.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Longwood50
-
Posts
1,598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Longwood50
-
-
2 hours ago, ozimoron said:
What twisted logic makes abortion a states rights issue? If ever there was a policy screaming out for a national approach this is it.
That "twisted" logic was called the constitution. The tenth amendment states that only those powers that are specifically enumerated belong to the federal government. All other belong to the states. It was only after liberal Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court when he didn't get his way that the court ruled that those activities that involved interstate commerce could be controlled by the federal government. That opened up most activities. Not abortion however. It is a states right issue. in 20 states abortions remain unchanged plus the District of Columbia. The other 30 states have various restrictions and are free to enact whatever legislation their citizens deem appropriate.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, Jingthing said:The issue here is about barbaric abortion laws triggered by the radical right wingers on the illegitimate Supreme Court trashing constitutional rights that had been in effect for 50 years.
You are going to have to read up on the constitution. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. If there was an provision in the consitution it would have had to go to a vote of all 50 states and 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify it.
Also the Supreme Court ruling did not abolish abortion. In 20 states and the District of Columbia abortion remains without restriction. Some like Ohio permit it but not after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Others have different rules.
The only thing the Supreme Court ruling did was say this was a states right issue and that each state has the responsibility and authority for determining its law governing abortion.-
2
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, CharlieH said:sceptics had questioned if it was a hoax
You have to admit that it certainly is questionable that a 9 or 10 year old girl would have reached puberty. Certainly not out of the question but somewhat unusual.
A couple of points. Ohio only restricts abortion after there is a fetal heartbeat. So the girl could have terminated the pregnancy, at any time prior to that occuring.
If she reported the rape the hospital would have likely given her a morning after pill which are effective for up to five days, they are also available without prescription at any pharmacy. If longer than 5 days but before a fetal heartbeat, a D&E could have been performed to end the pregnancy.
One way or another the situation described is meant to tug the heartstrings of those who point to it as a reason for abortion. The fact is, that in the USA there were 622,000 abortions last year. 42% of those were to women seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion. That number is likely low since it is based solely on what the women told the clinic performing the abortion and some may have been embarrased to say they had had an abortion previously.
I can certainly favor abortions in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby has a severe birth defect. Those however would be rare and not amount to anywhere's close to the 622,000 thousand. The fact is that both men and women are irresponsible and using an abortion to erase the consequences of their irresponsibility.
I have to admit I find it extremely hypocritical that many of the same people who push for abortion also push to fine and even imprison people who so much as disturb a sea turtle or eagles egg. And those are still eggs and more importantly not human.
Though it will never be 100% effective the answer lies in getting people to responsibly deal with their choice to have sex. Those instances of rape, incest, or severe birth deformaties can and should be the exceptions and not the wholesale slaughter of unborn children.
The other point that is very hypocritical is that of the 622,000 abortions 40% are to black women, though blacks make up only about 13% of the USA population. I guess BLM only sometimes.https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/30/texas-abortion-black-women/
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
The Parable Of The Camel
A traveler set up a tent in the wilderness. He snuggled under his covers for his night’s sleep. The night became cold and his camel poked his nose into the tent. The owner asked the camel, “What are you doing?” The camel replied, “It’s cold outside. If I could only put my nose inside the tent, I will warm up and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The owner agreed to allow the camel to place his nose inside the tent because, after all, the camel’s request made sense and it was only his nose inside the tent. There was still plenty of room for the traveler.
Soon the camel asked, “I’m still cold. Could I please place my head inside your tent? I will warm up soon, and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The traveler considered the request. He didn’t want his camel to be cold so, once again, he granted the camel’s wish because, after all, it was only his head and there was still room for the traveler inside the tent.
After several minutes, the camel said, “May I please place my front feet inside your tent? They are so cold out here. If only I can warm my feet for a few minutes, then I promise I will spend the rest of the night outside.”
The traveler thought about it. There would be less room in the tent, but it was cold and he believed the camel’s promise to spend the rest of the night outside as long as he could warm his feet. The traveler allowed the camel to place his feet inside the tent.
Not long after, the camel asked, “Can I take just a few steps inside? I’m sure I’ll warm up and then I’ll definitely spend the rest of the night outside.” By now the traveler was feeling crowded inside the tent, but he consented to the camel’s request.
After 30 minutes, the camel took a few more steps inside the tent. Before the traveler realized it, the camel had entered completely inside the tent and the traveler’s only option was to go outside and leave the camel inside the tent. So the owner spent the night outside in the cold, filled with regret that he had allowed the camel to first place his nose inside the tent.
One only has to look at California and Hawaii where the local population no longer can afford to live there and only the wealthiest of Americans can compete with the wealthy foreign money.
If you want to keep Thailand for Thai's this is a bad idea.-
2
-
-
We bought one the Dreame W10. It is the top model. It does a good job. It vacuums and mops. It does map the rooms and is self cleaning. You need to periodically change the water and clean the filter. It does not totally replace manual cleaning since it can not go underneath all the furniture or move it to clean propertly.
-
On 7/11/2022 at 5:00 PM, Kenny202 said:
It cost 2000-4000 baht to go and see a lawyer here. Do you think a Thai person with no job or limited income is going to gamble that much for an opinion? You need to be realistic with your statements
There are free services for those who can not pay. Many lawyers will give you a free 30 minute consultation. I went to one of the top lawyers in Pattaya for an initial consultation on a real estate matter and is was 1,000 baht for a 1 hour consultation.
If the amount was small, then I would agree its a waste of money. I would "guess" the amount to be more than that because the OP wanted advise and likely would not if the amount was small.
-
On 6/29/2022 at 10:15 AM, ubonjoe said:
I have sent them using the preaddressed envelope serval times without a problem.
If your are getting your mail from the SSA without a problem then their should be no reason to have your payments stopped since they send a couple of notices before stopping it.
Just an FYI, I sent mine by PDF yesterday to Manilla indicating that I was doing so as a precaution. I got this response from Manilla this morning.
-
2 hours ago, Kenny202 said:
Yeah none of that applies here. All negotiations done over the phone and never threatening or intimidating
I don't know about here. I am a bit surprised since most of the banks only offer secure cards where the person has to deposit money into an account that the bank holds as collateral.
For unsecured debts the credit card company could sue and obtain a judgement against any assets or a wage assignment.
They may do it or may not.
If the income for debt forgiveness does not apply here, then certainly negotiating a debt forgiveness is the best approach. I would say best to have whatever document they present looked at by an attorney lest you find out that it means something totally different than you thought it did. -
I don't know about Thailand but in the USA, if a credit card or any lender "forgives" a portion of debt the government considers that income that is taxable.
Better to sign an agreement "not to sue" You negotiate a price for the agreement and since the lender agrees not to sue you there is no enforcement mechanism for them to recover any money from you. -
On 7/2/2022 at 7:08 PM, Bkk Brian said:
If you want proof.
Talk to someone familiar with firearms. Ask how the destructive capability of a .223 Remington/5.56 Nato round compares to a larger .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, or .308 Winchester cartridge.These states think that the AR-15 with its miniscule .223 caliber is too small to even hunt deer with.
-
1
-
-
On 7/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, Bkk Brian said:
Couldn't care less what your so called expertise in firearms, you ignored the evidence I provided and that says it all
No I said you were misinformed. And selectively used "evidence" that supported your pre-conceived notion.
Do this for yourself. Look up online the foot pounds of energy of a 55 grain .223 round that is used in the AR-!5 and then do the same for a 150 grain .308 caliber.
The .308 has more than twice the power.
Look up what the .223 is reccomended for in terms of what type of game. You will see it is listed as a "varmit" cartridge to be used for animals the size of coyotes.
Is it lethal. Absolutely but it is like taking a step to ban drunk driving by banning beer. You picked on the one with the least not the most alcohol content.
The same is true of picking on the AR-15. It uses one of the smallest cartridges with the least power not the most. The AR-15 is the civilian semi-automatic version of the M-16 fully automatic rifle. As you can see, Vietnam era people who actually used the gun called it a piece of garbage and doubted its stopping power. Which is true. a .22 caliber cartridge is the second smallest caliber made.
-
On 7/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, ozimoron said:
Attempting to make any kind of equivalence there makes your argument a joke if the damage done to these kids wasn't so sad.
Is it sad what has happened to those children. Absolutely. However this knee jerk reaction is akin to banning cars because of drunk drivers, or reckless drivers.
If you truly wanted to "save lives" then push for tighter border control
The number of deaths particularly amoung "young people" is over 100,000 per year. Far far far more than from firearms. But they occur one at a time rather than in a mass shooting.
That is not to say that we should not be concerned about the mass shooters but use a "reasoned" approach. The banning of a single caliber or a single type of firearm only pushes the person bent on killing people to select a different firearm or worse yet, one with far more firepower.
You mistakently believe that the AR-15 is some sort of Rambo type machine gun. No it is nothing more than a semi-automatic in a very puny caliber.
I can tell you this, and I have shot and reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition used in target shooting. I would much rather face a person with an AR-15 than with a Remington 742 chambered in .308, .270, .280, or 30:06. The bullets are upwards of 50% larger and pack more than twice the destructive power.
So if you could waive your magic wand and ban the AR-15 tht is like trying to combat drunken drivers by banning beer. You picked on the beverage with the lowest amount of alcohol just like picking on the AR-15 is picking on the firearm that is among the least powerful.
-
1
-
-
On 7/2/2022 at 7:49 AM, Bkk Brian said:
Whats not true? Just because your gun manuals don't tell you what the AR-15 does to a humans body? You claim to have extensive knowledge in guns yet having no idea what they do in real life is astounding
I have owned numerous firearms, competed in national target competitions. I have reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Can an AR-15 inflict damage. Yes so can a .22 rimfire the smallest caliber. However what I am saying is that the AR-15 is a puny caliber rifle. It was marketed by Reminton as a "varmit" caliber. Why? Because it was fast, cheap, and had excellent speed even out to 300 yards. That said, it is a small caliber so small that numerous states require that hunters use a larger caliber even to hunt medium size animals weighing less than a human (deer).You can purchase the following semi-automatic rifles that chamber the same exact ammunition as an AR-15
- Colt - AR-15
- Smith and Wesson
- Heckler and Koch
- Sig Sauer
- Daniel Defense
- LaRue Tactical
- BCM
- Geissele
-
Noveske
You can purchase the following rifles in bolt action that also use the exact same ammunition. - Savage
- Remington
- Ruger
-
Mossberg
You can purchase the following lever action rifles using the exact same ammunition.
- Henry
- Mossberg
- Marlin
-
Browning
The same is true of the AR-15. It is fast, but light. At its muzzle the .223 has only 1,261 foot pounds of force. By contrast the 150 grain .308 winchester travels slower but has 2,648 foot pounds of energy. It is more than twice as powerful and this is a deer hunting caliber.
So in conclusion can you kill people with the AR-15 yes. If you ban the AR-15 you still have a huge number of firearms that are absolutely identical to it in terms of the ammuntion they use and 8 of those are semi-automatics making their capabilities absolutely identical to the AR-15. Now if you ban the AR-15 or any other firearm like it, and in doing so push the shooter to buy the larger .308 caliber one of the most popular hunting calibers in the USA, you have now pushed them into a much more deadly weapon
-
1
-
19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect
The wound effect is not soley caused by muzzle velocity. It is largely the type of bullet that is loaded into the cartridge. If you use a full metal jacket it does not expand and it will penetrate but not shatter causing what you term "wound effect" If you use a hollow point expanding bullet it will mushroom making its diameter larger than its caliber and causing much more tissue damage.
However that is true whether you are talking about a .22 rimfire, a .223 AR-15, a 30-06 or a .44 magnum.
Again to beat a dead horse, can you kill with an AR-15 of course. However its reputation as a machine gun and a devastating caliber is just nonsense. It is a glorified .22 almost the smallest caliber made. It was used because it was cheap, and the soldiers could carry more ammo because the cartridges were small.
Talk to anyone who hunts and ask if they would take on a bear with a AR-15 or whether they would prefer a .308 Winchester. -
On 7/1/2022 at 10:56 PM, ozimoron said:
I never suggested the AR-15 was a handgun.
No you compared it to a Glock which is a handgun. Muzzle velocity is only one characteristic of firepower.
17 Remington as part of their Varmageddon line that push a 20 grain Varmageddon bullet at 4,200 feet per second. Handloaders can improve upon that performance to a certain degree and the cartridge is capable of velocities in excess of 4,300 feet per second with a 20 grain
You can kill a crow with a 17 Remington but not much else.
The smaller the caliber the less lethal it is. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber cartridge. Among the smallest. The larger the projectile the more devastanging its killing power is. That is why many states do not allow even hunting for medium size animals such as deer with the cartridges used in the AR-15.
Muzzle velocity gives you a flat trajectory. However mass murderers don't kill at 200 to 300 yards. A 12 guage shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot wont travel much more than 100 yard but at close range it is a far far far more devastating weapon that the AR-15. People use shotguns as backup to kill Tigers, and Bears. They don't use AR-15.
-
55 minutes ago, Seeall said:
good and honest company lawyer
Those are what is known as Mutally Exclusive Terms
-
5 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:
The AR-15 is a deadly weapon and indeed as the poster said mutilated the bodies of the children beyond recognition.
That is not true. I don't dispute the fact that you can kill people with an AR-15. You can kill people with a .22 handgun. Robert Kennedy being one of them.
However this notion that the AR-15 is some sort of devastating firearm is just not true. The AR-15 which stands for ARmalite company is a civilian version of the M-16 which the U.S. army hated. It was picked because it was cheap and the ammunition cheap to manufacture. Also since the cartridges are SMALL a soldier could carry more rounds.
As I stated, be careful what you ask for, it might come true. If they potentially ban AR-15 or similar firearms and those who wish to do harm upscale to a .25, 27, or .30 caliber firearm versus the .223 caliber in the AR-15 you will find you just pushed them into a much more lethal firearm. -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:I guess a buy one get one free promotion is out of the question.
For the surgery yes, however you might consider this.
-
3
-
7 minutes ago, transam said:
I had both mine done at a Thai military hozzy just up the road from me.
How long ago was that? Before I discovered Jomtien Hospital I went to Queen Sirikit. They were excellent in terms of the completeness of the examination. However I was there for the entire day only to be told that my eyes were not that severe. That is true. However, I had problems at night with glare. They indicated because of Covid now that they were scheduling surgeries they were doing only with severe eye problems and they could not do mine.
Just as well, I don't think I would have cared to do all the follow up driving from Pattaya to Queen Sirikit. -
11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:
For one eye, correct?
Yes that is correct.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I went to Doctor Santa Methasari at Jomtien hospital. He has outstanding credentials and speaks fluent English. Cost right now is 39,000 baht for the single vision lens. I had both eyes done and could not be happier.
Jomtien Hospital is part of the Bangkok Hospital group. Dr. Methasari also practices out of Bangkok Hospital but the cost is higher. I have no idea. The facilities at Jomtien are brand new and first class.
You do have to make one trip to Bangkok hospital for a special machine that calculates the lens power. 1,000 baht for them to scan your eyes with the Zeiss machine and give the doctor the expected outcome with several different lens choices.
Mine were a Johnson & Johnson lens so nothing off brand.
The initial appointment to discuss is free. After you go to Bangkok Hospital you then meet with the doctor who will confirm the lens choice and set the date. After surgery you go the following day to have the eye examined. Then again one week later and again 1 month later. Finally a follow up 1 year later. All the appointments, meds, and the surgery is included at 39,000 baht.-
8
-
16 hours ago, ozimoron said:
It is particularly good for killing lots of people quickly and in a most vicious manner.
Can you kill a person with an AR-15 of course. However it is not really a very effective firearm for that. It is woefully underpowered. Fine for coyotes, wild pigs, prarie dogs etc.
The M16 is the fully automatic (machine gun) type. It will continue to fire so long as the trigger is held back or it is set to fire in 3 round bursts. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. It uses the same ammo but you must pull the trigger each time to fire. It is not a Rambo type firearm. It looks like the military version but it is not. Also even the military version M16 was not a particularly good firearm. Its lack of cartridge size made it just as likely to wound rather than stop an enemy.The .223 and 5.56 (used in the M16 and AR-15 rifles) have for a long time been near optimal small game and varmint cartridges owing to their supremely destructive effects upon these animals even when using traditional bullets along with the typical pinpoint accuracy achievable with many AR family rifles.
Vietnam War troops hated the M16 and dubbed it the “Mattel 16” because it felt more like a toy than a battle rifle.
“We called it the Mattel 16 because it was made of plastic,” said Marine veteran Jim Wodecki in the video below. “At that time it was a piece of garbage.”
It weighed about half as much as the AK-47 Kalashnikov and fired a smaller bullet – the 5.56 mm round. In short, the troops didn’t have faith in the rifle’s stopping power.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/vietnam-war-troops-hated-the-m16-and-called-it-a-piece-of-garbage/
The military chose the weapon because it was light, and the ammo was cheap. There was also some notion that having a small .556 firearm caliber that wounded rather than killed the enemy was preferable because it would then take two enemy soldiers to transport each wounded person in effect taking 3 people off the battlefield.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, webfact said:
Known in Thailand as "Y series" -- a reference to the Japanese "yaoi" fiction that features homoerotic relationships between male characters and provided the inspiration for BL dramas -- the productions were once looked upon with prejudice but have gained acceptance due to their potential to function as a cultural export.
Well this should sure coincide with the governments stated objective of attracting the "wealthy tourist" I am sure there will be charter flights from Monaco to handle the expected surge.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 minutes ago, webfact said:would help reduce problems with illegal gambling dens.
LOL heck the illegal ones probably give better odds than the government. I know that is true in the USA.
This reminds me of a joke where a man who was a billionaire saw a gorgeous woman and he approached her saying she was beautiful and he wanted to have sex with her. She said, I am no prostitute who do you think you are. He replied I am a billionaire and would be willing to pay you $1 million dollars to have sex with she. She thought for a moment and said, well ok once and it is $1 million correct and she agreed. He said, ok how about for $50 dollars. She replied disgustingly, $50 what kind of a woman to you think I am. He said, we have already determined that, we are only hagggling over price now.
Obviously the lure of tax revenue overides anyones distates for gambling.-
17
-
10
Man charged with raping Ohio girl, 10, who was denied abortion
in World News
Posted
Not blaming, merely pointing out that she did have options. Additionally as mentioned this case represents a "miniscule" portion of the abortions. There were 622,000 abortions in the USA last year and 42% of them were to people seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion. Not 9 year old girls raped. The left points to the most aggregious case and tries to make it seem that is the norm.
I am fully in agreement that abortion should be an option in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child is shown to have a significant birth defect. That would mean that abortions would be the "exception" and not the go to for irreponsible sexual behavior.