Schwarzenegger's propaganda

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

You said one was a lawyer, therefore you are a liar. Come to think of it, I
doubt you even HAVE any children, being one yourself.

Phil #3

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



and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.


True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying
sexual bigot.
Phil #3


Or the fact that you are a lying ****bag whose advice should be avoided at
all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before you all changed
the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged except
for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth.

No, brainless, I can back up my statements. It is YOU that is wanting for
facts.
You are a bigot and a liar. Does you mommy know you play on her computer?
Phil #3

Phil #3 wrote:

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.

2nd grade insults? You really are falling apart aren't you?

2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is
based on nothing less than anti-male prejudice.

Yet you have no answer to any of it. You are going to deny that boys
find male role models because it means that you are a failure again. At
least with your little support group you can count on a few people to
pretend you aren't a complete loser and failure.

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.

I never refused to accept anything, you are so defensive about being a
complete loser that you added that bit yourself. I stated (accurately)
that boys seek and usually find male role models and rarely is a mother
one of their role models. The rest of what you read into what I say is
just your own defensive knee jerk reaction whenever anyone doesn't agree
with your blanket "blame other people" view of reality.

4) Like I said before, you're a ****in' fruitcake and you prove it with
each post you make.

Phil #3


And you prove how much of an impotent hyperdefensive loser you are. I
think I'd rather be a fruitcake.

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.

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.


"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.

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

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****.

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. 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?

Phil #3 wrote:


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


You said one was a lawyer, therefore you are a liar. Come to think of
it, I doubt you even HAVE any children, being one yourself.

Phil #3


If that makes the reality of your situation easier for you to bear then
go ahead and believe that. How many semesters of college have you paid
for? Ohhh thats right, your ex wouldn't let you encourage your children
to educate themselves ..... what a shame, now instead of regular adults
you have a pair of lazy day laborers who have to compete with mexicans
and illegal immigrants for work. Do you know that a kid getting food
stamps could easily get a college education free? Not only free but he
would receive a stipend for expenses, of course you didn't know that
because your ex wife wouldn't let you read a book and educating your
kids is not your responsibility.

Phil #3 wrote:


" wrote in message
...

Phil #3 wrote:




and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.



True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying
sexual bigot.
Phil #3


Or the fact that you are a lying ****bag whose advice should be
avoided at all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before
you all changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still
unchallenged except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth.


No, brainless, I can back up my statements. It is YOU that is wanting
for facts.
You are a bigot and a liar. Does you mommy know you play on her computer?
Phil #3


I don't need any facts from a loser like you, thanks. How does it feel
to be such a loser you have to argue with people you suspect are
children? No self esteem at all? Thats a shame, I couldn't imagine going
through life feeling the need to defend my life to a child. Even worse,
you are defending your loser lifestyle with nothing more than whines and
childish excuses. Excellent work, do you still wonder why your kids
don't take your advice? Sort of a do as I say not as I do style of
parenting. You refuse to accept responsibility for any of your failure,
instead you make excuses and hurl insults, then you wonder why your kids
are drop outs who take no responsibility.

" 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.

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