Colin Yai

People get shot for stealing valuable items, Why can't we decide that killing a valuable member of the cat species carries the ultimate penalty. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. You don't poach by accident.

In civilized cultures, shooting someone for stealing constitute 2nd or perhaps even first degree murder if there was adequate time for reflection and premeditation. Only in whack countries with whack values and whack cultures is this considered alright. Then again, I get extremely annoyed when green peace place peoples' life in danger to save whales or sharks. I also always get a laugh when people oppose culling Great Whites or looking for a man eater when several attacks occur back to back in the same area such as Perth/Rotterdam recently. They say we are in there world so we surfers deserve to get bit. Haha, I see the ocean as a part of my world too since I have been considered a pro or sponsored surfer for 25 years. Tigers can kill us quickly, but we can't kill them.

Burglars do get shot while burglarizing, Yes it is true that these days in the PC west you can go to jail for protecting your property but it wasn't always so.

I am sure this law is about shooting those caught in the act of poaching tigers, and not later after a trial as a form of capital punishment.

But people sneak up on tigers and kill them. The thread is about poachers and tigers.

Newsflash! Todays top news stories.

"The Pope reveals he is a Buddhist"

"Scientific study finds Bears do not sh*t in the woods"

"Reconciliation bills not aimed at getting Thaksin's money back, his lawyer says"

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Of Course Yunla you give the perfect answer which dovetails with my opinion ,I was just "fishing around" as one does from time to time

So that's trawling rather than trolling?

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Somebody is making a Mountain of dough here and I very much doubt its the farmers from what i've personally witnessed in my area (Buri ram).

Un huh. Just imagine the amount to be made in the futures market frontrunning this policy.

Exactly. An accurate analysis of the winners and losers from this scheme may explain why it was implemented and now continued despite the fact it isn't doing what the government claim was the objective.

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Only 25 blown to smithereens ,hardly worth a mention these days is it!.

I find the 'village socieo-dynamics' amusing in that it resembles the western world a bit, but they are so cut off from the 1st world. The keeping up with the Smiths is saving face here, and, shit rolls downhill here to.

Having come from the ussa, where the banks and gov together have run the grand financial ponzi scheme probably to its near end, and leading edge of the mess was the housing bubble collapse, I'd say it's 'game on' in Thailand.

It seem banks are pushing car/truck loans like crazy and real estate prices have gotten totally silly, allowed, fueled, and encourage by banks. In the little shit-hole town I'm in, some raw land is going for millions. There's a 6 rai lot in town next to a car repair shop, the lot is mostly just a pond from water drainage but it's on the main drag. Car shop guy says the owner has declined 45 mil and expects higher offers. Frik'n nuts is what I call it for an undeveloped plot in a 2nd world dirty dusty muddy town populated with bumpkins mostly but one generation from being 3rd world peasants. I am of the opinion that when the next 1st world financial mess hits it will mess up Thailand's export economy and then down goes real estate because it will stop rising. And for the bumpkins with baht signs in their eyes trying to sell farm land for orders of magnitude higher prices that but five years ago, greedy little suckers will get stuck when the tide turns.

There's going to be a very big sum-num-na one of these days.

You can argue anything you want, but the argument needs to be about jobs/employment.

For a better and current look at the EU employment situation, this thread is running:

http://www.thaivisa....eases-slightly/

I'm glad I'm not there!

Well Rubl the if you have no interest in how we came to this point, then discuss away on face value, if Yingluck says she has never read the bills I believe her, if she insists that the bills are not about Thaksin getting his money back I believe her too

And so should all of you because you have been stating ad nauseum what you percieve the bills are set to achieve and the main aim is not money

So you do agree TS will get his money back as a result of this bill?

Same old same old...Yawn...

Just another nail in the Obama re-election coffin.....

3.5 years of over 8% unemployment. That makes for a lot of unhappy voters come November.

I think I'll just "move on" from this subject as its a bit too "hot " for me, with so many different slants on it , but bear this in mind whatever those in the UK think either those in Govt or religious groups like Jews Quakers or Unitarians it has no bearing on events in the US so in essence IMHO (I take it I am allowed an opinion) it is "off topic"

One monster difference between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage I want to point out...

Inter-racial marriage more often than same-race marriage produces great looking offspring. Thank God for inter-racial marriage.

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

Yes. Congratulations. The UK is ahead of the US on this issue. Please don't gloat.

Bottom line, I think most US gays would settle for civil unions in all 50 states, same rights as marriage, with full federal recognition.

Well, most of us seem to agree that is just. The gay lobby needs to concentrate on that goal as changing the traditional definition of marriage is not going to get many votes from the mainstream electorate.

It is not practical. I've explained this numerous times already. You say you don't believe me but can't be bothered to explain how it is practical to achieve that. There is no supreme court tactic for it. You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions. You also know for the states that do have gay civil unions, a law to give federal powers must pass the house, senate, and president. You know you need 60 votes of 100 in the senate and you know that won't pass. Not to mention who might be president. Again, throwing a bone that's a lump of coal. Really the path is clear -- gay MARRIAGE equality won in the supreme court. That's what is going to happen over time. There is no path for that for civil unions because the marriage argument is about unfair discrimination. You wouldn't argue in the supreme court for separate but equal, you know as an American that is not how it works. If you think there is: speak up. HOW? The right wing clearly doesn't want equal rights for gay people. This changing the definition rhetoric is just a convenient excuse of right wingers to discriminate against gay people.