Schwarzenegger's propaganda

" 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.

Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!

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.

" 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."

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

Chris wrote:


Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!


You wonder why people don't take you seriously?

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 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.

" 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.
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
...
Chris wrote:


Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!


You wonder why people don't take you seriously?


Hope you didn't hurt your arm in patting yourself on the back like that.
Phil #3

" wrote in message
...
Phil #3 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.


You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to
learn because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Phil #3


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

" 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 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.


"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.
"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.

Phil #3

" 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

" 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.



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


That says nothing about any continued involvement.


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