Thread: General Info
+
Add Report
Results 2,641 to 2,655 of 15977
-
04-26-20 01:01 #13337
Posts: 3261Originally Posted by Stykler [View Original Post]
Some like to get their rocks off using an elite card.
*disclosure. I am not an AMEX card holder.
-
04-26-20 00:59 #13336
Posts: 3261Originally Posted by DeepXliv [View Original Post]
-
04-26-20 00:52 #13335
Posts: 673Originally Posted by DeepXliv [View Original Post]
-
04-26-20 00:37 #13334
Posts: 1663Originally Posted by CzarNicholas [View Original Post]
-
04-25-20 23:10 #13333
Posts: 180Amex Question
Hi guys not sure if this is in the right spot but I'm looking at a new credit card and was wondering if Amex is accepted across the board in Philippines or if I'm better off just going with Visa?
-
04-25-20 22:53 #13332
Posts: 3396Originally Posted by RadicalGuy [View Original Post]
Whomever decides that they are entitled to anything besides these predetermined allowances or that they should be compensated for the other's misdeeds has to pay through the nose. Here it's very rare to have an at-fault divorce recognized at all, let alone compensated.
Cheers. G.
-
04-25-20 20:55 #13331
Posts: 463Bravo Mr E
He should have prefaced it with, "In ordinary circumstances" and then changed "can derive no benefit" to "believes she can derive no benefit".
I say this because in the cases of pimping and playing you can sell a chick dreams all day long. An extraordinary male can lead the female to believe she can and is deriving benefit, when in actuality she is getting nothing (well nothing tanglible anyway.) Maybe there is some emotional or educational benefit she is receiving.
I call this "hustle inversion".
Flip that shit, "mongering Aikido".
I nominate this post for the ISG Hall of Fame!
-
04-25-20 16:09 #13330
Posts: 553Divorce Attorneys
Originally Posted by CzarNicholas [View Original Post]
RG.
-
04-25-20 03:29 #13329
Posts: 2116The Conjugal Dictatorship
For mongers who are interested in Flip history and have time on their hands, there's a fascinating documentary called "The Kingmaker". It's largely about Imelda's unchecked abuse of power over a thirty year period. Her insatiable thirst for power, wealth and influence has not waned one bit despite her advancing years. What's particularly alarming is a bunch of current school kids who weren't even around at the time of the Marcoses think that life under the conjugal dictatorship (and martial law) was fabulous and that the Philippines was very wealthy at the time. Even more alarming is that Imee and BongBong can almost smell the Presidential seat. They just have to wait for Du30 to step aside, as he rules very much under their patronage.
Nixon was a regular visitor to Imelda's suite at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC. You can be assured that BBFSCIP and BBBJCIM were very much on the agenda. Stuff that Patty would never have provided. Hahahaha.
Another interesting tidbit not in the film is that Imelda and Marcos were very keen for Prince Charles to marry their daughter Imee. They lobbied through various intermediaries. I don't know if they actually ever met, but the fact they actually thought this was appropriate and achievable tells us just what an inflated opinion they had of themselves. Prince Philip would have seriously thought Imee was the laundry girl. Hahahaha.
-
04-24-20 19:50 #13328
Posts: 463Abject failure? For whom?
I am amazed how decent, smart folks, keep getting taken by this marriage crap. It's the biggest fool's trap. A philosopher once said "marriage as an institution has been a failure". I would add that it has been an abject failure.
Not those vampires with vaginas (or the divorce attys, vampires with JD degrees).
https://stricturism.wordpress.com/20...21st-birthday/
-
04-24-20 14:08 #13327
Posts: 6420Stephen Jackson
Originally Posted by NattyBumpo [View Original Post]
-
04-24-20 13:55 #13326
Posts: 1136Mind boggling!
Originally Posted by NattyBumpo [View Original Post]
-
04-24-20 13:50 #13325
Posts: 15925Originally Posted by RollAides [View Original Post]
I say this because in the cases of pimping and playing you can sell a chick dreams all day long. An extraordinary male can lead the female to believe she can and is deriving benefit, when in actuality she is getting nothing (well nothing tanglible anyway.) Maybe there is some emotional or educational benefit she is receiving.
-
04-24-20 13:33 #13324
Posts: 3040Catch the story from Stephen Jackson's own mouth. https://youtu.be/mPOdN1F8UCg. It looks to me like he just barely escaped a total disaster. Ha Ha. I mean what was he thinking in the first place getting engaged? And take a look at Imani Showalter his once upon a time fiance. Yikes! Apparently he is alright now, but still another casualty of American sexual prison/suffragette. Free your mind of all that feminist crap Stephen and fly to SE Asia or Africa, if you prefer black girls, via private jet as soon as possible. Treat all your sexy new friends nice. You will never look back.
Marriage is a plain vanilla financial contract. Even with the most iron clad prenup it is still a financial arrangement and self inflicted homicide. 555.
On Briffaults Law: I don't subscribe. Take a look at how Lions behave in the wild. The pride is composed of related females and their offspring, but the male Lion is the King. He defends his pride against all and contributes his alpha DNA to future generations. When a male Lion is deposed by another male Lion, the new King kills all the young nursing cubs in the pride so he can begin sowing his seed amongst the females as soon as possible. Were primitive Homo Sapiens significantly different?
-
04-24-20 13:27 #13323
Posts: 147The Meat is in the Corollaries
Yup, I was specifically referring to a fairly well-known post on Stickman's forums from a while back.
https://www.stickmanbangkok.com/read...mens-behavior/
As XXL has pointed out, there's a lot more to it than the original formulation by Briffault.
Briffaults Law:
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
Corollaries:
1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1).
3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current / future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).