If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
Chris wrote:
Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads you to believe so. He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look up restricted if you are still confused. And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my displeasure with their actions" If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex. A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is absolutely NO relationship between the two. Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your agenda. You've already made that obvious. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... [snip] And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are similar) Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and events slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very few for men. The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health, I just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as well and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are obese has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their product to promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money). Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in workplace accidents were women? Phil #3 Here's a thought.. sue the *******s. Class action suits are great for this and can even garner considerable media coverage. OK, so early on a lot of pinheads may laugh and make jokes, so what. After men start winning these suits, the laughter will stop and people will sit up and take notice that men are sick and tired of being the brunt of all ills of women. Whenever a company, or the government, moves to promote anything that (real or imagined) appears to benefit only women and excludes men, in any way, shape or form - sue them. After a while they'll get the idea that men are no longer going to take it in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have been/are being disadvantaged. Private entities can give whatever they what to whomever they choose. That is part of free enterprise but I don't have to participate in their bigotry and can refuse to purchase their product/service. The government, however is a different case in that we are forced to contribute; but one can hardly expect fairness from an entity that is part of the system of the entity one is suing. It would have been like Jews suing Hitler in the late 1930's and '40's. Phil #3 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"Chris" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Phil #3" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them determines their general behavior as adults. Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example. I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates. Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology. Welcome back! Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he. For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the problem/solution. You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them stoked. Phil #3 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" wrote in message ... Phil #3 wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are definitely a sexual bigot. Phil #3 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"Chris" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... Phil #3 wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of lifestyle. And you know they had a male role model how? The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. With all due respect, whatever are you talking about? City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. Some perhaps, but not necessarily all. I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject like XXX does. The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able to feed and dress themselves. I suppose it is a case of making **** up as one goes. (You'll notice s/he never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except personal bigotry). S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our experience. Phil #3 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" wrote in message
... Dusty wrote: " wrote in message ... [snip] Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again? You keep posting the ridiculous bull**** and I'll stop in from time to time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it. Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous, incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible. Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual, verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very long wait before you get round to it. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Phil #3" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them determines their general behavior as adults. Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example. I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates. Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology. Welcome back! Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he. For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the problem/solution. You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them stoked. Phil #3 What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male. Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of my imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
Phil #3 wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Phil #3" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them determines their general behavior as adults. Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example. I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates. Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology. Welcome back! Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he. For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the problem/solution. You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them stoked. Phil #3 Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model, is many cases these male role models are men who prey on fatherless boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting the simple truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just won't do among you guys, this is a responsibility free zone, everything is someone else's fault. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
Chris wrote:
"Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Phil #3" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them determines their general behavior as adults. Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example. I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates. Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology. Welcome back! Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he. For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the problem/solution. You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them stoked. Phil #3 What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male. Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of my imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose? "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
Phil #3 wrote:
" wrote in message ... Phil #3 wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message m... "Kenneth s." wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... [snip] [snip] The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are definitely a sexual bigot. Phil #3 and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CA - Schwarzenegger's Miscreant Moms (aka - Daddy, git your shovel) | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | August 26th 06 08:02 AM |
Governor Schwarzenegger's State of the State Address 01/05/2005 | [email protected] | Solutions | 0 | January 6th 05 06:10 AM |
ABC propaganda on aspartame | john | Kids Health | 17 | September 18th 04 08:17 PM |
Debate v Propaganda | Kane | Spanking | 2 | September 14th 04 07:00 PM |
Governor Schwarzenegger's Remarks at the Republican National Convention | Big Brother | Solutions | 0 | September 2nd 04 04:37 AM |