Schwarzenegger's propaganda

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

" 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.

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.

Such a ****-for-brains. My children are grown; the oldest being over 40.
During the time they were living with their mother, my contact was
restricted or eliminated by the mother. Since then, she cannot restrict
either them or me or our actions, therefore we see each other more than we
did then, however the damage had been accomplished WHILE LIVING WITH THEIR
MOTHER. You should stop attacking men and defending women you know no
better. You know absolutely none of the principals involved yet pretend
you know all there is to know about the case based on nothing more than
anti-male prejudice. I don't know where you're from but I can say without
a doubt they sure grow 'em stupid there.

Phil #3

Ever wonder where all the dirtbag "child support" people who forced your
situation are now? I have a freind who was kicked out of his family by such
thugs only to have the mother murder his son. But wait a minute, that cannot
be possible since women can do no wrong. Anyway, he was not allowed to raise
his orphaned daughter who turned out in a way that most folks would rather
not associate with. Needless to say, the mother was incarcerated. Today, he
has a pretty good, albeit strained, relationship with her; and most of the
people who robbed her of a father are now dead!

" wrote in message
...
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.

Apparently, you cared enough to ask.

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.

Don't have to.

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

"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

Now THAT'S an understatement!

" 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, 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.

I think he saw the unspoken meaning rather well. When the kids turn out
badly, the mother, who lives with and perpetuates the lifestyle is never
responsible, it's some "male" whether new boyfriend or local drug pusher and
especially the father whether allowed to have a relationship with the kids
or not.
I don't think I've see such rampant sexism since Stumpy haunted this NG.

Phil #3

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

Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you
keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just
keep whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's
fault. You are probably as incapable of learning as everything else.


Correction there ****face, you've been shown to be a bigot and a liar
with facts that you simply deny.

Phil #3


Not yet and certainly not by you. You just keep claiming that you've
proven something, you never actually prove anything except what a dismal
failure you are. Keep up the good work, dispense advice to your
downtrodden friends, maybe they can join you in your miserable loser
lifestyle.

Now re-read the last 5 words in my last sentence. You just proved it.
Phil #3

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


Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves 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.


Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that these men were
raised that way at the sole choice of the mother who also instilled a
"gimme" attitude in them and failed to teach them a damed thing except
the world owes them a living.


Not always at the sole choice of the mother, many fathers refuse to accept
any responsibility and in welfare communities it is financially beneficial
for a mother and father to keep the babydaddy out of the picture and off
the paperwork.


And a large number of those fathers who fail to accept any responsibility
were raised by a single-mother on welfare; a perpetual circle. True that
second and subsequent generations of welfare "families" have learned to scam
the system. Don't overlook the fact that most fathers are forced out of the
family and don't "refuse to accept any responsibility". Most children raised
in poverty would be in poverty with both parents in the home. Poor mothers
have children with poor fathers. Actually, in almost every case the mother
was poorer than the father before entering into the relationship and the
children were a meal ticket for them whether directly from dad or indirectly
from dad filtered through the government.




"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.


****, even showing you won't help because you'll find some way to slither
around it by lying again.

Liar, he cut out the part that REALLY shows what I said, I can see you are
both ready to give up and admit you are wrong. Why else would you rely on
such easily shown bull**** as your argument?

"I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men
and women. " from ...
You said that's what you think so now tell us how that isn't what you
meant, that you were once again "misunderstood" you lying dirtbag.

No, what he did was outright lie in order to make is seem like I said
something I didn't say. What I did say is that if asked that question most
people would say yes they could raise a child without the other parent.
For kids under 3 I would expect fewer guys to say they could raise the
kids on their own. If the alternative was worse than raising the kids
alone, I would expect every responsible parent to take that
responsibility. For a guy who never trims posts you sure made a mess of
this attempt to misrepresent what I said.


Here is the quote in context:
BOB: " Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one
parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all
women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to
effectively raise children.
YOU: "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for
men and women." Then went on to tell about your feelings about how you feel
your personal situation might have fared under different circumstances,
which has nothing to do with it. Then you insuinuate that the 42% might
believe the fathers are losers. They also might believe they were
inseminated by aliens but the fact is not changed by what you *think* they
might feel.
By the way, anyone who thinks either parent's involvement is unnecessary is
a fool.
Phil #3

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


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


In spite of the mother not allowing it? You are too supid to live.


Especially in spite of the mother, you are just a huge ****ing liar. I had
role models that my mother was dead set against, I managed to hang out
with them and learn about smoking and drinking despite her best efforts. I
guess your next claim will be that you never disobeyed your mother or did
anything that she didn't approve first. More bull**** and deflection of
your responsibility. You are just stupid enough to believe your own
bull****. I guess thats how you get to sleep at night.


No? then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure?


You mean that by voicing my displeasure to my GROWN children AFTER
custody ended somehow translates into continued involvement during their
childhood years?
Are you REALLY that stupid?
Phil #3


if the "kid" is 40, you've had 22 years to help them. In addition it is a
lie that their mother was able to keep them away from you after the age of
14, that is just another example of you lying to deny responsibility for
another failure.

How is this a lie?
It's a fact for millions of fathers in the US today despite your ignornance
of the sitiation.
You really ought to learn about real life instead of the world you've
created where the father is always to blame for the decisions and actions of
the mother.


Do you wonder where your kids get it from? Its okay to fail as long as you
have a ready excuse. Do you wonder why you are such a failure or do you
really believe all of your excuses?

So once again the mothers failure as a parent is my fault.
Got it.
Moron.
Phil #3

" wrote in message
...
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.

You mean those were aimed at me, one of the many you now jack **** about but
like to pretend you know everything?

Phil #3

" wrote in message
...
Phil #3 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.

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.


Such a ****-for-brains. My children are grown; the oldest being over 40.
During the time they were living with their mother, my contact was
restricted or eliminated by the mother. Since then, she cannot restrict
either them or me or our actions, therefore we see each other more than
we did then, however the damage had been accomplished WHILE LIVING WITH
THEIR MOTHER. You should stop attacking men and defending women you know
no better. You know absolutely none of the principals involved yet
pretend you know all there is to know about the case based on nothing
more than anti-male prejudice. I don't know where you're from but I can
say without a doubt they sure grow 'em stupid there.

Phil #3



I just think you are a lying irresponsible asshole,

Of course, I'm a man.

I have no interest in defending your welfare clan or putting down men.

Another lie.

I can see from your posting that you are just a whiny irresponsible liar
with an anger management problem and I would never give you the benefit of
the doubt.

In other words, I'm a man.


The fact that you must realize what I figured out in 30 or so posts from
you is what causes you to become hyper defensive and angry when I post
something that disagrees with your version of reality. In this case you
know that your lazy boobs didn't emulate their mother, just like every
other boy in the world they had a male role model(s) to emulate.

Gawd, can you be this stupid and still breathe?


Of course you have no responsibility for any of their failures, or even
your own for that matter, you are just a victim whining about how things
didn't go his way. Now you have middle aged blobs for sons who refuse to
accept any responsibility and are willing to live like housepets but NONE
of that has anything to do with you or your parenting. Let me sum up
everything you ever say about this subject .... BULL****.

Here again you indicate you know all about my personal situaion (without a
clue, I might add) and intimate that men are responsible for women's
behavior.


Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
...

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

" 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.

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.

Such a ****-for-brains. My children are grown; the oldest being over 40.
During the time they were living with their mother, my contact was
restricted or eliminated by the mother. Since then, she cannot restrict
either them or me or our actions, therefore we see each other more than
we did then, however the damage had been accomplished WHILE LIVING WITH
THEIR MOTHER. You should stop attacking men and defending women you know
no better. You know absolutely none of the principals involved yet
pretend you know all there is to know about the case based on nothing
more than anti-male prejudice. I don't know where you're from but I can
say without a doubt they sure grow 'em stupid there.

Phil #3

Ever wonder where all the dirtbag "child support" people who forced your
situation are now? I have a freind who was kicked out of his family by
such thugs only to have the mother murder his son. But wait a minute, that
cannot be possible since women can do no wrong. Anyway, he was not allowed
to raise his orphaned daughter who turned out in a way that most folks
would rather not associate with. Needless to say, the mother was
incarcerated. Today, he has a pretty good, albeit strained, relationship
with her; and most of the people who robbed her of a father are now dead!


One of those involved in our current anti-male society is vice president of
the US.
Phil #3