If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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.] |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" 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? |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
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. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
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. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" 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..." |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" 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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
" 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. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CA - Schwarzenegger's Miscreant Moms (aka - Daddy, git your shovel) | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | August 26th 06 08:02 AM |
Governor Schwarzenegger's State of the State Address 01/05/2005 | [email protected] | Solutions | 0 | January 6th 05 06:10 AM |
ABC propaganda on aspartame | john | Kids Health | 17 | September 18th 04 08:17 PM |
Debate v Propaganda | Kane | Spanking | 2 | September 14th 04 07:00 PM |
Governor Schwarzenegger's Remarks at the Republican National Convention | Big Brother | Solutions | 0 | September 2nd 04 04:37 AM |