A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Schwarzenegger's propaganda



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 12th 09, 11:36 PM posted to alt.child-support
RogerN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

snip

Something I noticed is that when someone makes a Will they state something
like "I ___ Being of sound mind...". I would think the purpose of being of
sound mind is that you knew what you were doing when you made the will. On
the opposite side, when a man signs a paper establishing paternity, they
don't make sure he is informed that if DNA tests prove the child isn't his
that he will still have to pay support for the child that isn't his. So, by
that definition, most of the time the man didn't sign the paper "being of
sound mind" or at least he maybe didn't realize a signature was more
important than scientific facts. It seems like, in my non-legal opinion,
someone not knowing what they were doing by signing, by not realizing how
crooked the law is, should be grounds to nullify their signature, for the
purpose, they weren't of "sound mind".

RogerN


  #22  
Old September 13th 09, 01:11 AM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

Phil #3 wrote:


"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



Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
  #23  
Old September 13th 09, 01:18 AM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

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.

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. If you want to talk about these things forget about your
beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology.
  #24  
Old September 13th 09, 07:26 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


" 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!

  #25  
Old September 13th 09, 07:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


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


"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



Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers
(or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
lifestyle.


And you know they had a male role model how?

The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty
rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers
(father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they
are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.


With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?

City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.


Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.

  #26  
Old September 13th 09, 04:06 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

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.


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.

  #27  
Old September 13th 09, 04:11 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

Chris wrote:


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



Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into
this sort of lifestyle.



And you know they had a male role model how?


Phil told us, do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your
rant? And being a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he
describes so you can see the connection.

The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and
pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.



With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?


Exactly the same thing you are, except you are 100% wrong so you might
not get the point here.

City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.



Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.


If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will.
  #28  
Old September 13th 09, 11:14 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?

  #29  
Old September 13th 09, 11:51 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

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.
  #30  
Old September 14th 09, 02:35 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:


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



Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
lifestyle.



And you know they had a male role model how?


Phil told us,


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.

do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your rant? And being
a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he describes so you can see
the connection.

The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty
rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers
(father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as
they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.



With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?


Exactly the same thing you are,


A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is
absolutely NO relationship between the two.

except you are 100% wrong so you might not get the point here.


A claim based upon a false premise.


City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.



Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.


If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:10 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.