thaibeachlovers

Good on you NZ looks like you have finally grown up and have a sence of self worth and for having the leadership and maturity in removing the union jack.

Too bad and a shame Australia can't say the same about itself.

Hmmmm. The whole thing was an undemocratic farce, and hopefully the "new" flag will get the boot it so richly deserves in March. Had they had the referendum on whether people actually want a new flag, it might have been a positive vote, following which a public competition for the design could have been launched. However, having a committee selected design forced on the public has really POd most people.

Anyway, given that NZ has the British monarch as head of state really means that the country should become a republic before the flag can be changed.

In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases — most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy —

and, exactly how is that to be done, given that much greenhouse gas is emitted by nature? Are they going to connect every cow on the planet to a pipe to remove their methane emissions from the atmosphere, are they going to put a big bag on every volcano that erupts, are they going to cover the permafrost?.

How many of the posters that support this meaningless pledgefest are prepared to give up using motorcars? no prizes for guessing none, which is the answer.

Also, to say that they are going to stop climate change is impossible. Climate has been changing ever since the planet formed from gas. They really mean global warming, but don't want to use that phrase since it has been proven that the planet hasn't really warmed at all yet, to any significant degree.

It's interesting that nothing was said about the only thing that really would make a difference- population reduction. Reduce the population to the same level as the 1900s and the GW problem goes away.

To be sure, there aren't enough shovels to scoop away this pile of dung

CO₂ generated from the burning of Fossil Fuels has a different Carbon Isotope so it is easy to calculate the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is a result of burning Fossil Fuels.

Perhaps so, but unless natural CO2 doesn't cause GW then it should be included.

I noticed with interest that the targets don't have to be met till the delegates will all have retired or died. That's really kicking the can down the road! They might have just agreed that science will come up with a solution in the next 40 years and left it at that. Far better than this waste of hot air talkfest would be to agree to fund a method to remove greenhouse gases from the air and dispose of them somewhere that they will never be a threat- bottom of the Mariana trench perhaps. Of course that wouldn't give them opportunities for freebie talkfests in the future though.

1 idiot down....x more to go!

There are many idiots in this Greek tragedy or slapstick comedy (you can choose) what is the current GOP lineup, but Lindsey Graham was not one of the idiots.

You may not, I certainly don't, agree with him on many issues but that doesn't make him an idiot.

We seem to have entered a weird phase of GOP politics where anyone who actually is intelligent, albeit with different views becomes marginalized compared to what is basically a Barnum & Bailey fairground barker.

Graham is a war monger, not someone I could even possibly support, but I would rather listen to him present reasoned arguments for his position, than an endless tirade of 'twitter politics' from the current rogue Prince of the GOP.

The mandarins of the GOP have for at least two decades played their dog whistle politics to stir up their ever increasingly angry white male working poor base, now they are reaping the consequences when a Trump arming not with a dog whistle but a bullhorn consigns Graham, Bush, Christie to the garbage.

Weird world when Cruz almost seems the voice of reason in the GOP!!!!!

Graham, Bush, Christie lost not because of Trump. but because they are all professional politicians, and the electorate has had enough of the charlatans and isn't going to take it any more!

While Trump may say what he likes and appeal to a certain segment of voters, if an individual doesn't have what it takes to attract the electorate, s/he is going to get the heave ho. It may be tempting to blame Trump for everything ( I'm surprised they don't blame GW on him ) but their downfall is on their own shoulders, not the Donald's.

I am all Trumpt out, nothing to say other than,

He is an embarrassment

There was a time I couldn't stand the guy but nowadays I look forward to what he is going to say next.

He just does NOT care.

I find it refreshing...he points out that the whole dang bunch of them are clowns.

Was he saying that Hillary was backstage cheating for the debate?

As an interested bystander, I am English, it seems that DT does not 'care what he says' because he is not the lickspittle puppet of some rich benefactors that financialy support his campaign. In that he is demonstrably not PC, he is the only one of a sorry lot of professional politicians, (except for Carson), who is not 'beholden' to a group of donors. He can say what he feels is appropriate , he is only interested in what the 'people' want to hear, or what he feels he wants to say, not what a group of 'money for favours' people want him to say. He is a highly successful business man who wants the ultimate job in the US. He would do a much better job than most of his fellow contenders, he certainly would be strong enough to hire 'professional' help, not those to whom he owed favours, perhaps then the US would then have a more pragmatic approach to national and world politics, above all he is not STUPID and will not be led by the nose by 'interest groups'. I do hope he is elected. There are , I believe, methods of removing a president, (Nixon), if he proves to be a complete mentally unstable liability , so all would not be lost. So go for it citizens of the US, kick the parasytical polical class up the arse, time to clean the stables of the stack of politically correct liberal horse shit that seems to pervade the streets of Washington, vote for the Trump. Think of all the unemployed lobbyists, as POTUS cannot be bought, he does not need their financial support any more.

As an addition, he would not need to curry favour with the political establishment for his second term, he does not need the money, so the US could have an 8 year span of sensible leadership, uncorrupted by the need to curry favour from focus (f*ckass) groups.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.

The professional politicians must be cr*****ng themselves.

Don't know how true it is, but it was reported on the news some time back that Obama had said he needed to be banned from running. That's pretty rich ( if it's true ) coming from someone that swore to uphold the constitution. Seems he might have forgotten that bit about freedom of speech being legal.

It will be correctly seen as sexist. It appeals to his base. Angry, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic older white men. That will only get him so far. His brand is SCHLONGED.

That's right, he only appeals to angry old white men, which is why the political class is terrified of him, as angry old white men are the only electors that count 555555555555555555555.

I never thought he'd last a week, and here he is still truckin' along. I bet he never thought he's last this long either, but he must be appealing to some deep need of the American voters to smite the political charlatans that inhabit Congress these days.

As for using profanity against Clinton, if that rather weak attack is really bad for her, she just doesn't have the right stuff to be president.

If that's bad language, the thought police will be coming to arrest me any day now for what I say about politicians.

In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases — most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy —

and, exactly how is that to be done, given that much greenhouse gas is emitted by nature? Are they going to connect every cow on the planet to a pipe to remove their methane emissions from the atmosphere, are they going to put a big bag on every volcano that erupts, are they going to cover the permafrost?.

How many of the posters that support this meaningless pledgefest are prepared to give up using motorcars? no prizes for guessing none, which is the answer.

Also, to say that they are going to stop climate change is impossible. Climate has been changing ever since the planet formed from gas. They really mean global warming, but don't want to use that phrase since it has been proven that the planet hasn't really warmed at all yet, to any significant degree.

It's interesting that nothing was said about the only thing that really would make a difference- population reduction. Reduce the population to the same level as the 1900s and the GW problem goes away.

To be sure, there aren't enough shovels to scoop away this pile of dung

Where did I even hint at denying anyone their right to express an opinion on any forum? Only an irrational hothead would make such a determination. Unlike the people ruling the UK and many parts of Europe, I am a believer in free speech, including TVF. But the FACT remains that only I and other American citizens will have a vote to determine Trump's nomination and election. It doesn't matter how much outsiders rave, they cannot vote. Many, if not most, of the people venting against Trump simply will not have a say in the matter. And, in fact, the more outsiders complain, the stronger Trump will get within the American electorate.

You obfuscate and back pedal. What was the purpose in you posting an observation that non Americans cannot vote in the American election? A fact that would be known to practicably everyone. You desired to put people in their place. This is not a free speech argument. Someone pulls you up on your arrogance, so you pull back on your spiel.

Anyone here can post their thoughts irrespective if they have voting rights or not. Being a registered voter in the US election is not among the criteria and rules for posting on TVF. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Your affectation of the obvious is a base move totally to be expected of the Trump demographic.

You miss the point. You are welcome to rant all you want. You just don't get to vote and your opinion has no affect on American voters so you are blowing in the wind.

I don't think that too many Americans read the European press or TVF, either.

Trump has risen in the polls since he made this statement about stopping Muslims from immigrating. Risen. He keeps rising.

The two things that are always the most important to American voters are national security and the economy. When they decide who to vote for, it will boil down to that.

Trump is perceived in polls as being the one best able to handle both - national security and the economy. No other candidate comes close. This cycle immigration is seen as a national security issue. This is both illegal immigration by Hispanics and any immigration by Muslims. Trump is pushing those buttons. He does this while wearing his "Make America Great Again" cap and dissing China and free trade with them, saying they are ripping the US off.

If you want to know why Trump will probably be the next POTUS, compare how he handles those issues in his campaign to others who are in the race.

It's no contest.

Cheers.

No. I miss your point, not the point. I am confronting a bully and braggart who is relying on a coward's defence.

For someone who want to be paid for providing tuition on the US Constitution, you surprisingly take no account of the small detail that the Republican nominating process is not actually the general election. When the clown car emerges from the bubble, whoever is elected as Chief Clown will face the rest of the country, also called the majority of voters. These are the people whose intelligence is insulted that this very caricature of a buffon presumes to think that he can be their leader. I absolutely agree with you about the entire line up of the goon show that is what passes for the Republican candidates.

When the time comes, the majority of Americans will vote for someone who is Presidential. No amount of make up and hair spray can cover this fundamental deficiency in the idea of Trump. He does not pass the laugh test. It will certainly not be any contest when it comes to the real race.

the majority of Americans will vote for someone who is Presidential

Who would that be then? HRC? she allowed an ambassador to be slaughtered on her watch.

Bernie Sanders

Can't even remember the others.

Past presidents-

Bush Jr

Carter

Obama

This guy must be using a proper business marketing team for his Presidential campaign. Love him or hate him! Do you know how much it would cost to get on the front page of every major newspaper (World-wide!!) every day if you paid for it - tens of millions, yet this guy pulls it off 3-4 times a week every week for free. He is boorish, hateful and I really despise him but boy you gotta give him an A++ for his marketing skills. Genius!

Yes, the GOP is falling into disarray in a bid to react to his comments, but he will win the nomination not necessary by enamouring the voters but by exposing the weaknesses to the voters of his competitors. He is exploiting current world events perfectly and giving the population of the US what many want to hear. He only has to swing around 1% of right wing disenfranchised Dems to win the Presidency!! The USA are about to get exactly what they deserve unfortunately the rest of the world will feel the impact.

Whatever you think of Trump, he can't do worse as Prez than any of the previous, and the present incompetent. Who can be held up as competent, or even adequate?

Reagan- He had a problem staying awake in meetings and with Contras

Carter

Bush senior- "read my lips"

Clinton - likes his cigars soggy and "I did not.................."

Bush junior- warmonger

Obama- can't think of a single thing he's done right.

In fact, have to go back to Kennedy to remember a decent Prez, even though he had a problem keeping his pants on.

PS. There are plenty of worse people on the planet that I'd like to ban, but where would it end? This is an example of sheeple at their worst, baaaaaaaaaa.

So, they wan to ban a person from entering a Country because he suggested that some people should be banned from entering a Country .

No, they want the law to apply to everyone.

So, which law is that? The one that says what you don't like should apply? If you are saying the one about hate speech, he didn't say hate speech. If saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed into a country was hate speech, many posters on here would be in trouble!!!

Since some readers prefer to provide opinion without looking at the data. Oxfam in England did examine the issues and numbers (i.e. did some analysis.)

"The richest 10% of people produce half of the Earth's carbon emissions, while the poorest half-most threatened by droughts and super storms linked to climate change--contribute a mere 10%"

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Worlds-richest-10-produce-50-of-CO2-Report/articleshow/50020466.cms

These differences in CO2 emissions need to also consider not only a snapshot of today's emission rates, but the cumulative emissions since industrialization began in the mid-18th Century - added CO2 emissions that are the cause of the imbalance to the natural state that had existed through a million years of Ice Ages when CO2 was between 180ppm and 280 ppm instead of now passing 400ppm

CO2 Emissions 3 Views.jpg

YES, population growth IS a problem, but the options exist to avoid the bad styles of consumption of those in the richest nations - and get the richest nations to shift to a better model of consumption.

Since people also derided the Carbon Fee with Dividend option (without listening to it is my guess) here is one more opportunity to hear it and discuss the merits and shortfalls. Start at a number and increase it annually by $10/tonne of CO2 (roughly 0.35 tonnes CO2/barrel of oil) ...

James Hansen COP21 Press Conference Dec 2, 2015

What are the SOCIETAL COSTS of Carbon? Currently we see the health costs of air pollution and water pollution - but as Hansen goes on, the costs of increasing climate damage to crops and buildings due to droughts, floods and storms. A scientific and statistically sound survey of EXPERT ECONOMISTS was done and gave surprising results, even advice as to how to better compile IPCC reports so as to avoid group-think bias and derive better forecasts. http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

What did these economists, in a blind survey come up with as to the Social Cost of Carbon?

Social Cost of Carbon.png

Again and again, the analysis exists to adequately explain the effects of CO2, and to analyze the cost of those effects.

It does not require a theological helping hand, though the moral impetus is abundant to support the weak, the poor and the afflicted.

Simply deriding the problem as a false issue is to demonstrate an inability and unwillingness to examine the science - or an ideological affinity for those serving the oil, coal and gas industries... (i.e. the USA's GOP)

When the "poor" start taking responsibility for their excessive breeding and stop, I'll start caring about their welfare.

In the meantime, they continue to breed more people that their own countries can support and sent the excess to western countries so they too can have a car, tv etc etc and contribute to the pollution problems of the west.

You seem to be coming from the viewpoint that people care about the environment, but I see nothing to support that theory. In my own country, people commute many, many miles in solo driven cars to work every day, even when they have the option of living closer to their workplace.

When I first went to Samui I stayed in Charlie Hut or another bungalow for a pittance and had the time of my life. Within a few years it was ruined. I don't think I have been since 2002. Can't imagine what it is like now.

It's depending what you expect from a place like Samui.

If you wish to live in the past like "good old backpacker hippie-style days" at Charlie's Hut and the like, then "yes", Samui has changed to be ruined - by the way, Charlie's Hut is "still going strong" at Samui, same owners, but moved to different place - but so may every popular place be after 25-30 years progress; I recall the old pictures of a beautiful beach with a small fishermen village in a bay south of Bangkok...

However, if you look at Samui as a place to stay more permanent, it has IMO changed to the (much) better since 2002 - and 2001, when I came here first time and stayed in primitive backpacker huts - and even with the number of rants on the lists some folks posts, most of that stuff have actually improved since over the years; however there are more guests and therefore more traffic on the Ring Road, but compared to Phuket, Hua Hin or 2nd Road in Pattaya I can easily live with it...

And not to get off topic, the resort next to me at Maenam Beach was full all November, and is still loaded with guests like high season arrived early instead of the Monsoon...

The significant word is Mae Nam. That beach was much less ruined than Chaweng and Lamai last time I went, and is probably still reminiscent of the heyday of Samui in the 90s. You can't build zillion star resorts and horizon pools end to end and still expect the same numbers of visitors as when there were many cheaper places to stay. Thailand just doesn't have the infrastructure to attract the really rich people. They will go to places like the Maldives.

What’s so outstanding about Maldives’ infrastructure..?

I tend to disagree, based on the tiny part of Thailand I know, whish is loaded with 5-stars, and from my modest view, where I still believe people who can afford to spend $2,000 and up for sleeping one night in a beach bungalow have some level of funds – candlelight dinner-for-two at “W” I saw advertised for 16,000 baht, it’s half-price off-season bargain, but that of course includes a bottle of house red wine – believe service-charge and tax comes on top, as usual...

On Samui several-star resorts have replaced former backpacker places and number of visitors has still gone up each year – that’s why in my opinion the audience has changed, not less visitors.

By the way, Chaweng seems nicely packed for this time of tourist season – or rather lack of same – but again, different kind of audience than 200-baht huts and fried-rice-chicken-with-free-water from a street kitchen; seems like today’s youth are 10-fold spenders with 2,000 baht-a-day accommodation budget and rather 300 than 30 for a meal. Free market adjust to where business is, so if more-and-more trendy cafés, which can charge 100 baht and up for a coffee, opens over the years and stay in business, it’s because there’s a demand.

By the way, the “Food Mart” in Central Festival, which I thought would be something like in BigC and Tesco with affordable dishes, they charge 200-300 baht for what seems like the same kind of stuff – cheaper (and better) to dine in some of the restaurants the other end of the mall...

(Am I becoming a "cheap Charlie" in my mature days..?)

Not to disagree with you, but IMO anyone that spends 16,000 baht for dinner needs to be seeing a psychiatrist- it's also exceedingly antisocial. No doubt the waiting staff, having to live on their 300 baht a day wages would rather stick the knife in the rich person's back than by the plate!

I was having candlelit dinners on the sand on Chaweng 25 years ago, and it only cost about 100 baht each. Yes, it costs more now to provide a dinner, but not 15,800 baht more

You may be correct about today's youth having a 2,000 baht accommodation budget, but I'd like to know where they get that sort of money. Even at 50 and working in a professional job I never earned that much money. When I was a youth, I couldn't even afford to travel.

BTW, I disagree that it's a "free market" that dictates the current state of affairs on the beaches of LOS. IMO it's people ignorant or uncaring about the environment that pick hotels from a brochure in a travel agency that populate the resorts on their two weeks holiday in the sun. You may not have noticed, but travel agents don't sell holidays in Charlie's Hut type places, only in beach destroying resorts with horizon pools. It's a minority that travel independently nowadays.

As for older ex backpackers- rather than seek to recreate their adventures in cheap places of their youth, they want the lux rooms and flash restaurants, so I guess the environment is on a hiding to nothing.

Oh well, as long as the Bkk businessmen get rich, who cares if the wonderful beaches of 30 years ago have vanished forever.

It wont be long before someone elects a new equivelant to a NAZI party Gov out of anger against terrorist attacks, then there will be a huge uprising from all muslims - and then perhaps World war 2 will be repeated with Muslim concentration camps, a gestapo and the biggest Global war we have ever seen...

Well that's what Nostradamus says too...

Fire from the heavens will strike the West, and the Muslim (Midy) world will rush upon Israel (au Levant), People will die of hunger without finding a root to feed on.. this is the third world war, the fury of the Gods of war, the revolutionaries (Escarboucles) will light their flaming fires, the war of revolution, and at the finish will be famine. Sixain 27

Nostradamus uses the word “midy,” or people of the south, to denote the world of Islam. Some people have claimed the word “Levant” applies to the Isle de Levant, a small island off the coast of France close to Hyeres. Others have claimed it signifies Japan, as in “soleil levant” or the rising sun. However, in Nostradamus’ time, it would have been understood as the Levant coast, stretching from Syria through Lebanon and Israel, to the Egyptian border in the eastern Mediterranean. The word “Escarboucles” means carbuncle or garnet, which is poppy or blood red, and signifies revolution. The famine mentioned at the end of the Sixain is of world wide proportions.

Well, at least the global warming crowd should be happy, as the resulting depopulation will solve the carbon emission problem. However, I'm not hopeful that it will make them happy, as some people just have to complain about everything- too much carbon today, too little food tomorrow. 5555

It didn't take long for Obama to call for gun control, again. However, with 200 million or so ( but who's counting? ) weapons in the US, no laws will reduce the opportunity for criminals to obtain weapons.

Obama -- Just about the weakest, most impotent president we have ever had. I can't believe people voted him in for another 4 years. Thank god for presidential term limits.

Thank god for presidential term limits.

Why? if the GOP doesn't win, more than likely Obama version 2 will be elected.

I'm sure that by now, and for some time now, Obama must be cursing IS under his breath for bringing this calamities and mayhem on his head just when his about to hand over the keys, thinking couldn't those guys held on for just a little bit longer so I can go home and not have these headaches on me now?

If only he were about to hand over the keys.

The election isn't till November, so unfortunately we have to have this ignorant man running things for another year.

All this propaganda is about introducing another tax to be levied on consumers , we pay to much and receive to little as it is , Make the polluters pay and restrict them from passing these costs to consumers.

Yes - AND No. IF it is 100% returned to the citizenry the effect is primarily an incentive for all people to seek ways to avoid adding to CO2 while not growing the budget of the government.

To quell the nay-Sayers as to risks of CO2, I'll quote from Exxon's website

"we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community."

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/

That same page goes on to state:

In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.

As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009

"A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement."

How threatening is climate?

"With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

So, again about the REVENUE NEUTRAL, CARBON TAX AND DIVIDEND ... (from the same Washington Post article)

"To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil. No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose."

The 100% Dividend portion, distributed equally per person on a monthly basis, is critical for several reasons.

► Oil is embedded in so many layers of current products that adding a fee at the wellhead will ripple through and raise prices of nearly everything

► people at every level will seek products and transport that minimizes the increases

► CEOs will have their teams looking to invest in alternative energy and more efficient products. Businesses that already use less carbon base supply will see their advantage win market share.

► Meanwhile at the family level, people who consume less carbon based products will get to save money from their share of the dividend, those who use more will pay more than the dividend returns - again this is a market level choice people get to make as to how they will live their life, yet the real cost of the usage of carbon based fuels is no longer subsidized by society as a whole.

(estimated global subsidies are $5.3 TRILLION annually http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm)

Examples of people calling for and explaining such a plan"

► James Hansen articulates it well http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/4/climate_scientist_james_hansen_warns_world

► Bernie Sanders legislation from 2013, but kept 40% for Government to fund research

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-we-need-a-carbon-tax

► Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson - though he doesn't suggest the dividend !!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/22/3451687/hank-paulson-climate-crash-carbon-tax/

► Tessla Founder Elon Musk - though he suggest tax credits, again shifting the burden most onto those least able to afford it.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/elon-musk-carbon-tax-paris/

AND IF WE CONTINUE ON OUR CURRENT PATH??

5ºC - 7ºC ... Really?

HowBadCanItBe.jpg

with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose."

I can't think of an absolutely more barking plan. Most people I know would buy a bigger car with the money, including myself.

As for the graph, I saw that ( or an equivalent ) in a National Geographic magazine years ago- nothing new there. Unfortunately, the tundra is already thawing and releasing methane.

because those who are hurt the most by climate change are the world's poorest 3 billion.

And it is those 3 billion that are causing the problem by refusing to curtail their unsustainable breeding. If there were less people in the world there would be less environmental destruction.

Don't ask me to sympathise with their hurt when they are the ones causing it.

Could it be, just possibly, that the real cause of this disaster is that they have been building houses on flood plains? Seems that incompetent government is often the real culprit in many of the disasters that assail citizens.

"...Amnesty International says this amounts to discrimination..."

Amnesty International has some righteous causes to fight, but in this case they can go "suck" an egg. They have no business sticking their noses in a country's business of who they do or do not let in. That is each country's right to make those decisions.

AI has lost its way. It used to be a noble group, but this time they have jumped on the wrong bandwagon, and will, IMO, come to regret it.

What is the similarity between Le Pen and Trump? The voters are sick to the back teeth with the usual political parties and are looking to anyone that will provide change from business as usual.

This shows how cynical the big parties have become, and they should be afraid, very afraid. The voters have had enough, and they aren't going to take it anymore.

When I first went to Samui I stayed in Charlie Hut or another bungalow for a pittance and had the time of my life. Within a few years it was ruined. I don't think I have been since 2002. Can't imagine what it is like now.

It's depending what you expect from a place like Samui.

If you wish to live in the past like "good old backpacker hippie-style days" at Charlie's Hut and the like, then "yes", Samui has changed to be ruined - by the way, Charlie's Hut is "still going strong" at Samui, same owners, but moved to different place - but so may every popular place be after 25-30 years progress; I recall the old pictures of a beautiful beach with a small fishermen village in a bay south of Bangkok...

However, if you look at Samui as a place to stay more permanent, it has IMO changed to the (much) better since 2002 - and 2001, when I came here first time and stayed in primitive backpacker huts - and even with the number of rants on the lists some folks posts, most of that stuff have actually improved since over the years; however there are more guests and therefore more traffic on the Ring Road, but compared to Phuket, Hua Hin or 2nd Road in Pattaya I can easily live with it...

And not to get off topic, the resort next to me at Maenam Beach was full all November, and is still loaded with guests like high season arrived early instead of the Monsoon...

The significant word is Mae Nam. That beach was much less ruined than Chaweng and Lamai last time I went, and is probably still reminiscent of the heyday of Samui in the 90s. You can't build zillion star resorts and horizon pools end to end and still expect the same numbers of visitors as when there were many cheaper places to stay. Thailand just doesn't have the infrastructure to attract the really rich people. They will go to places like the Maldives.

If they want Russians I think they simply need to bomb condos full of Russian families. Do it in the middle of the night Take out first 2 floors and no where to go,quite simple really. Why go out in public with other people all around.

It's the publicity they want. A building full of Russians would not gain as many outraged responses as a street full of revellers.

The terrorists are not stupid, though our leaders would like us to believe so.

Just checked CH imm website. http://www.chiangmaiimm.com/en/frequently-asked-questions-faq-.html

"

2. Question : What do the house-master/owner or possessor of the residence have to do,if the alien granted temporary stay in Thailand has stayed in his/her house/residence? (Is it possible for an agent to do for?)

Answer : He/She (The owner of the residence) must notify (by the Form TM.30) to the competent official Of the Immigration Office located in the same area of that house/residence within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the alien. However, such notification could be made in person or by an agent or sent with completed Form( TM.30) by registered post."

So my understand is at where i live in the Condo

When i return from Overseas

I have notify them i am back

Then they have to resubmit the TM30 online?

Is this correct?

If it is possible for them not to know that you are back, then you should do so.

I want to know what happens to the address we write on the immigration form on arrival. Do they just file the form and not enter the details in the computer?

Never been to any of those places,, am i missing something?

Yes.

You're missing out on being able to speak only English and eat inferior versions of Farang food for inflated prices.

555

You forgot to add being able to see endless repeats of "The Beach" while eating inferior overpriced western food.