thaibeachlovers

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per taxes and conduct, is that the President got a right to be a crook. That might be so, but why would anyone want a crook in the White House?

LOL. The choice was between two crooks, so whichever of them won a crook would have been in the White House.

At least with Trump, no one that voted for him should have believed he was of upstanding character, yet they still voted for him.

Perhaps the resistance should be pondering why their candidate lost, and doing something about winning the next election, rather than wasting all this time wittering on about impeachment when there is virtually zero chance that impeachment would succeed.

Remembering the last impeachment, it would probably make him even more likely to win re election. Clinton certainly did all right after his, while Gingrich got the boot, something that Nancy is no doubt considering.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

You say you believe this or that about Trump. It's just not very clear what your beliefs are based on. The President's history, and current conduct, don't lend themselves as a sound foundation for such beliefs.

While that is not directed at me, I believe that Trump should never have been president ( he is a game show host for goodness sake ), but he became one because Washington is so corrupt that middle America had had enough of the usual <deleted> in suits that inhabit Washington, and they were not going to take it anymore. Whatever one thinks of him, or his manner, millions of American voters chose him over a business as usual <deleted>, because they wanted change. What they are seeing, is business as usual <deleted> Washingtonians trying to obstruct their choice from making any change in Washington, and I hope they do not forget who the real enemy is when they vote next time.

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 10:09 PM, Morch said:

 

What you imagine doesn't interest me much, but no - that would be your own nonsense assertion. I think that posters applying unconditional defense of anything and everything Trump does, and who are engaged in constant deflection whenever any negatives are raised, qualify.

 

Reading your posts, doesn't seem you're half as bothered as you claim about his conduct, conflicts of interest, or pretty much anything, really. As said, for some reason, the bar is lowered when it comes to this President.

I was extremely bothered by the activities ( or lack of activities ) of Clinton when she was Sec State, but none of the side currently opposing Trump were bothered. Apparently it depends on which side one supports as to how much one is bothered- is that surprising?

Trump does some things I vehemently oppose, but given the choice between him and his opponent at the election, I'll have to accept that no one gets everything they want. 

If his opponents can't get him on the vote, remove him by some devious slimy means.

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 12:53 AM, SteveK said:

Recently, she has been complaining to me and even telling me to stay in the house because I have a very visible "cock and balls bulge" when wearing shorts alone

More likely she doesn't want the neighbours thinking you are a "Burma". My wife hated me working outside for that reason.

Otherwise, the neighbours may be laughing at her because she has such a cheap Charlie husband and doesn't want them seeing you looking all scruffy.

2 hours ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Anyway we set off in the direction of Bangkadi and it was apparent he didn’t know the way but after asking directions after more than an hour or so we arrived.

In 74 on a tour from Singapore I caught a tuk tuk to the hotel, but the driver took me somewhere else. He didn't have a clue where the hotel was. After asking someone else we arrived and he asked for more money because it was further. The security guard came and after the story, the driver got the original amount, though not happy.

First time I went to Chiang Mai I caught a tuk tuk to hotel recommended in Lonely Planet, and driver told me "closed". I knew the old con where they tell you that, and take you to another hotel for the commission, so I insisted. When we arrived it was indeed closed! Luckily even back then Chiang Mai had an guest house every 15 meters, so found another lau lau.

Everything I know about Thailand was learned the hard way, by making mistakes and sorting them, eventually. 

Loads of stories that I could tell, but some too embarrassing.

1 hour ago, thequietman said:

Yes, there are. Go to your local government administration. Chickens and pigs are also not allowed. The fact that none of the villagers give a <deleted> is neither here nor there. Get your wife to go see the. Good luck.

It's his GF, not his wife, and it is indeed up to her, and the other Thais to sort this. Hopefully the OP knows that interfering himself is not a good idea. Of course, there are ways of removing the problem, but don't tell anyone, or everyone will know.

I notice the OP refers to his "new house". I trust he didn't actually pay for that himself, believing that nothing would ever change to turn paradise into a living hell. Many Thais discover that when a rock grinding plant or an all night disco starts up next door.

This story has been told many, many times in LOS- no wonder the Thais don't smile anymore.

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 3:04 PM, yodsak said:

he didn't program anything. he couldn't, because he doesn't exist. Never did.

  

The only way you could possibly know that would be if you had died and if there was no afterlife you wouldn't know anything.

Just because you believe something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

BTW, to all those that don't believe in god, but do believe in "love" as in "loving" another person ( not sexually ), the concept of "love" is just as irrational as believing in something that can't be seen, heard, felt or communicated with ie God.

"Love" is just a genetic program that ensures the survival of the human race, by making people think they want to procreate with another person, and bring up the result of procreation together. 

The reasons that can be used to support the concept of "love" are same as the reasons for believing in "God". Love is something that can't be seen, heard, felt or communicated with. It's just a "feeling", same as having a "feeling" that god exists.

Actually, "love" is just pherenomes causing a chemical reaction in another person, and whom we "love" is due to programming in our brain.

In most cases, "love" doesn't last very long, often no longer than it takes for the woman to have her children and then the man is dumped. So much for "love" the biggest con of our age, IMO.

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 2:58 PM, VincentRJ said:

I don't need to enroll in a college course that covers the topic. The internet and Google Scholar provide far more information than I have time to read. Even the Wiki article I referenced provides links to dozens of scholarly articles on the subject.

 

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that 'nothing' does not exist. The word 'nothing' is simply a metaphor or human construct used to describe 'anything which is currently invisible or cannot be detected in any way'. What appears to be empty space is probably not empty at all, especially considering the possibility that Dark matter & Energy exists.

and where did all that "dark matter" and energy originate? That's what I want to know.

20 hours ago, owl sees all said:

IMO, religious people are at best kidding themselves and at worst suffering a mental illness.

 

Just look at the current problem with that poor girl being burnt alive in Bangladesh, to shut her up. And Asia Bibi.

She being burnt was nothing to do with "God". That was evil men, whatever their professed motivation.

I've been gone a couple of days, and we are now on the meaning of "time". Good grief.

9 minutes ago, Graviton said:

Disagree....I have been here 16 yrs the rules are the same 65k a month 800k bank or the marriage route.

Ah, a newbie then. Everything changes eventually.

Some of us have been visiting/ living in Thailand for double that, or more. 

I first came in the good old days when I got 90 days visa exempt, the beaches were lovable, and Trink was the man with the info on the nite scene.

Actually, my first ever visit was in 1974, but there was a long gap after that.

Just now, Graviton said:

Is this paid to an agent? 

Try doing that in person and one might end up paying big money not to go to jail. Not that I know personally, as never paid a bribe to stay.

31 minutes ago, kevin612 said:

No reason, just want rich people to stay.

LOL. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I was able to keep 800,000 in the bank permanently. If one wants to stay in LOS, one has to jump through the hoops.

Most farangs could probably easily afford to leave 800,000 in the bank if they just cut down on the booze and stopped buying imported western food.

20 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

You may well of added. NO answers please.

Because any answer would be a guess.

Does the OP think any posters on here work for the government?

My guess would be because they thought it would PO farangs and might make some leave. They've been making it progressively more difficult for at least 20 years. Back in the day, one could live quite happily in LOS on back to back visa exempt entries, then we couldn't, and it's been a downward spiral ever since.

When Cambodia shows how easy it is to live there, it's obvious that LOS doesn't want us staying anymore, IMO, but they can't just ban us outright as that would result in all the Thai expats being sent home too.

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 8:57 PM, morrobay said:

New drainage pipes running the entire length of the beach to be installed starting in June and construction lasting 9 months. 

They don't need new ones, The old ones under Beach Rd are big enough, but they'd have to clean out the 25 years of sand and rubbish that will be blocking them. I guess there is more money to be made putting in new ones.

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 9:05 PM, RotBenz8888 said:

It'll never work, just cement the whole damn beach, it's all to dirty anyway.

Actually the solution is quite simple. Build an artificial reef out as far as one wants the beach to stretch, and fill in behind with sand. Of course, they'd have to put big drains in at the end of each soi that meets Beach Rd, to take the runoff. I saw such in the UK. They even had a swimming pool constructed in the reclaimed area. Pattaya sea water is too toxic to swim in, so access to the water would not be needed. Allows for volleyball courts and such to be made, and in Pattaya's case, they would have a large open space to hold concerts, rather than closing off Beach Rd.

Will it happen? 5555555555555555555 of course not.

14 hours ago, Nokbkk said:

Not one country can handle natural violence, so stop putting your shit on Thailand.

LOL. Singapore gets just as much rain as LOS, and they manage to avoid floods. Perhaps it's because they actually have a government that does its job and doesn't look at a government job as an opportunity to make money.

14 hours ago, Nokbkk said:

Look at all the streets in Pattaya during storms; they become rivers. You’ll need sewers as big as the streets, all over, under every street.

No problem. It just needs a government that will spend the money where it is intended for.

Let's face it, we know why Pattaya is a disaster area, and the only question is will it ever change?

21 hours ago, webfact said:

A build up of trash by drains in Soi Wat Bun Samphan was inhibiting fast drainage. 

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, if they will have councils that are not there to maintain the city infrastructure, but for other purposes ( and you know what I'm talking about ) this will only continue.

Wonder how all those big mall owners decided to move to a city that was a disaster, infrastructure wise ( no need to answer- we can guess! ).

Gee wizz, one would think that such storms had never occurred in Pattaya before, but as it only takes a normal rain to flood Beach Rd, no prizes for anticipating worse flooding in an actual storm.

Shame of it is that had there been any competent people on the council, and had the money actually been spent on drains, and had the contractors had workers that actually knew how to do drains, none of this would have happened.

Gosh, and I can remember how before they widened Beach Rd, there never seemed to be as much flooding.

Soooooo, as long as it's business as usual in city hall, expect no change in the future.

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 2:43 PM, geronimo said:

Soi Cowboy, a place I was destined to visit oh so many times over the coming years, and I was immediately in heaven. It was still daylight, yet we were both quickly surrounded by gorgeous Thai girls,

and they really were gorgeous back then. Unlike the fatties that never smile now.

Good story.

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 2:43 PM, geronimo said:

I looked behind me and saw this huge Buddhist shrine

Shades of The Beach, the <deleted> movie ruined by DE Caprio. Movie starts with him in front of a huge reclining Buddha. It was made from polystyrene, and remained in situ for many years after. It's gone now.

6 hours ago, yodsak said:

 

Gallup poll USA may 2017.  48% of people educated at high school level or less believe in creation.

postgraduate  21%.  

  Something is wrong with the USA education system.

38% believe in creation. 

38% believe in god guided evolution 

24% believe god had no part.

So thats roughly three-quarters of Americans believe god was involved in mans creation.

 

Poll in 2016.  Iceland. .

Denmark and Sweden not far behind where over 80% believe in evolution.    

 

Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, to question, and how to disagree with you.

So, if we accept that "god" was not involved in man's creation, what did create man? He didn't just spring into life out of nothing.

Does it occur to the naysayers that "god" may not be in a form we recognise, but is the components of life and matter. Perhaps "god" is just a formless force that created the big bang, and left it to carry on with however it turned out, or perhaps I'm in the matrix, and I'm imagining all this.

I saw the film, and I can report that she is hot. Worth the ticket price for her alone. In fact, they could have made the entire film with just her and I'd still think it was great.

Seriously, I went expecting another PC disaster ( I go to movies in the hope that they will be worth it ), and I actually really enjoyed it, and not just for her. Even Will Smith as the genie wasn't as bad as I expected.