws but I would let few if any own semi automatic rifles. Maybe farmers. I know I probably lost you there. But if you could have them you would not be able to walk the streets with them and certainly not for anyone under 25 or maybe 30. Police should not allow a kid to even have the opportunity to do what he did. In Australia that would be insane. 

You may prefer the American way but I love that we have so little gun crime and few gun deaths. 

Just stupid gun laws mixed with a stupid kid. I feel he deserves a punishment but the lawmakers who let these situations be even close to legal are the guilty ones. 

The Ahmaud Arbery case is more clear cut. If his killers get off there will be riots I should think. 

I have an HSBC card and when I added an app at the time it was quite complicated to get it connected to my  account. It seemed like I had to go back and forward for proof between the app and online and only one could be on at a time.  I deleted it and just use the online account. 

A tip for call centres is to call about 8am  in the country of your account. They tend to have a lot of staff  on call, regardless of where the call centre is, but not that many customers call at that time. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

Please explain why the rain forests continue to get cut down at a rapid rate when they are IMO the best carbon storage on the planet?

Explain why the only option being promoted for transport is batteries when hydrogen is a better solution?

Explain why most of the options being pursued ( electric cars, windmills, solar panels ) are profitable to certain people, and good options that are not profitable are not being pursued?

Explain why nuclear is being abandoned when it is the best way to continuously generate large amounts of electricity without producing carbon? France has PROVEN it is safe and economical to use.

My post was about climate change denial.

Having accepted it, I concur, the solution  is harder where economic interests have to be a factor and politics plays a big part. The Australian Labour govt were impressive at the last election with a decent climate policy. They unexpectedly lost due to coal mining seats going Liberal. Now both parties support coal mining but one is a touch more reasonable.

I agree on nuclear - again it is politics that stops it because people are scared. Chernobyl left a strong mark. Its not fair too that India and China get so many breaks too for being undeveloped. Maybe a bit but they get too much.

So all that stuff is true but there's signs of hope I suppose. But if people can't even agree there is climate change then the solutions aren't even considered. I think though there's definitely money being made all over the place but I think there is good stuff that hopefully outweighs the dodgy stuff. 

Climate deniers seem to start with the fact they haven't noticed at their local town.

Or that most scientists don't believe its true.

Then it's that most scientists believe it but they are corrupt.

Then it's climate change is happening but its part of a natural cycle.  

Then it's man made climate change is happening but it won't be bad.

Then it's that we'll just have to adapt.

They see anyone trying to do something as short sighted do gooders influenced by the secret rich illuminati or something. 

To be honest I don't give the topic much thought, but the outright denial that some action might be appropriate, is somewhat confounding. It is as if, for some, the possible fact that there are people who are smarter than them, and actually can take action, goes against their outlook that anyone with education and knowledge and some power to do good must ultimately be greedy, corrupt, or foolish. 

For me a starting point is to recognise and accept we all ultimately look out for no 1 being ourselves. That then gets expanded to our families, and social circle, and country, and there is nothing wrong with that. For example I feel strong immigration policies are quite reasonable for particular countries. Trade can be complicated. Open trade can benefit your country, and the world, but sometimes it's not a level playing field. 

I can see how that term has mainly been used by the right to discredit the left but you can see how it is used by the left to shame the right.  

Having accepted that we are looking out for no 1 we can then say 'OK its in my interest to deal with warming, or a strong China, or whatever.' We can go a step further and say I am not happy that  Uyghurs are treated so poorly in China and support groups like Amnesty International because part of looking out for no 1 could be to make a good and fair world.  

My Thai holidays in the last 15 years were in Phuket from 2004 to 2011 and then Koh Chang from 2012 to 2019. I am a bit of a creature of habit as you can tell. As such most the tourists I see, particularly in Koh Chang,  are 'normal' tourists here for a nice break with nice resorts and a bit of beach and nature. Probably forty per cent of those just eat at restaurants and don't go out much at night and a different 40 per cent younger half also go out at night to night clubs and may take in a naughty show for a giggle. Then you have your loner or small groups of men at say Pattaya, Patong, and Bangkok and dispersed at other resort areas. They appear to range from guys just going out and having fun, looking for women as well, to those being there for one reason only. If I had to hazard a guess I would say they are 15 to 20 per cent. I have only been to Pattaya once and the ratios would differ significantly there.

For alcohol I think most tourists would find it obnoxious not to be able to drink at dinner and that half who want to go out to night clubs would find no alcohol a huge deterrence. I don't drink much so I am happy to have a beer on the hotel balcony from a store.  

My ex wife and girlfriend love a good buffet and some hotels provide amazing buffets and our choice is influenced by that. I just wish you could access them a bit later. We  tend to change our habits by having no lunch and small dinners so we can enjoy the big buffet. Saves cost too.  

Interesting post and here's hoping they make further updates on those topics. I have a February booking but if there are no changes I would throw away my ticket. Jetstar sale so no big deal.

They would miss out on my spending for three weeks on hotels and food etc. 

I've booked a cheap ticket for a holiday to Phuket in February. If this is how it is then I have done my dough. It's a holiday. I want to take it easy not worry that this can happen. 

54 minutes ago, ncc1701d said:

Yeah I’ll be liquidating everything. 45 days is not enough in my opinion. And the bigger worry is how they will get the money from you. If you don’t meet 2 of the 4 requirements - Will they demand all your financial details from day 46, tax you and you have to claim it back somehow proving you don’t meet enough of the requirements or will they require proof before hand and then not bother you.. Another Australian government sh!tshow.

In practical terms I don't think it will be that bad. If you have a home and or family in Thailand and you come to Australia for a couple of months to travel or visit friends it will be fine. There is discretion and some common sense in these things.

It would definitely be after the fact. They might send you a letter and ask for information about your situation, give you the proposed decision,  and only then amend or lodge assessments.  The only time you might have an issue is if you stayed many months and they had information about your Australian investments and could not make contact. Then you could object and get it fixed. This is my 2 cents but I think it's likely to be correct. 

5 hours ago, Adumbration said:

Read my other thread on this point.  If someone returns home for medical treatment they will have to resume residency in Australia to get access to medicare.  They will then have to go through a 2 year wait time before their pension is again portable and they can move back to Thailand.

The observation was made that if you are doing it tough for many it would be easier in Thailand than their home countries. I was just noting that for Australians there are other factors to take into account such as free healthcare and other assistance that offset the fact that it is cheap to live in Thailand. 

It was not about the opportunity to live in Thailand, get healthcare back in Australia, and then return to Thailand. I note too I think your example is based on the particular situation of you being away from Australia for more than 5 years and not keeping a current Medicare card. 

1 hour ago, ncc1701d said:

Just did a search, these were the first two that came up. But they basically go through the issues.

 

https://atlaswealth.com/news/changes-to-the-australian-tax-residency-rules-affecting-expats/

 

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/income-tax/1109524/proposed-changes-to-the-tax-residency-provisions-for-individuals-explained
 

 

my worry is how they will implement it - charge you when you go over 45 days and expect you to claim it back, or some other way.

 

This is actually good news for some such as me. My retirement income is Australian based and when I retire and if I live in Thailand I was worried I'll become a non-resident, and pay high taxes on it and  lose all the concessions when you turn 60,  if I stay away for 184 days. If this happens I can just be in Australia for as little as 45 days as long as I keep a home. 

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

First as the graph shows the top 1% use to pay only 20% of the total income tax bill while the bottom 90% paid 50%.  The top 1% now pay 40% of the total tax bill and the bottom 90% pay approximately 30%.  So at what point is "it enough" when the top 1% pay 50%, 60% 70%. You can see the creeping socialism where you take from those who produce and give to those who don't. 

As previously mentioned you tax something you want less of and subsidize something you want more of.  Taking from those who produce creates less of them and subsidizing those who live off others gets more of them. 

You say a couple of percent doesn't make a difference.  Consider a lottery with a prize of $10 million, isn't that enough?  How many tickets do you sell.  If you make the prize $100 million, how many tickets do you sell?   The greater the reward the more people who sill strive to obtain it. 

Finally the majority of the wealthy come from business successes.  They certainly don't come from failures.  The more profitable the business is, the more they want to expand.  That is good for the economy, and good for working class people.  Business expands from using retained profits.  The less money they have to expand, the less expansion there is. 

It is like the adage of the cup of water and the pump.  You can drink the water but then the pump will not prime and you don't get more water.   Like it or not, successful people become wealthy from providing something of value.  That should be something encouraged, not discouraged.  The fact that they become wealthy is a "so what"  Would the world be wealthier and the population better off if Bill Gates when he was worth $1 billion had a larger percentage of his wealth confiscated and hence Microsoft didn't expand.   Would the 3 million people who have jobs at Walmart be better off if Sam Walton as the company was successful had his money confiscated and there were only 500 Walmart stores instead of 5,000.  

It would seem far more logical to look for ways to help the bottom 90% improve their skills so they could earn more rather than confiscate the fruits of others labors who are successful just "because they can afford it"  

Look at Thailand where there is this dual pricing for locals and farangs.  They use the pretext  well they can afford it.  The basic tenet of communism is "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need"  

This idea that somehow the wealthy benefited from what was provided by society in general is ludicrous.  Everyone has the benefit of what society has provided.  The difference is some people use what society has provided to create value and hence become wealthy and others either to lack of ability or lack of initiative do not.  

I just ask, at the risk of repeating myself, weather the increase in tax paid by the top 1 per cent is because each new $ earned is taxed at a higher rate than before, or because their wealth has increased so exponentially, compared to the other 99 per cent.

Sometimes I think that people underestimate the wealth that is out there.  Crypto currency can have billions poured into it and at the same time property and the stock market surge. 

The lottery example is in my favour because you have given an example of a 10 fold increase in prize whereas I am suggesting a modest increase. If it was from 37 to 40 the prize might go from $10m down to $9.25 m. Still worth getting. 

There is a risk of business moving off shore but those taxes can pay for better infrastructure and health and education to get those skills that benefit businesses. 

I see Thailand as the epitome of capitalism where the rich are extremely rich and the poor are poor with few opportunities. Sure you can give examples where the poor become rich, well done to them, but in my opinion that does not make up for the state of most peoples opportunities. The support during the pandemic was fairly woeful. 

The United States obviously does something right given its success. Australia though,  in my opinion, has a fairer taxation system that hopefully still doesn't stifle those who wish to work hard.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However, to get back to the OP, there was a lovely thunder storm yesterday- nature ( Gaia/ God ) at her best.

 

Anyway, back to the OP, there are some wonderful cloud formations to be seen- thank you Gaia.

Gaia needs your help. Gaia, which I had to look up as being Greek goddess of earth, doesn't need your thanks or fatalism. Everything is connected. If you believe you are Gaia's child stand up for Mother Earth.  

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Greta ... seriously, what a joke, a puppet.

 

 

Who is pulling Greta's strings . 

3 hours ago, HAPPYNUFF said:

Greta Funberg, a self serving little twit, with a face like a twisted prune.   Give her time, she will turn into yet another  politician,  willing to say anything  to get elected.

You are acknowledging that she is not acting like a politician as yet. That indicates you acknowledge she may be honest and sincere now even if you may not agree with her solutions. Can you say why it is bad or self serving for her to have an opinion. Is her argument wrong or is it just that it is too extreme. 

4 hours ago, Chad3000 said:

Bill Maher has had a come round and seen the left for what it is. Interesting to watch his monologues last few months.

 

It's not the left of the 50-70s.

 

I despise what's going on ttoday in the US and the world.  It's so vapid, ephemeral and.iIntellectuallyvoid.

 

I used to be a fairly open minded pperson - but I'm no longer wanted ...so I'll take my vote and my money to the side where I am wanted.

 

I'm not going to feel shame for being born white lol. That will never happen. That is an insane position I reject out of hand.

On the same show Amy Klobuchar gave a half decent summary of the specifics of what the democrats are trying to achieve including the key issue of negotiating cheaper medicines. On another part of the show they talked about the black white argument and in my opinion no democrat is trying to say you are bad for being born white. The argument is often around the degree to which there is a inherent racism today and I agree some exaggerate. Often it is students who have always gone to extremes, and have a high purity test,  but in 2021 they have a platform thanks to social media and the rest of the media amplify it further.

I try and look at the policies and not the fluff around the edges.  So maybe don't give up totally on the Democrats especially based on the intellectual wasteland of many on the other side.