Brickleberry

This is to be expected. Wouldn't you boo if you saw through all of their platitudes, bargains and backroom deals? I know I would... PT will likely be the party that forms the next government. Is the Thai Enquirer owned by China Daily? Their writing sounds a lot like the CCP's mouthpiece lately.

It would be utterly foolish for MF to stay in. They can only lose by being in government with PT, it would make much more sense for them to stick to their principles and go into opposition. There is no way the population would be happy with PT working with PPRP, bringing back Thaksin etc. It may transpire that Prawit gets the PM's office as a gift from the senate if he puts his name up for consideration. A general election may happen much sooner if they go down this route, & MF can sweep up even more seats next time.

Yes, you're right. According to the news this morning, it 's likely to be Srettha Thavisin. PT have played their hand beautifully. They've snatched the best cabinet positions, have more positions in the cabinet than MF, they've claimed both deputy speaker roles, and are highly likely to be successful in gaining the PM's office. Not bad for 2nd place. They even got Pita to agree to step out of the race if he is unsuccessful after two rounds of PM votes, and to allow PT to form the next government. They will stay together under the same deal, but this means the party that came 2nd will have the most cabinet positions, and the PM. Democracy at its finest? Sadly not.

Why is Pita the only candidate? Surely the part with the most votes should lead the government... it would be disastrous if the young Shinawatra lady is put in charge: she literally has no experience whatsoever.

This has very little to do with the political situation in my opinion. I think Stark corporation's 100 billion baht loss on the SET, massive household debt, Chinese tourism slumps and large amounts of defaults in auto finance are more likely to be factors here.

Trump allies outraged after hearing the truth. Is this surprising to anyone? Nope.

Perhaps they see the truth that others refuse to acknowledge, and the inconsistent approach applied to substance laws. 1. Alcohol is addictive, and kills over 3 million per year globally. Perfectly legal. :https://www.statista.com/statistics/367890/alcohol-related-deaths-facts-worldwide/ 2. Smoking cigarettes is highly addictive and kills over 8 million per year globally. Perfectly legal. https://ourworldindata.org/smoking 3. Cannabis is not addictive, has never killed anyone, yet this naturally growing plant is illegal. https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archive/october-2017/cannabis-causes-32-deaths-each-year/ Cannabis can cause harm, but so can most things consumed to excess. Sensible regulations should be formed to allow people to use this plant as they wish.

This is incorrect. Move Forward has 151 seats, Phue Thai has 141. https://election66.thaipbs.or.th/result/en/parliament

Or, you could look at it another way. The embassy is helping us because, if all of the foreign embassies refuse to do something, the requirement will be lifted. Such as pension letters - now you have to stick a large sum in the bank, or show bank transfers. Much easier than booking flights to BKK, embassy reservations and of course all the expense and time that you lose for a piece of paper. Remember when the embassies stopped issuing covid letters? The regulations from immigration changed just as quickly.

Yes, I was thinking about the liquid vials, I didn't even know dry vaping was a thing. The liquid vials I was talking about have been found to be contaminated with various carcinogens and metals. My apologies.

Sorry, I've never heard of dry herb vaping before. Everyday is a school-day!

This is from an impartial source, it's well worth a read. https://weedmaps.com/learn/products-and-how-to-consume/vaping-vs-smoking-weed

There's no such thing as addiction to weed. You can become dependent, but this is something completely different. Your body can become dependent on a plethora of natural substances. A cannabis dependent person, is not an addict: https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/drugs-and-drug-use/common-drugs/cannabis https://www.turnbridge.com/news-events/latest-articles/addiction-vs-dependence/ Looking over your posts here, you seem to worry so much about the method of delivery, frequency of use and potential effects that it doesn't seem possible for you to enjoy a hit. Weed is supposed to be relaxing. Vaping is the least effective method of imbibing, and actually causes more irritation to lungs than smoke. Vaping seems to be popular with kids, but can be a great idea for those who want to quit smoking. If you care for your health, and prefer to experience a potent, natural high, I'd stop vaping. People shouldn't compare alcohol and weed. One is a naturally growing plant, the other is a fermentation process of various grains, fruits or vegetables. One causes addictions and kills millions of people per year, the other one doesn't. Just my 2 cents.

I responded to that previously, apparently you didn't read it. How on earth are my points 'silly' (inane)? They are based on facts. You have all previously admitted that the duchy of Lancaster & Cornwall do not belong to the crown, nor do any of the estates, jewels etc. If they have no ownership of these portfolios, why do they maintain an income from them, whilst at the same time, living in the properties for free and expecting the state to step in and pay for maintenance of the palaces? Why do some members of the royal family pay taxes voluntarily - while the rest of the British public must pay taxes? If you guys are OK with bringing up your kids to bow before someone else's kids, based only on whose womb they came out of, and If you don't understand the basic principle that everyone should be treated equally, then there's no point in discussing this at all.

I completely get it. It's not that hard. They get free money from portfolios that they don't actually own - or maintain. Basically, they win the lottery every year without even having to purchase a ticket. Notable that you didn't disagree with any of their thievery or answered any of the other points.

I did mine a couple of weeks ago. Super easy and quick, and I followed the guide that Transam posted:

Love him or hate him, he is an astute, wealthy young businessman. I dislike his antics, but I also appreciate how many millions he is raking in and the amount of hard work that must have gone into it. If I remember rightly, he was another one of those Mormon chaps like Ajarn Adam who came over here to convert Thais to their beliefs, right?

As your link states - income tax is completely voluntary, did you read it? Here's another source: https://taxscouts.com/blog/does-uk-tax-go-to-the-royal-family/ Look again at the link... for what, pray tell? Again. You are ignoring the most basic fact - nothing they have is actually theirs, it has all been handed to them. There is an abundance of evidence of their thievery over the centuries - just ask India about the diamonds in the crown, you can read many more examples here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/the-royal-family-stole-its-27336820 People who live in council houses pay rent, and therefore are entitled to regular maintenance of their homes. Does the king pay rent for any of his palaces? Nope. Is it a privilege to have a home that you do not own, but pay rent to live in maintained? Nope. That's common practice in the private and public housing sectors. It would be logical for you to tell me why they shouldn't pay any taxes (they only pay a minute amount of what they 'owe' voluntarily, why they should keep all of their ill gotten gains, and why they deserve to be given everything in life whilst the rest of us must work for what is ours. Furthermore, how on earth do you explain to kids that they can't ever be like one of these people? We're teaching our kids that some people are better than others automatically by birth. This is a disgrace. Most of the democratic world has gotten rid of their 'royalty', it is high time we did the same.

I don't think you get it. Where does that money come from? It comes from income on land that the royal family 'owns'. Your also not including the 100 million + that has been spent on renovating Buckingham Palace recently. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/how-much-does-the-british-royal-family-cost-its-complicated At the end of the day, they have been given everything. You can say "oh, they contribute to the economy" but that ignores the fact that the income they generate is from land stolen from the British people. You might also be aware that the King only pays tax on a voluntary basis - he does not pay any inheritance tax (he should have paid over 400 million to inherit his mothers wealth). The Prince of wales and his wife are also tax exempt. They do not pay any inheritance, capital gains or income taxes. They voluntarily pay some taxes on the sovereign wealth grant, but that's it. People talk about the good work they do for charity - well, seeing as they get a truck load of free money, giving a little bit of that free money back to people who actually need it isn't a bad thing, but it shouldn't be praised as a selfless act. It costs them absolutely nothing to do it.

100 million isn't a lot of money?

Pick up anything with antihistamines in, Diphenhydramine is the best one to make you sleep. You can find these in common allergy meds & cold/flu meds.

If you're getting married in Ubon, then you don't need a certified copy of your passport. Just an FYI ????

What does that have to do with this story? This is about the monarchy, not Brexit. Stay on topic.

The previous government has, but let's see what the new government will do. I think it highly unlikely that the Harvard graduate is going to side with China.

The irony... do you understand democracy. Britain has never held a referendum on the monarchy, so we don't actually know what the results would be. Yes, I understand who ordinary people are. They are the ones who don't have titles "Lord, Royal Majesty, Princess, Prince etc. You personally know King Charles III? Then I apologize. I can understand swearing allegiance to the country as an RAF man, but swearing allegiance to a king? I respect your opinion, but I don't understand it. Swearing allegiance is a promise to be loyal and defend the country, institution or person to which you are making the oath to. Where would your loyalty lies if the king asked you to help him become a true monarch with total power? Who would you side with? The British people, or the king?