After the Futsal World Cup farce in Thailand, when the purpose built stadium was not finished in time, I cant see Thailand being trusted.

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Who was talking to you?

This is a public forum.  If you want to have a private conversation then do so.  Otherwise, expect interjections in response to your comments.

16 minutes ago, attrayant said:

The Trump/orangutan thing works only for Trump, so again somebody doesn't understand the difference between a caricature and a racial stereotype.

 

It would be like comparing Manute Bol to a giraffe. It's a caricaturization. They're both tall, get it?  Ha ha!  But compare him to a gorilla and you're skating on the thin ice of racial stereotyping.

The tweet by Barr was referring to one single individual who happens to look a little like a character in a movie.  Where in her tweet was she referring to all black people?

31 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Oh, the best you can find is a comedian, okay. So, I see your legitimate ape and raise you Trump mocking the handicapped reporter?   Your turn. Wanna bet who runs out of material first?

I was referring to the hypocrisy and selective outrage whereby Barr immediately suffers repercussions but Mahr doesn't even cause the bat of an eye lid.  Both Comedians.

8 hours ago, smotherb said:

Give us some examples of those double-standards you profess.

5 hours ago, DefaultName said:

There is a simple reason why governments across the world don't want to legalise weed.  It isn't taxable.  Alcohol takes time and equipment to make, tobacco needs fairly specific conditions and processing, for weed, a few seeds, some soil, and you have an easy, recurring, supply.

Colorado Cannabis Sales Hit $1.49 Billion In 2017: Taxes Up To $247 Million

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/colorado-cannabis-sales-hit-1-181635148.html

This is in a state with a population of around 5 million and no way near the number of visitors Thailand would attract if it legalised weed.

It is reasonable to say that Thailand could receive over a billion USD in tax per year.

On 5/11/2018 at 7:20 AM, geronimo said:

No matter how fruitful legalising weed might be, taking away BIB tea money is definitely not on the menu, and being as they and other boys in brown and green are running things, I'm not holding my breath.

 

Until they realise how much money can be made legally and choose to legalise weed and give out licenses to themselves to grow and sell it.

well...at least he waited for the green light.

On 4/22/2018 at 12:47 PM, KhunFred said:

Absolutely guaranteed to draw unnecessary attention and result in arrests. Legality of weed is never going to happen in Thailand and there are powerful people who have very vested interests in seeing that it doesn't

There are powerful people in Thailand who can see how much money can be made from the legalisation of weed if they can control the market.  For this reason I see the legalisation as not a question of if, but when.

Two idiots.

On 3/9/2017 at 12:39 PM, Lakegeneve said:

As mentioned, if the SRTET does order these new cars they would be from Siemens which is the supplier of the original ARL rolling stock. The rolling stock is Desiro II which is a commuter rolling stock NOT metro. It is not meant to run at a metro frequency regardless of perceived demand. 

 

This line is a commuter/suburban line NOT a metro line. The issue with overcrowding specifically relates to the lack of rolling stock, 5 cars per train would solve that problem as it should have done 2-3 years ago.

Of course more rolling stock needs to be introduced but shouldn't they be the 'right' ones?  It is ironic that the internal layout of the BTS is much more suited to carrying lots of people with suitcases than the actual airport train.  I am not talking about frequency, I am talking about the internal configuration of the trains.

The current trains are very inefficient, for example:

* Only 2 sets of doors per carriage. Trains wait for an age at stations like Makkasan while passengers shuffle all the way down the aisles before finally getting out and then passengers coming on often create a bottleneck by standing around the door areas. Very often people cannot get on the train because the door area is absolutely stuffed, yet a few metres down the aisle there is space going unused.  Woefully inefficient at times.  Surely more doors could be put on future trains.

* The standing spots right next to the door areas are too narrow and often doors become single file only (especially when large suitcases are put there) and again it can take a long time for people to trudge off and then for others to get on.  The BTS has a much wider area, there is no reason why future ARL trains can't be like this.

* The area around the connections between trains can fit maybe 6 people at a squeeze in a small hot uncomfortable space.  The BTS can fit a lot more than that.  I understand there may be technical issues (e.g. ARL travels at faster speeds) that may prevent an open area like the BTS being added, but I am sure a better solution can be found than what there is at present.

Why not have similar train as they do in Singapore?  I have taken the train from Changi to downtown and the train was great - lots of doors, very little seating and LOTS of space for huge suitcases and backpacks. 

I am not totally sure this is the train from the airport to the centre but it did look very similar to this one.  Why not have an internal layout like this?  Very efficient.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wow! you found a guy who says otherwise. I can find people who believe that the lizard people control the world economy. In fact, this person lost the argument. Seems to mean that he faced lots of opposition.

What?  Not sure what you mean.

The link is to an article where the CBI are imploring the UK to join the Euro in 1998.  This was the position of the CBI at the time (and a whole host of other think tanks and political/business groups),  you do understand this don't you?  Just as now it is the position of the CBI that the UK should have remained in the EU.

My point being that it is generally considered a very good thing that the UK did not join the Euro and the CBI got it wrong...just as they are wrong now.  This link I posted was in response to you putting up a link to the CBI as proof that the UK should stay in the EU.

They are wrong now just as they were with the Euro.

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean those fools who say the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the costs? Here's the proof of what fools they are:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-leaked-eu-migration-cost-reduced-us-trade-deal-impact-assessment-a8188466.html

https://www.bipr.eu/BIPREXTRAMATERIALS/20171023.pdf

 

From 1998:

Business: The Economy

CBI urges business to back euro

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/120407.stm

Something tells me to treat what they say with a SACK of salt.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean those fools who say the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the costs? Here's the proof of what fools they are:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-leaked-eu-migration-cost-reduced-us-trade-deal-impact-assessment-a8188466.html

https://www.bipr.eu/BIPREXTRAMATERIALS/20171023.pdf

 

Oh yes!!!....the same people who said that if we didn't join the Euro all those years ago we would be left in ruins! 

That if we voted to leave the EU there would be an immediate crash and an emergency budget!  Not exactly a good track record is it? 

You see, organisations like the CBI and the EU are singing from the same hymn sheet.  I have no doubt that remaining in the EU is good for the political establishment and large corporations, I just think it is not in the best interests of the general public.

31 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Some fools out there say it's because the benefits outweigh the cost of the obligations. LIke you, I hate math.

Care to give any specifics to back up your ad hominem?

Why not add in racist, islamophobic and homophobic for good measure.

Either come up with an argument or don't reply.

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes that would be a great idea for the UK. None of the obligations, and a really big benefit. I'm sure all the other countries footing the expenses for the EU would be thrilled at that.

This kind of idea alway baffles me...ie 'you want all of the good stuff but none of the bad'.

So, why does any country put up with the bad?  Why doesn't the EU revert back to a trading group?  The UK wouldn't even had had a referendum if the terms had remained the same as when they joined.

Of course, the answer is that although most people in Europe have little appetite for political union, it is the ideologues in the political establishment who will fight with everything they have to maintain further integration.

2 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

You are right on one account Britain has always seen Europe as a business opportunity. But the Brits have never been lied to. The German end French, and some others, saw as a priority preventing another war, hence progressive political integration had always been on the books. I guess the Brits at some stage believed they had the clout to prevent this to happen. That's the past now, kudos to them for accepting to cut their losses now, and clarify a messy situation.

They were lied to in the 1st referendum in the 70's by their politicians.

But yes, it has always been hidden in plain view that the EU was always intended as being a political union.  Much in the same way that Clegg called the idea of an EU army 'dangerous fantasy' when in fact it is clear that this is a key aim.

On 3/9/2018 at 6:41 AM, oilinki said:

Once again. EU's aim is to provide best possible long term results to EU citizens. That's the same aim as UK government has for its citizens. 

 

There is no reason for EU to punish UK. UK has managed to do that very well by itself.

 

 

Given that the EU runs a HUGE trade surplus with the UK, then its best interests would include a tariff free access between the two.

But of course the ideology behind the idea of United States of Europe prevents any rationality and any best provision of EU citizens.

On 3/9/2018 at 5:04 PM, joecoolfrog said:

It was always going to be a messy divorce,  that's the main reason I voted to remain.  Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Brexit its absurd to think the EU is ready or willing to negotiate a fair outcome.  They are seeking to punish the UK for pulling out both as a deterrent to others and because the Federalists have had their nose put out of joint.  In the short term Sterling and the British economy will suffer but its not a disaster.

In the long term it is probably the EU that will be irreversably changed , as an institution it has been far too arrogant and ignored the ' common ' people.

If the EU were always going to be aholes, isn't that reason enough not to want to be in political union with them?  The way they are acting is vindictive and childish, and if there were to be a 2nd referendum I think the margin to leave would be even greater because of this.

On 3/9/2018 at 7:04 AM, greenchair said:

You don't get your cake and eat it. 

Britain wants all the perks, with none of the responsibilities. 

I  want, I  want. 

No, the UK wants trade but not political union.  The UK's position has not changed in the 40 odd years it was a member.   It joined a group under the assurances that it was all about trade but this slowly proved to be a lie as the bloc moved towards political integration.