KunMatt

A good friend was chatting over dinner that he was thinking of going back home, he is married and has 2 children aged 1 and 5 years old, he lives in Hua Hin and says the prices are going up at a good pace. The main reason I think are the schools even private ones are not great here.
He thinks the children could have a much better child hood back in the uk.
The visa for his wife would be easy enough.
Just wanted other people's thoughts on what's better for a young family.
Another note he has rental properties in the UK which brings well enough to live here.
Thanks

I've lived and worked in Asia since 2000. I moved to Thailand in 2009 and met my missus. Once we found out we were pregnant with our first child I built nice big house that I expected us to live in for the next 20 years in Ubon. We now have 2 kids.

We lasted about 2 years in Ubon then moved to Bangkok. After 18 months in Bangkok we then moved back to the UK 2 years ago, just before the eldest started 1st school. It was a tough call to leave because of the family in Thailand but I could see how things were here for him and how things were for me growing up in the UK, and I wanted him to have a childhood as good as I had which is impossible in Thailand. So after much consideration about a huge life decision that would affect families in both countries so decided to move us all back. I said at the time that Thailand is for holidays and the UK is for living in.

My kids have been amazing in the UK. Their characters, their schools, their friends and social circles, the clubs they go to outside school, every birthday/Xmas/Halloween etc, everything is so much better in the UK compared to Thailand. My eldest is in an advanced maths class which only 6 kids from his year of 60 are in. He's also one of the top players in our local football team and winning tournaments every weekend.

During our last year in Bangkok my eldest went to an expensive international school for the whole of K1 year. After one year he didn't really have any friends and he did nothing outside school. Comparing that to my youngest's first year at pre-school where she has a lot of close friends she sees outside of school, she has a couple of clubs she goes to every week, she's gets invited to parties and so on, the UK has worked out much better for them both in a short time.

As it happens we're now back in Thailand for the summer holidays and staying in Bangkok and Ubon. This is our first time back since we left 2 years ago. Seeing everything here again after getting used to the UK, I was definitely right to move to the UK.

I honestly don't see what people mean when they say it's better for kids to be in Thailand. I don't see any traits in Thai kids that my kids either don't have or that I want them to have. I don't see any facilities here that are better than the UK. Schools, hospitals, doctors, play areas, shops, everything is miles better in the UK.

I think you'll find that the main reason expats parents stay in Thailand is because it's best for the parent"s lifestyle and/or it's cheaper.

Really, is that the sum of what I said? Clearly you are the one trying to make it personal.
I did imply that you are mathematically inept. But anybody with even a rudimentary grasp of high school math could see how your carbon burning argument is faulty. I even gave you an example to show why it's obviously  faulty. I don't need to cite a source for that. You made an assertion about carbon burning but provided no proof. Show me how that is wrong. Show me how it is valid that burning carbon to reduce carbon burning makes no sense. You've got nothing.
 
 

And again, uou dodged every question I asked you and you never provide sources for anything you argue, exactly what you accuse me of doing every time.

You really don't see how you do exactly what you say you are against every time?

Several studies from dubious sources.
I pointed out that a question is not an assertion and not a justification. That 's personal? you didn't answer
I pointed out that your argument about burning carbon is mathematically inept. I did throw in a swipe characterizing the intellectual incompetence of the observation, but you haven't addressed  substance of the criticism. 
I said your notion that ACG is a scam would mean that most of the world's climate scientists are in on a massive conspiracy. You didn't address that.
What i've noticed is that you never address comments that expose the hollowness of your assertions. Instead, you resort to the obviously false assertion that I attack the poster and not the post.
So how about answering the substantive rebuttals I've made of your post?
 

So to sum up, all of your arguments are basically "anyone I don't agree with is a liar, and a troll and a far-right conspiracy theorist".

You posted no evidence or source of any of your claims and every time I do post a link you tell me that it's fake, including when I posted links directly from NOAA and you told me that I "must have got it from some ACG denial site". And when I proved to you that they are real links from NOAA did you ever say anything about you making a false allegation? No, of course not, but everyone else is lying according to you.

You are basically exactly what you say you are against. You use conspiracy theorist tactics to argue a questionable subject. You hate anyone even asking questions about this because we all know it's not really settled and there is a legitimate debate about it.

Not one model or alarmist claim from the last 50 years has be correct or come true, is it? Al Gore has had to make a sequel to his previous climate scare film because the first one was all wrong and now we have another set of climate scare predictions.

What would he possibly have to gain by lying?

(Spoiler: Fame, $300m, 3 mansions and a private jet is the answer).

I asked you why you asked a question that has an answer that nobody disputes. You still haven't answered that one. Keep in mind that a question is not a statement so it doesn't justify anything. And even if you had made such a statement disputing anthropogenic anthropogenic climate change, your asserting that climate change is a natural phenomenon against the vast majority of scientific opinion doesn't make it so. No, it was just the silly trick use of semantics that ACG deniers use.

 

And as for the nonsense that "buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless", this assertion is so mathematically inept that unless you're still under 15 years old, there's no excuse for not seeing how tendentioius a statement it is. By the same kind of reasoning it would be useless to create solar panels using energy from carbon derived energy sources.

 

The problem is that your assertion that climate change is being used to scam money means  that somehow virtually all the world's climate scientist are in on this scam. This is ludicrously improbable and the stuff of fever dreams emanating from the far right media.

 

 

Except for several studies which all conclude that climate change is natural, including this new study I just gave you the link for.

 

You ever notice that each and every post of yours attacks the poster and not the post, and you constantly make false accusations because you don't like the content?

 

If it's "of course nobody denies climate change" then why ask the question at all. The only reason that question gets asked is to do precisely what you committed here: sophomoric semantics. Just a childish ploy.

 

Because, as I've stated a few times, giving foundations belonging to Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and so on, hundreds of millions of dollars to somehow stop natural climate change is a scam, isn't it?

 

Buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless, isn't it? You cannot offset carbon unless you can live and work completely carbon neutral, which none of us are. So it's a scam. You're just giving money to this companies for nothing but their profits.

 

The problem is whenever anyone points out that climate change is being use to scam money then they are accused of being a climate change denier.

 

Another person who confuses semantics with science.  You think this childish ruse is going to trick me?  It's clear that the case has overwhelmingly been made for 

climate change. But not just any kind of climate change but anthropogenic climate change.

 

Of course nobody denies climate change. The climate has never ever stayed the same throughout any period of history. Nobody is silly enough to say otherwise.

 

This study is saying that climate change is natural though.

 

A dishonest rhetorical question.

And the "researchers in question" are a dubious pair.

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-climate-wars-ipa-inordinately-outgunned-by-royal-society,7254

And on the basis of this very dubious study you are impeaching the overwhelming majority of climage research. Nice try.

 

 

 

They conclude and agree with the change in climate, in fact the model they used is in agreement with the actual real-world result of today.

 

So are you saying that the their study which they claim proves climate change is wrong?

 

Are you denying climate change?

 

So this new study claims that the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now without human activities;

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426#!

 

So if it is indeed natural then why are we giving trillions of dollars to foundations and schemes that claim they can "pause the climate"?

 

Rhetorical question. :)

 

 

I finally got around to watching the whole performance, and it occurred to me: I wonder how many of his acolytes watching  him on CNN believed him when he said CNN wouldn't broadcast the rally?

Did CNN broadcast the whole rally or just the bits they wanted to?

Also, I don't think Trump is unpopular as CNN wants you to believe.

https://www.nccivitas.org/2017/2016-election-held-unaffiliated-voters-vote-trump/

 
I see - you can speak to the forum but certain people aren't allowed to talk back.  I can almost picture the tiki torch in your hand as you shouted this at your computer.  Maybe you should change your screen name to Herr Matt.
 
No, I am not going to ignore objectionable people.  I am going to call them out for their disgusting opinions and dishonest debating tactics.  If you don't like it, then you're the one who should make use of the ignore feature.

Did you really not get that I was parroting back the exact same words you said to me??

New plan: send more troops[emoji779]️
"Fight to win" [emoji15]?[emoji23]
Idiot

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?

What would you say that makes him?


Also, part of his election campaign promise was to bring all troops back from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected "And you can take that to the bank!".

So what does that make him??

So why is this war against Afghanistan continuing (after Obama promised to end it 9 years ago) and why does the UK need to send more troops?

Hey KhunMatt-  

How many people have the people you define as Antifa terrorists killed in the last days/weeks?  How about the Nazis?  I think it is 1-0 to you.  Would you care to go back to develop your win/ loss ratio?  Just don't go too far back or you will be stuffed mate.

 

Oh, and just for shits and giggles, can you provide any evidence of an official BLM statement about how they hate white people and cops?

 

I knew who anitfa were before a few days ago.  I can also spot an apologist in short order.  

 

All the best.

 

 

I'm apologising for who??

 

I condemn everyone.

 

Since my first post I said I condemn all hate and violent groups but you all only have an issue with the anti-Trump groups I talk bad about.

 

None of you will condemn a violent militia which is carrying out your anti-Trump agenda.

 

Everything I've said is pertinent to the OP about Trump blaming all sides. But you all only want to blame one side.

 

 

 

He lost to Diaz

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

He did. He got choked out by a Gracie trained BJJ fighter a weight class above what he was previously fighting at after beating the hell out of him for the whole fight with the stand up then trying to wrestle him.

 

He then also beat Diaz in their 5x 5min round rematch which was kept on their feet the entire fight.

This fight will be interesting, but not spectacular, as Connor McGregor has little chance of defeating Mayweather in a traditional boxing match since McGregor has zero experience in that arena, and only younger age on his side.  I admit I don't like Mayweather but wonder if the world is really ready if Mister-self-worship-himself, .ie., Connor McGregor, actually wins.  In fact, it seems like a lose lose situation for we MMA/UFC fans no matter who wins.  This contest would be much more interesting if champion and 'master' Mayweather was forced to fight younger 'grasshopper' McGregor in the octagon, under MMA/UFC rules.  Oh well... it won't be long now before we know the outcome.

If you gave Conor one more weapon, ie elbows or kicks or even ground and pound rules then Floyd wouldn't last 30 seconds in a fight with Conor. Everyone knows that.

But Conor is win win here. Worst case scenario he loses the fight, gets $80m and either returns to the octagon as one of the best fighters now he's had elite boxing training or he fights another boxer like Paulie and makes a ton more cash.

I don't really see what the UFC has to lose here as now they've just branched one of their fighters into another sport and they will get a lot of new viewers watching them seeing as boxing is one of the most boring sports and MMA is one of the most exciting.

The only person who has anything to lose here is Mr 49-0.

Mayweather will make around $350 million with his promotions and expected PPV numbers.  McGregor will clear 100 million from the same and that doesn't include 50 million that the UFC takes since he's actually under contract with them. 
 
Anyway, I've been rooting for Mayweather to LOSE for the past 10 years or so, probably like a lot of people.  It hasn't happened yet and this is the last chance so I can't miss it, even if it's a long shot. 

Haha. Same. I lost £300 when Mayweather beat Ricky Hatton.

But even before this fight I was a big Conor fan for UFC for the last few years so if he's the one to avenge me then it will be perfect! [emoji3]

I said "a dozen or so". That's 0.03%. You say it's actually 33. Okay, that's 0.0825%. So was that significant?

 

You have stated, quite clearly, that you hate Antifa MORE than you hate the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. It's on the record. If you'd like to continue to defend that, carry on. I rather doubt you're winning that battle.

 

You say you'd like to be honest. Okay, great, I'm glad you're ready for this. I applauded you for finally answering one of your rebuttals in the last post. Now you can address my quite clear position with respect to Antifa. Here it is again for your convenience. Kindly respond directly.

 

Do I have problems with people confronting White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis? Nope. Should they be prepared for violence given those groups preparing for same by being armed and armoured and practicing military manoeuvres? Yep. Should they start it? Nope. 

 

For the record, nobody has established who threw the first punch, and it's highly doubtful anyone would be able to in such a melee. We do however know who escalated it to driving a car into a crowd like an ISIS coward. But the position outlined above, is in no way terrorism.

 

Yes I hate Antifa more than all of the other current hate groups because they are potentially the most dangerous in the long run and they are completely dishonest about their cause.

 

I don't see any other hate group in the news being violent in the numbers that they are at the moment. And you all defend them because you propagate their big lie that they are peaceful protesters. They said themselves that their tactic is "Peace through violence" so they are obviously a violent mob.

 

Tbh if they just said they were a violent anti-government mob who just want to cause trouble to accomplish their goals I probably wouldn't have focused on them so much. At least BLM outright say they hate white people and cops.

 

Several of you have said you didn't even know who Antifa were until a few days ago but now you are already defending them after just seeing a bit of their propaganda.

 

Mayweather is set to take 350mil$ for this fight.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Is he? I thought it was $100m and Conor was getting $80m.

As noted, there's no such thing as Alt-Left, that's just equivocation again. That you parrot all the Alt-Right talking points makes us assume you're one, perhaps you're not, but you certainly read and repeat all their stuff. I don't know you, so can only go by what you write.

 

I already debunked your similarly hyperbolic point with respect to the Red Shirts, and Attrayant and others have done so with respect to the Boston Protest. I do appreciate however that you finally addressed it, that's proper protocol and I hope you'll continue to stay on topic in future. Well done. But as they note, because a dozen or so protesters out of 40,000 were arrested, that in no way means that "they were met with 40,000 Antifa and other leftist hate groups who fought with the police." That's deliberate obfuscation. It doesn't make anyone go "he's got a point", it makes them go "he's disingenuous". Why make us think the worst of you, why not be like others on your side who argue with integrity?

 

Only a dozen? 33 people were arrested for fighting with the police. Many more were attacking the police they just weren't arrested.

 

(Sorry, forgot to source it: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/08/various_charges_in_33_arrests_at_rally)

 

You all are arguing with me simply because I condemn your own hate group when you want me to condemn all hate groups (except yours).

 

You don't find that at all hypocritical?

I just wish we could be honest and call it how it is. Antifa are a bunch of terrorists. Aren't they?

 

 
I wasn't even there but I'll go on record as saying that no, 40,000 protesters were not fighting with police.
 
I called you out on this weaselly, Hannity-like behavior yesterday - stop applying a label to an entire crowd of thousands based on the actions of a handful of people.  Just stop it.

Who is even talking to you? I've not replied or made even one comment to you. Stop trying to join the outrage bandwagon. Just stop it. [emoji3]

Or you can always just use the block feature on this site, it's worked pretty well for me for the people that kept trolling me in this thread.

Off the top of my head, Antifa, Alt-Left, left wing hate groups, come to mind. I'd never even heard of Antifa before this thread. 

 

As to your claim of my calling you a racist, that's something you've self-identified. Someone who has a bigger problem with people protesting Neo-Nazis than they do the actual Neo-Nazis may, as the Jeff Foxworthy joke goes, be one.

 

One again, please provide evidence of your statement that the 40,000 Boston protesters were Antifa or Far Left Hate Groups. Stop avoiding the question.  

 

So because I knew who Antifa was and you didn't, that makes me alt-right, and yet you now support and defend Antifa but you are not alt-left?? Strange argument.

 

And you were directly referencing my post where I said the red shirt thugs used the same big lie as Antifa to pretend to be peaceful protesters when they were in fact the instigators and the people who provoked the trouble.

 

So are you saying there wasn't 40,000 people in Boston counter protesting a free speech demo and they didn't fight with police?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40980175

 

I haven't called you a racist or neo-Nazi to my recollection although you seem to vociferously support their provoking of violence and hate more than they those who confront their hateful views as you've stated numerous times. The link by Jingthing on post #427 identifies the language and approach of the Alt-Right, and it matches pretty well with what you post. So there's a basis for that assumption. 

 

I note that you NEVER address any of the substance of the rebuttals of your posts and always change the subject around to something else as you've done again in this post, which is pure trolling. Tell us, what evidence do you have that the 40,000 counter-protesters in Boston were Antifa and Far Left Hate Groups as stated in your previous post? Don't avoid the subject, give us the evidence. You can't and won't, because you made it up out of whole cloth as you do most of your assertions. When called out, you change the subject and launch a different attack. Pure trolling.

 

Do I have problems with people confronting White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis? Nope. Should they be prepared for violence given those groups preparing for same by being armed and armoured and practicing military manoeuvres? Yep. Should they start it? Nope. Hope that clarifies my position. By the way, there's no such thing as the "Alt-Left" - it's another fabrication of the Alt-Right. And you wonder why we characterize you as one of them? When it walks and talks like a duck, it generally is a duck.

 

Well, as usual your assumptions are wrong. I'd love to know what language I use which makes you think I'm alt right? Have I ever posted a meme?? Am I a (British) Trump voter?

 

And you said this about me before,

 

An unusual pivot amongst our racist friends on this thread is the sudden emergence of a Yellow-White alliance.

 

So yeah you did call me racist and alt right.

 

And if I really wanted to I could find the post where you implied I was a neo Nazi or KKK, I forget which.

 

Strange how I remember it but you don't when it suits you.

 

Do you ever post anything that can't be easily disproven or which is not a blatant manipulation?

The far left provoked and instigated the riots? You know perfectly well it was the White Supremacists who did so. And to claim the huge counter-protest in Boston was entirely composed of Antifa and "other leftist hate groups" is a shameful distortion of the truth. I'd not have argued if you'd referred to them as "Libtards" or some of the other epithets of the Right. But you characterize anyone on the Left who is counter-protesting a "hate group". The only truth in that is that these groups hate Neo-Nazis and Fascists. Me too. Does that make me a member of a "hate group"? I thought you hated them too?

Your tactics of continuously repeating lies and pretending there are alternative facts only work with your Alt-Right brethren. 

I think so far you have called me a racist, a neo Nazi and now alt-right. You couldn't be more wrong about all of these.

But you are doing exactly what I am oppose to. Making false allegations against everyone who you don't agree with so you can try to shut down their arguments. Right now everyone is a bigot and a Nazi according to Leftists, so now those words are starting to lose their meanings. One of our (actually racist) politicians called more than half the country racists because they voted to leave the EU.

Anyways, I'm not alt right. Like I said, from what I gather they are a sad bunch of trolls who lurk on 4Chan and post memes supporting Trump. Although this is obviously why they get on your nerves so much.

However you have no problem with people committing actual violence because they are anti-Trump. So does this mean you are alt-Left?

Boring fight. 
 
Will watch the 30 reply the next day, maybe. 
 
Just another loud mouth annoying Irishman hope he gets embarrassed

We'll see.

Yes, the alt-right is a rising movement, and it's a very scary one. Anyone with any understanding of history can see that.
 
This article is useful because you can see that many of the alt-right code words are commonly used on this very forum by many trump supporters. It's like an infection and it's spreading. 
 
It's no mystery at all why trump couldn't quickly and clearly condemn the alt-right scum. They elected him.
His entire campaign was based on hate speech dog whistles.
 
https://qz.com/1056319/what-is-the-alt-right-a-linguistic-data-analysis-of-3-billion-reddit-comments-shows-a-disparate-group-that-is-quickly-uniting/

And yet I think the same about the rising of the far-left and militant leftist hate groups that are increasing hugely in number, very quickly and recently, and provoking and instigating all of the riots we've been discussing.

The other day in Boston, a few dozen free speech advocates gathered in a park and they were met with 40,000 Antifa and other leftist hate groups who fought with the police.

None of this seems to worry any of you because they are pushing your agenda, so you are happy to overlook all of the violence and threats as long as you agree with their political goals. "Peace through violence" as they put it.

But you're scared of the alt-right. A bunch of internet trolls who make memes and support Trump!!