Schwarzenegger's propaganda

" wrote in message
...
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.

That's right. I forgot that boys are NOT males. Anyway, I like your straw
man. Either that, or my use of the word "such" confused you. Perhaps the
word "a" would have been clearer. Anyone comprehending my post in its
ENTIRETY, thus keeping it in context, will find the word "such" to be
appropriate.

[For what it's worth, my use of the word "such" is in response to your use
of the term "role model". You, not I, introduced the term.]

" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:


" wrote in message
...

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.


Since such restriction could be so much as allowing just ONE contact,
then technically you could deduce that they had a male role model. The
common understanding of a "role model", however, is one (especially when
it concerns a father figure) in which the student has continued,
uninhibited, regular contact; not some part time visitor.

It can be either,

Then if it is the former, such "role model" influence is approximately ZERO.

the boys usually decide who their role model is and make it their business
to be around him.

IF allowed by the mother.


By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the
same as being confused. Look it up.

Sometimes one leads to the other.

And sometimes NOT.




And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my
displeasure with their actions"


That says nothing about any continued involvement.


No?

No.

then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure?

Why don't you ask HIM?

Chris wrote:



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.


And in the case of how a mother chooses to raise her child, it's the
FATHER'S fault...........


Nice misread, I'm not sure anymore if you are just pathologically
dishonest or stupid. Seems to be a healthy dose of both. Maybe you can
show your work on this one.

Chris wrote:


" wrote in message
...

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.


That's right. I forgot that boys are NOT males. Anyway, I like your
straw man. Either that, or my use of the word "such" confused you.
Perhaps the word "a" would have been clearer. Anyone comprehending my
post in its ENTIRETY, thus keeping it in context, will find the word
"such" to be appropriate.

[For what it's worth, my use of the word "such" is in response to your
use of the term "role model". You, not I, introduced the term.]


You really want to be taken seriously don't you? I've tried and I think
it is impossible.

Chris wrote:


Why don't you ask HIM?




For one thing I don't expect him to tell the truth, for another I don't
care that much. If he gets defensive about seeing himself in my posts
that is just another one of his problems. All of your other questions
were answered in detail in other posts, try to have an original thought.

" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:


" wrote in message
...

Dusty wrote:

" 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.


Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.


"......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble
than help."


Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves

....is an assumption.

means that they will cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they
took responsibility. That is more of a problem with the welfare system
than parents.

"closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father
figure is necessary to effectively raise children.


Did I say that? If I did show me where.

Statement: "Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or
father figure is necessary to effectively raise children."
Your response: "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to
100% for men..."

" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:



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.


And in the case of how a mother chooses to raise her child, it's the
FATHER'S fault...........


Nice misread,

So you are actually saying our position is that everything is NOT someone
else's fault?

I'm not sure anymore if you are just pathologically dishonest or stupid.
Seems to be a healthy dose of both. Maybe you can show your work on this
one.

" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:


" wrote in message
...

Chris wrote:



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.


Principles come from role models.


Such "role model", to use your term, being the mother.
To proclaim that one has to witness someone else committing a crime
before they are willing to do the same is absurd, to say the least.


"Such" role model is rarely if ever the mother,

Nonsense. Boys, by FAR, learn from their mothers more than from anybody
else. And so do girls.

boys seek out and find male role models close to 100% of the time. If the
role model is a criminal it is possible that the kid will emulate that,
kids don't just walk out of sunday school and start selling coke, they get
indoctrinated first. The same with a shiftless loser role model, the kids
have to give up hundreds of times before they become shiftless losers.



Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
ridiculous.



Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.


I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find
his own male role model and you will have no say in the matter.


Not necessarily. Absolutely nothing says that any such "role model" MUST
be male. Again, the primary influence on a child is the mother.


(Such)Male role models are always male, boys don't chose their moms to be
their male role model no matter how much influence she has on them.

Your twist is getting progressively tighter. Never have I claimed that
"male" role models are mothers, NEVER. But nice try.

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

" wrote in message
...
Phil #3 wrote:

" wrote in message
...

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.


You're a ****in' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just
more anti-male lies.
You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model
in their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models
are like you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug
pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals.
Phil #3


I've said what the rest of the world understands without having to hear
it from a stranger. I'm sure some of you already know these things but
need to deny them in order to keep the agenda going. You are a guy who
raised 2 lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2
highly educated children and one lawyer. It seems you really don't
understand how the world works. Considering the source your lame insults
really are pretty funny. How big a ****bag are you that you couldn't get
even ONE kid to get an education or a decent job?

After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing
with my original statement. Nice work stupid.

1) The "rest of the world" is more than the voices in your head telling
you that men are evil and women are saints.

Which begs the question: If a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman,
will he suddenly become good and no longer be evil?

2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is based
on nothing less than anti-male prejudice.
3) You are a liar. I didn't get the opportunity to raise my kids; their
mother did which is why the turned out the way they did, even though you
flatly refuse to accept the fact that some women are as worthless as some
men.
4) Like I said before, you're a ****in' fruitcake and you prove it with
each post you make.

Phil #3

" wrote in message
...
Phil #3 wrote:

You know nothing of me yet claim to know much.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin.

Phil #3


At least I raised my kids to be productive members of society, that makes
me 1000 times more worthwhile than you.

You raised your kids ONLY because the mother/"child support" people ALLOWED
you to raise them. Individual worthiness has ZERO to do with it.

I claim to know what you have posted here, nothing more nothing less but
you paint the picture of a lowlife with your posts.