Longwood50

49 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Try reading links sometime.

Use your own advise.

THESE ARE LINCOLNS OWN WORDS RESPONDING TO HORACE GREELEY 

Perhaps you might believe Lincoln's own words on the subject as printed in the National Intelligencer.  HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.

Or do you think Lincoln's own words on the subject don't matter and are trumped by the PC crowd portrayal of the Civil War as some sort of moral crusade.  Clearly it was not. 

While Lincoln waited for his generals to secure a victory, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley provided Lincoln with an opportunity to test public reaction to emancipation as a war measure. In an open letter to President Lincoln published on August 20 under the heading "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley urged Lincoln to recognize slavery as the root cause of the war and act boldly with regard to emancipation. Although he already had a draft emancipation proclamation prepared, Lincoln responded with his own open letter to Greeley, which he published in the National Intelligencer in Washington, D.C. Lincoln stated plainly that the goal of his administration's policies, including those related to slavery, was to save the Union. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln carefully noted that this represented his official position. He intended "no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?r=-3.463,-0.034,7.926,3.132,0

34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I posted a link from the government.

show me where there was any affirmative action taken against the South to end slavery.  THERE WAS NOT.  Note Lincoln even rebuffed abolionists and to use his war power to strike against slavery.  Since the war was already in progress it is obvious that they would not have been pressuring Lincoln since according to you that was the reason for the war. 

We often associate the Civil War with the end of slavery — and for good reason.

But Lincoln’s primary goal in going to war was to save the Union, slavery or not. The Emancipation Proclamation changed the equation.
 

The Civil War began on April 12, 1861. Though Lincoln morally opposed slavery, he avoided any public comments connecting the war and the rights of slaves. He was concerned more with acting constitutionally and a swift victory to prevent the Union from dissolving.

So according to you the war was about Slavery but Lincoln himself avoided all public comment connecting the two.  He publicly stated the goal was TO PRESERVE THE UNION. 

While Lincoln opposed slavery he was never for emancipation.  He favored exporting the slaves to either the Carribean or Liberia.

AGAIN THE SOUTH HAD NO REASON TO SECEDE DUE TO THE ABOLOITON OF SLAVERY.  None had been suggested or threatened.  The Missouri Compromise of 1820 ALREADY GUARANTEED THE SOUTH THE PRESERVATION OF SLAVERY. 

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes it was. The south depended on cotton and it wasn't going to pick itself.

No it was not.  SHOW ME WHERE THE NORTH introduced any action to ban slavery.  As said the Missouri Compromise already GUARANTEED that those states that were slave states could remain so as well as any below the Missouri Compromise line.  

So the argument that they fought over slavery is patently false.  Neither Lincoln, or Congress took any legislative action to stop slavery.   So there was NO REASON TO SECEDE.   There was not even any discussion in congress to ban slavery.  

It is an "urban legend" spread through the ages as some form or moral crusade.  It was not.  Slavery would have ended one way or another without the war.   Mechanization was already starting the end of slavery

3 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Seek and ye shall find. This is a common criticism of non EV owners.

You could be correct but as mentioned as a casual observer, I see precious few charging stations.  Also, unlike the 3 minutes or less it takes to refuel a gasoline powered car it takes in some cases hours to recharge on a Level 2 charger.   Not all the cars or charging stations have level 3 charges even then you are 15 minute to 30 minutes.  Perhaps acceptable if you are the only one in the queue but hardly desireable if there were many waiting to charge.  I know this, in warm or cold weather I certainly don't want to be sitting inside my car for 15 minutes to 30 minutes to have my car charged.  I also know having used electric lithium batteries for a golf cart that they reccomend slow charging since fast charging can degrade the life of the battery. 


Now this may not happen in Thailand however in the PC world of the USA, electric vehicles must now have noise to protect blind pedestrians alerting them to oncoming vehicles. 

3 hours ago, nigelforbes said:

No, at least not for a long while, it would negatively impact tourist arrivals and that's a major risk to GDP.

All you have to do is look at virtually every country including Thailand and their actions to see this played out. 

4 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

 Even if the range of my battery degrades by 30% after 8 years or so, I will still have a better electric range than most other current new PHEVs. Furthermore, I do also believe that a few years down the road, swapping out batteries will be the norm and those newer batteries will be significantly cheaper as well.

Yes and with that "hope" and 30 baht you can get a smoothie at the Night Market. 

Here is the cost of lithium.  And that is with only 2.2% of the cars in the world now being Electric.  Lithium is a rare earth metal and as its supply is exhausted the price will have to go up exponentially.  


 

17 hours ago, ozimoron said:

's truly amazing the contortions some will go through deny slavery and racism as the cause of the civil war. Slavery is racism of course.

Ozimoron,

No it was not about slavery.  Tell me. Where was the "legislation" or threats to remove slavery from the North.  There were none.  As mentioned the Missouri Compromise was ENACTED LEGISLATION.  It guaranteed that all states that were slave states could remain so and that new states below the  36º 30' latitude line could be slave and those above could not.  HENCE THE SOUTH HAD NO REASON TO SECEDE DUE TO SLAVERY. 

The war started not because of slavery or threats to abolish it.  It started because the South seceded and declared its independence.  It seceded strictly because of what it considered unfair legislation that damaged the agricultural industry of the south with high product costs for imported products and benefited the north whose factories were protected from imported products via the tarrifs. 

By the time of the civil war, slavery was ALREADY BEING PHASED OUT in the South by industrialization.  Inventions like the cotton gin were making it less economical to use slaves.  

The civil war ended slavery but slavery was not the impetus that started the war.  That is as fake as Marie Antoinnette saying "let them eat cake" or that you can see the Great Wall in China from space.  

It is politically popular to say the Civil War was a great crusade to end slavery but that is patently false.  Though Lincoln opposed slavery, he was governed by the consitution, and the Missouri Compromise which guaranteed it. 

I suggest we are trading one form of pollution for another.  The USA right now  Renewables amount to only 21% of the electric produced.  Even with renewables like sun, wind, and water, you have pollution from the contruction of dams, solar panels, and wind turbines plus the pollution from the transmission to the power company.  

It takes 2.2 million liters of water to make 1 ton of lithium used in the batteries.  1 ton is enough to make 190,000 cell phones.  In Chile 65% of the available water is used to extract the lithium deposits robbing the residents of water needed for daily living and crops.  

But you feel good driving your electric car and "thinking" it doesn't pollute. 

What is true is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and over the years it has become politically popular to say it was.  The North and South had already agreed that those states that were slave states could remain so.  It was passed in congress and labeled the Missouri Compromise.  The compromise was worked out because the South did not want representation in new states to be non slave and hence wanted protection that slavery would be allowed to continue.  They got that assurance with the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820

It was later repealed but not until after the Civil War.  Since the states that had slavery were expressly in the law allowed to keep it, the issue with the South was not about retaining slavery.  





The real issue as always was economic.  The North possessed the factories and wanted protection from cheaper imported products hence the Morrill Tarrifs which greatly increased the cost of imported goods.  The North benefited from higher prices for its manufactured products and the South with fewer factories had the brunt by paying more for imported products than they otherwise would. 

 After the Civil War the slaves were free, but the war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to stop the South from leaving the Union and the reason that the broke from the Union was the tarrifs. 


https://www.jstor.org/stable/26062020#:~:text=In Britain%2C the tariff thus,European recognition of the Confederacy.

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

I expect at least 20 years out of my battery if it's properly looked after.  With a starting range of 510km, it should still have over 400km range at 20 years.  I will probably be dead by then

Again perhaps, but as I drive around Thailand I see precious few charging stations. As to your claim of getting 510 KM perhaps you should advise Mercedes that unlike published reports your car outstrips theirs. 



As to a range of 400KM at 20 years I find that pretty difficult to believe..  This report says at 8 years the battery would be at 70%.  

Now this is not an issue in Thailand but both battery charging time, range, and life of battery are considerably less in cold weather.  Ford recently advised owners of its new EV truck to avoid using the heater during cold weather and to rely on heated seats and steering wheel to save the battery.  The same applies to using the AC during the summer. 



It would seem to me, the only people who will greatly benefit from and EV would be those that travel a lot such as taxi drivers in major cities.  If you drive very little you won't save enough in reduced energy costs to recoup the additional expense of purchasing an EV.  The unknown question is if the owner decides to change vehicles at the end of 5 to 8 years what the resale value will be.  I "suspect" buyers will know the battery is towards the end of its normal life, will have reduced range, and might need to be replaced.  Given that I would conjecture the resale value will plummet.  

Also unknown, all of the studies are based on todays cost of electricity.  As more electric cars are on the roads it is almost a certainty that government will tax the EV's either directly or through higher electric costs to offset the loss of fuel tax.  Though it wont impact immediately existing owners. The price of lithium has skyrocketed and that is with only a small fraction of the cars being Electric.  That alone could significantly increase the cost of a new EV and destroy any resale value entirely on the used one if it required now a much more expensive battery replacement. 



 

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I also used the phrase "not of more value" thus supporting your argument. My question was why all the outrage?

If not of more value, then why the showcasing on TV.  As mentioned there seems to be this mindset that because someone can catch a ball, hit a ball, dunk a ball, sing, act, or is born to someone of royalty that they are showcased to the public as if what they have to say is really more germaine and insightful.   Now if Anderson Cooper was interviewing a person who had invented something, was an expert on medical issues, was Warren Buffet talking about investing, then it is totally appropriate.  As to Prince Harry and his wife, they are just two human beings with no particular expertise or experience on any issue.  The very fact that Britain continues to have a monarchy astounds me since they are nothing more than symbollic. 

If you use a new device or have recently cleared your cache you will get this for awhile.  Each time I clear my cache in my computer it takes the cookies that the sites use to verify me.  After I verify for a number of times, it restores enough times the cookies that Lazada and Shopee and other sites now recognize it isn't a hacker. 

Do they have this headline on AUTO RENEW  Seems to be a headline every 90 days. 

Thai immigration launches new online 90 day reporting system

 

On 1/1/2023 at 12:52 AM, Gweiloman said:

I decided that a PHEV is the best option for me and thus f, after a month of own, I’m still happy with my choice.

Well perhaps but I am skeptical.  Common sense tells me, I pay for more the electric car to begin with and as it ages its batteries become exhausted and my range decreases.  As it approaches the age to replace the battery its resale value plummets so whatever "savings" I got from driving an electric vechicle are lost when I factor in the depreciation.  Though you may be happy at this time and perhaps always will, 1 in 5 drivers in Californa said, they will not purchase an EV the second time.  That is a lot 

https://www.businessinsider.in/1-in-5-electric-vehicle-owners-in-California-switched-back-to-gas-because-charging-their-cars-is-a-hassle-new-research-shows/articleshow/82332806.cms

On 12/29/2022 at 5:39 PM, JBChiangRai said:

Not a problem yet.

I am going to conjecture that for the most part it is not a problem in the U.K. either.  The point is that when demand during a peak travel period spikes, the normal which is typically not a problem, suddenly transforms into a problem.  The report is that U.K. drivers waited upwards of 6 hours to get to the front of a charging line. 

https://www.ladbible.com/news/tesla-owners-uk-christmas-queueing-charge-hours-138192-20221228

On 12/29/2022 at 4:54 PM, KhunLA said:

If you says so  ... my actual experience is completely different than your inexperienced opinion.

 

As said, you could be correct, however, it appears as though even those in such a developed country as the U.K. must be "uninformed" since they waited in line for up to 6 hours to recharge.  So their actual experience rather than "your opinion" is far more convincing to me. 
https://www.ladbible.com/news/tesla-owners-uk-christmas-queueing-charge-hours-138192-20221228

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

TH  CS network is not limited at all.

Ok if you say so.  I have seen only a smattering of charge stations.  With that said, I am sure the infrastructure in the UK is far superior to that in Thailand.  However, unlike putting petrol in your car which is done in minutes, charging takes a long time.  So during periods of peak travel, the charging stations just like in the UK will back up.  

This is in the U.K.  I can't imagine how limited the recharge network in Thailand is. 

If raising minimum wage had no negative effects, why only 600 baht, why not 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 baht per day.  

A "job" not the person is worth only so much per day.  You pay someone to cut your lawn. I don't care how good that person is, or how much they need the additional money you are only willing to pay so much to have your lawn cut.

With Thai businesses, labor is a cost, not any different than rent, taxes, insurances, electric, or water.  The employer has to add up what his/her costs are and then add to those costs their profit for providing their product of services.  So raising the minimum wage helps those who would get a raise and hurts those who will be buying those products and services.  It is a zero sum game. 

The other thing is that Thailand does not live in a bubble.  Any product or service that is available from other countries is a competitor.  So if rubber, rice, office machine parts, automobiles that Thailand is currently exporting have to go up in price, it becomes less competitive and sells less.  That reduces the jobs in Thailand.  

You can not legislate prosperity into existence.  What the necessity of raising the minimum wage really says is that Thailand has too many people with zero or minimal skills that can't command hire pay.  The real answer is to provide more jobs in occupations that require hire skill levels and provide more training and education to the Thai people to allow them to take advantage of those jobs. 

This does not happen overnight.  Look at China.  They were once one of the poorest countries economically with "cheap Chinese labor"  That has been changing for decades as the Chinese government targeted industries such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, chemicals, aircraft, machine tools, and cell phones.  The Chinese workers in those skilled trades are no longer low wage workers.  Tim Cook of Apple is quoted as saying they are in China and the days of cheap Chinese labor for Apple are gone.  They continue in China not because it is cheap but because they have the supply of workers with the higher skill set needed to make Apple products. 

Raising the minimum wage here in Thailand will increase the incentive for businesses to automate and reduce workers.  As said, if there were no negatives to doing so make it 10,000 baht a day and let everyone live not just a subsistence life but one with some luxuries. 

On 12/18/2022 at 7:01 AM, heybruce said:

If the university promised that an unwanted degree would lead to a high paying job it might be fraud.  Do any universities give that promise?

 

Well did Trump University tell any of those attending its courses that it would lead to a high paying job? 

There is an implied Warranty of Merchantibility meaning that goods and services are suppose to be reasanbly fit for the purpose intended. A college educations is suppose to prepare a person for a career.  I worked for both Merrill Lynch and UBS Paine Webber.  Even with a person investing only a few thousand dollars we were bound to work in our clients best interest, and have them invest money only in items suitable for meeting their investment goals.  So the colleges knowingly and willingly are fleecing students offering them courses and degrees that they have full knowledge leads to nothing.  

On 12/14/2022 at 2:52 PM, candide said:

You can post it over and over, it remains a lame false equivalence.

Ok candide.  you go to college and pay over the course of 4 years $100,000 for a degree in Gender Equity Studies or Excercise Science.  The accredited institution is offering them so 'THEY MUST BE WORTHWHILE" 

You then graduate with this degree and go into the job market and find, no they are 'WORTHLESS"  

Tell me you believe that WAS NOT FRAUD. They paid for something on the belief it was worth something when in fact those offering in had full knowledge it had no value in the job market. 
 

Tell me why they are not prosecuted but only Trump University.

15 hours ago, andy said:

Did you use pay.gov?

Yes I ended up paying the $130 USD online.  I contacted the embassy by email and Ubon Joe also said, no they accept only the bank draft in baht.  So, I ended up going to SCB and getting a bank draft for 100 baht.  Cost was about 35 baht.  It wasn't the cost, it was the nuisance of having to go to the bank, wait in line, fill out the mindless amounts of paperwork, show my passport etc. to purchase the 100 baht draft.  You would "think" it would be easier for the embassy to establish a bank account and allow you to transfer baht electronically and mail a copy of the payment to them, just like you do the copy of the $130.  But then again we are talking about government.  If it was a private run business, they would have a QR code for you to scan and pay.