Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 February 2019 15:51


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,993 Excellent

About smotherb

  • Rank
    Diabolical Reprobate

Recent Profile Visitors

11,056 profile views
  1. Yeah, another example of a bad relationship--the UK wife that is. It seems your gf is actually willing to do some things to please you your ex-wife would not.
  2. I think they just don't expect their language to come from a Westerner. And, I don't think it is limited to Thais. I was quite taken aback when I spoke Vietnamese to a taxi driver in HCM. He simply ignored me; then started in broken English. I had to explicitly ask in Vietnamese if he was a foreigner and could not speak Vietnamese before it dawned on him I was speaking Vietnamese. Accent issues may also be the problem, but I think it is mainly because they do not expect foreigners to speak their language.
  3. I have known, seen, heard and read about numerous men complaining their wives don't care for them; don't do anything for them; cannot cook, clean or even carry-on a conversation; that their wives spend all their money; placed boyfriends/husbands/customers/family--even water buffalo-- ahead of them; required them to support family, friends, and lovers; generally made their lives miserable, etc., ad infinitum. Haven't you? Yes, I know some men are happy with their wives; I am. Some even seem to be "happy" when their wives act like the ones described above. However, many more appear to be unhappy; just look at the divorce and/or separation statistics. If, in your opinion, that makes me see only what I want to see; I certainly disagree; because I don't want to see that. I am certainly not insulting women with my comments; the comments are more of an insult to men. Namely, why do some men put-up with it? Hence, my questions. As far as insulting other persons' relationships; again, I wonder how? If the descriptions fit your relationships; then it is an accurate description. If it does not, why would you be insulted; because I have noticed so many relationships which have gone wrong?
  4. No, I did not. You have misunderstood what I said. I said "assets" and I refer to things of value other than spreading their legs. In post #103, I said, "I am always amazed at the numbers of men who accept a wife who is only an expense and never an asset." In post #107 I said,, " I was referring to choosing a woman who brings something to the relationship rather than choosing one who brings nothing other than her body." And, in post #107, I said, "why do so many men accept a relationship with women who bring so little to that relationship?" For example, my wife of almost 40 years provides great counsel; because she is intelligent, capable and has OUR best interests at heart--that is a great asset. I can also always count on her to do what is best for us, not just for her. She has always taken care of me in all ways. And, for the most prurient of you; she is still a very attractive woman--according to our 32 year old son's male friends. And, even though she was not wealthy when we met, she was eager to learn. She wanted to make something of herself. I did not need to encourage her to go to school, gain marketable skills and have a good career; she wanted it for our family. Those are great assets.
  5. I was not always 74. I believe you simply have to be smarter than the problem. I do not like menial jobs, so I find ways to get them done while I do things I like to do; always have. It is a matter of choice. Of curse. if you choose to do them, that is your decision.
  6. Where do you see I am denying personal choice? I am simply questioning something I do not understand. Are you criticizing me for not understanding and asking questions? As I said, I do not understand and ask why? I have neither asked nor do I care about the specifics of the assets of anyone. An asset is "a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality" and expense is "the cost required for something; the money spent on something." [google online dictionary] Although it may have eluded your cognition, I was referring to choosing a woman who brings something to the relationship rather than choosing one who brings nothing other than her body. Of course, that is anyone's right to do so; if they so desire. I am simply asking, what is it about that type of relationship that satisfies the men? And please, try not to confuse the questions. I know sex is important, but women who possess other assets can also provide sex; and sex can be had without engaging in a relationship. So, why do so many men accept a relationship with women who bring so little to that relationship? In my opinion, too many men have based their relationship on a depreciating asset--which may be a fundamental reason for so many divorces or broken/unhappy relationships. I listen to their complaints almost daily and read them so often here on TV.
  7. I am always amazed at the numbers of men who accept a wife who is only an expense and never an asset. Why do so many men do that? Is it lack of self-esteem; the thought that you can only get a woman on a financial basis? Is it a macho-derivative; that you must be the only breadwinner? What is it?
  8. Oh please, not only do you see the Trump's new clothes, but you found that Nebraska farmer who is facing ruin due to the investigation. I am certainly outside the Washington bubble and I care if my president colluded with the Russians. Why put a time-line on it? Remember, it is about whether or not the American people were duped. And, be careful not to violate TV rules about quotations, you forgot to add the rest of my sentence, " . . . and trying the cases indicted." You see; either a preliminary hearing may decide if the prosecution has enough evidence to continue to trail--and that decision is by a judge--or the investigation may lose momentum if the courts do not convict anyone. Proven cases of anti-Trump bias? Were there any convictions for that proven bias? Or is it that liberals often possess anti-Trump bias just as conservatives often express anti-Obama bias--or have you failed to notice that? In fact, the typical contard refrain seems to be the "look over there" at what Obama or Hillary or some other entity did that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The old delusive tactic. Oh, you're doing the delusive contard refrain again. Only this time it is, "Are you perhaps trying to imply that Russia did something that America doesn't do." The investigation is not about whether or not the US influences elections; it is about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians to influence his own election--you can see a difference, can you not? And, you don't recall Trump siding with the Russians? Bless your heart; you do see his new clothes don't you? Just google "Trump sides with Russia against US" and you will get plenty of quotes.
  9. That is my point. I suspect you are one of those who can see the emperor's new clothes. Why would you be livid? The US Justice Department and US Courts system think there is enough evidence to continue investigation and trying the cases indicted. If they did not, they would stop it. And perhaps you are denying the point that Russia tried to influence the election in favor of Trump. Even if true, that does not make Trump complicit in the Russian hacking. However, Trump openly denying the Russians hacked our election and blatantly siding with Putin against our own intelligence agencies; makes some wonder if he was guilty. The fact that there have been 8 convictions and 30 indictments from Mueller's investigation make some believe something is there. It is true that Trump has not been directly linked, yet. Will he be? That is the question. Yet, you would deny the taxpayers the piddling amounts spent on Mueller's investigation--approx. $25M over two years, when $36B/year is spent on Foreign Aid and $639B/year is spent on Defense. I suggest we simply cut either budget to pay for the Mueller investigation. If it were just a witch hunt, what innocent person would try to stifle the investigation that could clear their good name?
  10. "He went to the Saudi embassy because he needed divorce documents which would allow him to remarry his Turkish fiancee. He went to the Saudi embassy in Turkey because that was where he was and the Turks are known for not kowtowing to Saudi Arabia--as should be apparent from the Turkish response to the murder on their soil."
  11. Did you actually duck, or do things generally go over your head?
  • Create New...