http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTasT5h0LEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAHl5_LTGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3U0udLH974

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSsa_-GaVhY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es52WQKLumI

I think of it as legalized stealing- are there any other instances that ya’ll know of where this is the case, that law promotes stealing of property/money?

Federal taxes?

http://www.freetalklive.com - a free radio against federal goverment stealing your hard earned money. (Sorry if links irritate you, Dick. <3 )

They prefer to blame the gun; which was sitting in a drawer doing nothing until the Degenerate, raised by a single mom, grabbed it.

Makes no sense, but it avoids accountability and The Truth. Which women avoid like the plague. It always makes them look dumb. Because they are.

see said:

MeanInGreen said:

So, do you think that the best interests of all married couples and families as far as “gender roles”

Traditional gender roles came about from the partners playing to their strenghts. When you go back 100 years, it made sense for the woman to look after the kids and household while the man to workout side the home for income as the vast majority of jobs were manual labour.

Since this is no longer the case there should be some flex, but when it comes down to it, once children come into the picture it makes more sense long term financially for the male to be the primary bread winner since he won’t need to take time as much time off.

I think really what happens traditionally should be a guide, but not the final say on how marrage should work.

For example when married army couples have one member deployed, for up to 15 months the other has to make sure every thing is taken care of and ready for the others return, basicly taking over both set of roles whatever they may be.

In the end as long as someone is doing what needs to be done, which partner that does it is inconsequential.

The question is not really who’s job it should be based on past circumstances but who it makes the most sense to do it right now.

This is great stuff- I do think it’s best for kids to be raised by parents- and If I were married with kids, I would choose that over a second income, regardless of sacrifice- so long as our needs were met.

Your comment is really perfect.

Amen! A fresh breeze of common, good sense! It take two to bring a child into the world. The only crime is not taking proper responsibility for it, and involving talk show hosts and an audience while it plays in traffic.
This comment is a lighthouse.

We have more powerful orgasms than you fuckwits

Can you provide medical evidence to support that theory? Or are you just making shit up?

Suffer, morons. The definition of thirst is dehydration, basically, for you dogs, meaning “loss of water”. Beer will not rehydrate you, fools.

Actually, that’s only half true. Alcohol is a diuretic, and yes, it will dehydrate you. However, beer contains MUCH more water in it than it does alcohol. A single beer has virtually no dehydration effect on the body. In fact, alcohol is actually healthy for the body in small doses. It helps regulate the digestion amongst other things.
The problem occurs when someone drinks 4 or 5 beers. Then the diuretic effect causes the body to expel much of it’s moisture in the form of urinating, thus, dehydrating you. (That’s why you have to pee when your drink alcohol than when you drink water.)

I have a georgeous, 6′ 2″ God boyfriend who screams and moans when I fuck him, and he is beautiful. He spins me out he is so devine. You wankers are useless.

*laughs hard* So what? What does that have to do with anything? Why would you even tell us that? What point were you trying to make?

From some of the posts earlier on here, it sounds like it’d actually really be easy to ACCIDENTALLY marry someone- especially in fucking Canada!! my God!

But as a side note, I bet there are a lot of women who fuck up marriages - not because of feminism, but because they feel the same way I do- fear/resentment of the idea of losing their freedom. In their thoughts, that might morph itself into the idea of being oppressed I guess- for the sake of giving it a name, if they can’t understand the real source of those feelings. I hear this idea buried in conversations with women a lot- I don’t point it out though, because what good could really come of that?

- But the weird thing is, they all still buy into that idea of marriage that everyone is out their promoting- Not sure what that is all about- Another example of women being confused, maybe- just taking what people are selling and not stopping to think if its what they really want or if they’d be any good at it… Everyone is promoting this thing, and nobody can fucking do it anyway- so I think maybe we should all just calm down. Your chances are less that heads or tails with it. Plus, you have to trust the other person with (& for) the rest of your life - that can’t be a good idea, can it?

Are you the guy whose girlfriend got him to help move her across the country and then started acting crazy?

ok- I am familiar with that setting- I have put my arm in a cows vagina to artificially inseminate her by the way- I dated a guy who did it as his job, and sometimes I went with him. I have also seen some calves get cranked out of its mom with one of those calf cranker machines- I could deal with that on a regular basis, no problem.

I’m probably just really immature and not like the idea of signing away my freedom- at least I can admit that, ok?

Nothing wrong with that, you don’t see me married at the moment, and thank god I didn’t ask my whore ex to marry due to recent events.

Not wanting to give up your freedom is not the same thing as believing that marrage will cause you to be oppressed by your partner.

Your freedom should not be limited in marrage by your partner but by what is in the best interests of the union.

my objection to your stance on marrage was not about freedom, but your assumption that marrage goes hand in hand with female oppression which is feminist BS

Not wanting to get married because you value your freedom and independance is not the same as not wanting to get married because you think that after the reception you are going to be subjigated.

MeanInGreen said:

Hey, I didn’t catch this in your comment at first- You are saying that the nations that have imported feminizm have essentially begun to discriminate against men when it comes to money/property in marriage/intimate relationships between men and women- Are you saying in that comment, that that law has made men LESS equal, becasue it allows women to steal from them?

if you go to a farm with a traditional family living on it, things are the same as they have been for hundreds of years, other than modern equipment,
Feminists claim the farmer’s wife is opressed… the farmers wife would never consider themself such as they both do what is needed as needed, and dominance/submissiveness never comes into it…

knowing some of these ladies, I would have to say they are the more enlightened and closest to man thinking of any I have met. Bored, spoiled suburban wives and angry man hating lesbians who have never had to muck out the chicken coop, or reach up to the armpit into a cow to help with a birthing, are the ones pushing the feminism movement.

Equality already existed for the most part in the form of mutual respect, what is being pushed as women’s rights these days is not about equality, it is about making women a privledged class over men.

Looking at divorce, everything is done backwards.

the more finacially secure parent be granted custody regardless of sex. There should be a burden of proof that a parent is not suitable before custody can be removed.

The initator of divorce should never ever be granted alimony as the drop in standard of living is directly attributable to their choice to leave.

If the duties of the homemaker are equal to half the finacial income of the household, then alimony doesn’t make sense since they are no longer providing that service to the household on their leaving.

I really think of alimony as stealing- I think in divorce, if there are kids, there is a reason for both parents to contribute financially, but if not - I really don’t understand why somone can take another person’s money just because they used to be married

The only time I think it might be reasonable is when the initiating party of the divorce is the sole provider. Even then it should not extend any longer than employment insurance would. If women want to claim homemaker as a ligitimate career on par with a job outside the home, then treat it as one.

Actually I kinda like that one… get rid of alimony and enroll homemakers into employment insurance as earning 1/2 what the sole provider makes. in my case it would work out to be 39 dollars a month.

You can only claim EI if you are laid off, fired, or quit under duress (you have to provide proof) so this would fit right in with my thoughts on the matter

I think of it as legalized stealing- are there any other instances that ya’ll know of where this is the case, that law promotes stealing of property/money?

Paying sales tax on a used vehicle everytime it is sold.

Being required as a citizen to pay employment insurance, yet not being able to claim it as a member of the military.

Inheritance tax

Governments can and will take what is not fought for by the general public.

ok- I am familiar with that setting- I have put my arm in a cows vagina to artificially inseminate her by the way- I dated a guy who did it as his job, and sometimes I went with him. I have also seen some calves get cranked out of its mom with one of those calf cranker machines- I could deal with that on a regular basis, no problem.

I’m probably just really immature and not like the idea of signing away my freedom- at least I can admit that, ok?

see said:

Are you kidding me? I think in the US it depends on the state- but I think in mine, you actually have to be married

We don’t have “common law” marriages in my state- most states have done away with that, I think.

in Alabama if the females uses the mans name, it’s common law. If you take care of a woman for a few years is alimony time.
If she is pregnant.. It’s common law and potential assrape time.
Prenups are worthless once kids are born.

Hey, I didn’t catch this in your comment at first- You are saying that the nations that have imported feminizm have essentially begun to discriminate against men when it comes to money/property in marriage/intimate relationships between men and women- Are you saying in that comment, that that law has made men LESS equal, becasue it allows women to steal from them?

if you go to a farm with a traditional family living on it, things are the same as they have been for hundreds of years, other than modern equipment,
Feminists claim the farmer’s wife is opressed… the farmers wife would never consider themself such as they both do what is needed as needed, and dominance/submissiveness never comes into it…

knowing some of these ladies, I would have to say they are the more enlightened and closest to man thinking of any I have met. Bored, spoiled suburban wives and angry man hating lesbians who have never had to muck out the chicken coop, or reach up to the armpit into a cow to help with a birthing, are the ones pushing the feminism movement.

Equality already existed for the most part in the form of mutual respect, what is being pushed as women’s rights these days is not about equality, it is about making women a privledged class over men.

Looking at divorce, everything is done backwards.

the more finacially secure parent be granted custody regardless of sex. There should be a burden of proof that a parent is not suitable before custody can be removed.

The initator of divorce should never ever be granted alimony as the drop in standard of living is directly attributable to their choice to leave.

If the duties of the homemaker are equal to half the finacial income of the household, then alimony doesn’t make sense since they are no longer providing that service to the household on their leaving.

I really think of alimony as stealing- I think in divorce, if there are kids, there is a reason for both parents to contribute financially, but if not - I really don’t understand why somone can take another person’s money just because they used to be married

The only time I think it might be reasonable is when the initiating party of the divorce is the sole provider. Even then it should not extend any longer than employment insurance would. If women want to claim homemaker as a ligitimate career on par with a job outside the home, then treat it as one.

Actually I kinda like that one… get rid of alimony and enroll homemakers into employment insurance as earning 1/2 what the sole provider makes. in my case it would work out to be 39 dollars a month.

You can only claim EI if you are laid off, fired, or quit under duress (you have to provide proof) so this would fit right in with my thoughts on the matter

I think of it as legalized stealing- are there any other instances that ya’ll know of where this is the case, that law promotes stealing of property/money?

Paying sales tax on a used vehicle everytime it is sold.

Being required as a citizen to pay employment insurance, yet not being able to claim it as a member of the military.

Inheritance tax

Governments can and will take what is not fought for by the general public.

Clair said:

uhh..this is off topic…. but uz should download (legally of course :P) the song “She’s and Angel to You, But she a Devil to Me” by the Click 5…

I laughed when I heard it, cause it reminds me of this site somehow..:D

Lol…now 50 cents P.I.M.P reminds me off a Dick…lol

MansVoice said:

@ Clair: No, a man calls the final shot. A woman can give her input and advice, yes… but a man should make the decision.

This was said BEAUTIFULLY and this is what I honestly reckon.

MeanInGreen said:

So, do you think that the best interests of all married couples and families as far as “gender roles”

Traditional gender roles came about from the partners playing to their strenghts. When you go back 100 years, it made sense for the woman to look after the kids and household while the man to workout side the home for income as the vast majority of jobs were manual labour.

Since this is no longer the case there should be some flex, but when it comes down to it, once children come into the picture it makes more sense long term financially for the male to be the primary bread winner since he won’t need to take time as much time off.

I think really what happens traditionally should be a guide, but not the final say on how marrage should work.

For example when married army couples have one member deployed, for up to 15 months the other has to make sure every thing is taken care of and ready for the others return, basicly taking over both set of roles whatever they may be.

In the end as long as someone is doing what needs to be done, which partner that does it is inconsequential.

The question is not really who’s job it should be based on past circumstances but who it makes the most sense to do it right now.

So that makes it hard- they aren’t interested, maybe.

Zardoz said:

see said:

MeanInGreen said:

sounds like I should move to Australia… in Canada it’s 3-6 months depending on the province

Are you kidding me? I think in the US it depends on the state- but I think in mine, you actually have to be married
1.ceremony (preformed by person with liscense)
2.witness
3.certificate

We don’t have “common law” marriages in my state- most states have done away with that, I think.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights provide men a fighting chance at some semblance of genuine “equality”. Other nations that imported feminism don’t all have a fighting chance while manginas happily say “yes sweetheart, whatever makes you happy dear” just to ensure they get laid every second saturday night.

Hey, I didn’t catch this in your comment at first- You are saying that the nations that have imported feminizm have essentially begun to discriminate against men when it comes to money/property in marriage/intimate relationships between men and women- Are you saying in that comment, that that law has made men LESS equal, becasue it allows women to steal from them?

I really think of alimony as stealing- I think in divorce, if there are kids, there is a reason for both parents to contribute financially, but if not - I really don’t understand why somone can take another person’s money just because they used to be married -

I think of it as legalized stealing- are there any other instances that ya’ll know of where this is the case, that law promotes stealing of property/money?

see said:
I’ tyring to spread the word among other women (without telling them about mbtw, of course) but they don’t understand what I’m trying to tell them.

Try using analogies about lip-gloss, shoes and movie star relationships. That will at least keep their attention for a little while. You have to target your language to the audience. Consider the confusion you felt when man-logic finally melded into your perception of things, then consider how much harder it is for other females who don’t even have the patience to listen let alone try figure it out.