retiredinmaerim

Look at http://www.bangkaew.com/pdbt/  Maybe you can find some info there.  There are a lot of Bangkaew looking dogs running around but they are not 100%.  

I had a female bangkaew and she was a real sweetheart. My wife loved her.  They are fine dogs.  But they do roam and that is a fact that can not be denied.  As long as you can keep them on your property you will be happy with a bangkaew.  I would make an effort to get a real one.  There is a Bangkaew registry in Phitsanulok.  Puppies should have a registration number tattooed on their ears.

A filo is a pretty radical dog in my opinion.  I did a lot of research at one point.  I was deciding between a Filo, Rott. Bull Mastiff and English Mastiff.  The Filo can be uncontrollable.  I choose an English Mastiff and very happy I did.  By the way there is a breeder in Bangkok who has some Mastiffs with  great blood line but to expensive for me.  

A bangkaew is a very nice dog in many ways.  It has adopted to the climate of its home land and seems almost to be self cleaning.  But it will jump your fence with ease.  It can jump a two meter wall. It is a major league escape artist.  I live on three rai and that was not big enough for the dog, it liked to roam.  

I had a bangkaew but had to give it away after it killed over 100 of my neighbors chickens.  I have to say it was very faithful to family but tended to bite strangers in the butt.  If you so desire to temp fate you can but a genuine pure bred registered with ears tattooed with the registration number in

Phitsanulok.

Hybrid Tea has the the patent number and metal registration tag on the trunk of the plant.  Not cheap but I live in Chiang Mai and have not seen anything close in quality.

Does anyone know where to purchase patented registered Hybrid Tea Roses ?

Just now, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I do not believe you but that makes no difference. If I take you at face value, then I can assure you that the sources are legitimate and the concerns in the LGBT community are very serious. The issue of Trump being a misogynist, a homophobe, a racist, an anti-semite are probably moot given his complete lack of character. Psychologists will be analyzing him for centuries. He is, however, an enabler of others with these biases and prejudices. If you think blacks are thugs, hispanics are illegals, women should not be taken seriously, then look to the LGBT community for evidence of the impact of Trump's enabling of prejudice and hate.

 

Am perfectly happy to debate an honest broker without vitriol. Such people are few and far between in this environment.

Forgive me, but you seem to be a very bitter person.  Mr. Trump has been too successful in life to be the complete buffoon you make him out to be.  But I do like to know where people are from so I can better understand them.  I am from Northern California.

Just now, Jingthing said:

You're joking right? The disgusting sexual predator clown that led the racist birther movement to try to deligitimize OBAMA for several years - - nobody said he was racist? Wow.

A key reason trump won was his Implicit message to make America white again. Which of course ain't gonna happen any more than reviving many old style rust belt jobs but rationality has little to do with such demagogic populist authoritarian movements.

You still have not given me any evidence.  Questioning Obama's birth I believe was political not r"acist.  Sexual predator ?  Ok he talks sh*t.  But why was there not a feminist uprising when Bill Clinton was the real thing, a sexual predator ?  Politics I as usual.  

Just now, Jingthing said:

You're correct. trump won among WHITE women. See a pattern?

Ok, I do not get it.  Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years and on television for over 5.  In all that time nobody said he was a racist.  At the start of the presidential race when no one expected him to win nobody called him a racist. Only after he started being competitive did this racist talk start.  Maybe I am wrong, I do not see him as a racist,  if you can give me some examples.  

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

I fail to see how that is germane to this discussion.

It was in response to a previous post which I will quote " I think he set that record in November, and all these same women are just a subset of that group" which implies that Trump has no support among women voters.

Just now, balo said:

If you want to teach your child how to lie , Trump is the best example .  Liar from day 1 in office .

 

 

 

He sure seems to fib a lot about trivial matters.  But on the other hand he seems true to his election platform so far.

Just now, Jingthing said:

What are you on about? Peaceful protest is grounded in law. Efforts to Impeach are grounded in law. Of course any violence related to the anti trump resistance is illegal unless in self defense against trumpist goons.

Jingthing,  I guess you do not read the news.  The only goons seem to be of the the sore loser type.  You are a citizen of what country Jingthing ?

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

I think he set that record in November, and all these same women are just a subset of that group.

I am not trying to inject race here, just making an observation.  Looking at the photos of the marches it would seem that they where mostly white women.  Trump took 54 percent of their vote in the election.

Just now, beachproperty said:

Your the one playing games.... He won ...end of story.

 

Hillary ran a bad campaign wherein she garnered the most votes in the highest density areas....forgot the rural folk and it cost her the election.

 

Time will tell if his legitimacy is weakened because he WON the electoral college only.

 

Don't forget that he has  a Republican house and Senate too.

The Republicans annihilated the Democrats in the past election.  Look.  Not Trumps problem if HRC had bad advisors.  She ignored Bill who was trying to get her to campaign in Wisconsin,  Michigan and Pennsylvania.  But no she was to uppity for that and stuck to California and New York.  If she wasn't so stuck up she would have won.

Just now, WaywardWind said:

What? Californians are lesser citizens than those from, say, Kansas?

 

The rule in the US is one person one vote, not one acre one vote. The electoral college in the Constitution was insisted on by the smaller southern states who feared that slavery would be outlawed; it is an anachronism which has long outlived any usefulness that it ever possessed.

I guess you fell asleep during Civics class.  

On 1/22/2017 at 7:43 AM, WaywardWind said:

Once again, your facts are incorrect - Trump did not win "...by a considerable margin." He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

 

Clinton	65,844,954	48.32%
Trump	62,979,879	46.22%
Johnson	4,360,873	3.20%
Stein	1,357,013	1.00%
McMullin	747,993	0.55%
Write-ins	545,048	0.40%
Other	437,963	0.32%
Total	136,273,723	100%

Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

 

The only reasons that Trump is president is because of  (A) an archaic voting system which was originally enshrined in the Constitution at the insistence of rural states with smaller populations who feared that slavery would be abolished and (B) massive efforts by states to disenfranchise black, Latino, and other voters who traditionally voted for Democratic candidates.

 

He enters the White House with the lowest approval rating in history: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-enters-office-historically-low-rating-n708071

 

 

Trump lost the popular vote for sure.  But excluding California he took the rest of the nation in a landslide vote.  That is a good example of why the electoral college was put in the constitution.  None of the rural states would have agreed to join without it.  No United States without the electoral college. 

Just now, Yann55 said:

 

I would say 'most' rather than many, and of course it's a stereotype but stereotypes on principle describe a majority of people. So yes, Americans tend to be considered as loud, arrogant, boorish, patronizing and often ridiculous, especially in the way they over-act when socializing. But frankly, and aside from the 'over-acting' part which is indeed specifically American, can't these things be said of uneducated people everywhere ? Do these words not describe the uneducated majority of populations in every country ?

 

The interesting thing about living in Pattaya is that one gets to observe individuals who come from many different countries, but mostly from the same segment of society. Some have money, but very few have education. The result is that they are strikingly similar to one another, no matter where they come from : America, Europe, Australia, China, Russia ...

 

But we are so used to focusing on nationalities that when we see, say, a drunken Aussie behaving like a total jerk, we immediately tend to blame his jerk-ness on his nationality, even though his behaviour clearly has more to do with a blatant lack of education.

 

For a long time, democracies have elected people who did not come from that segment of society, for better or worse. It was an elitist system, there is no doubt about that, and the Hitler episode considerably re-inforced that pattern, after WWII, as the West realized how dangerous 'little people' could be when they reached absolute power. The result was that 'the masses' felt (and rightly so) that their vote amounted to nothing, because they were always governed by people who didn't give a damn about them, looked down on them and favoured the happy few.

 

What's happening now is that the uneducated are electing one of their own. It's not just an American phenomenon, and it will spread. Wasn't that bound to happen ? Are we to expect some good for 'the masses' out of this ? Unfortunately I don't think so, because of three very simple facts :

 

1/ uneducated millionaires are the ones who tend to go into politics. Why ? because they crave for social recognition, because they realize that political power can make them richer and because it's exciting.

 

2/ millionaires do not care about the poor. If they did, they would not be millionnaires.

 

3/ clever but uneducated millionaires realize that by playing the 'I'm the champion of the poor' tune, they can get elected. Once elected, they can only do what they are used to do : screw the poor, and make the rich richer, including of course themselves. That's where the US is headed right now.

 

 

You should get off the high horse.  Trump is many things good and bad. Uneducated he is not.  He is a world traveler and a graduate of the Wharton School of Business, which is ranked number 8 in the world.  Where did you graduate from ?

It seems to me that if the so called Chinese/Americans are truly American, the Aussie Kid has no problem. He can sue in an American Court, bring a copy of the Video tape, and become a very rich Aussie .

Rent a town town house for Mother In Law and Son in Lampang. I think about 3000 to 4000 a month would do the job. After that take your honey out of her comfort zone and buy a condo in Chiang Mai, you will be happy for it.