Women Hate Babies
Women hate children.
Remember that book Hillary Clinton wrote called “It takes a Village to Raise a Child”? I don’t know if that was the exact title. It’s not important enough of a thing for me to remember in that manner of detail. That was the point though; that women can’t raise children on their own. They need help and more importantly they need men.
Remember that movie Three Men and a Baby? I do remember that title exactly because that was a good fucking movie. What was the moral of that movie?
Men don’t need shit to raise shit — babies.
Women fucking suck at raising children. Men can raise children, work full time jobs, maintain hobbies like drinking and bowling, and all while saving time to chase tail. That’s because men are men. We’re better parents and when it comes to living life we’re like octopuses on crack; our tentacles in one hundred different pies.
Women hate babies and children. That’s why women love little dogs so much — because they’re all fucking sick.
Want to know how you’ve really pissed off a woman? One good way to know is that fucking her isn’t like fucking a futon. She’s still terrible at it, but don’t feel bad about giving her credit for enthusiasm. Women need all the charity they can get.
Another good way to know if you’ve gotten under a woman’s skin is if she’s speaking to you like a child. When women are yelling and screaming, that’s about a 5 on the feminine anger scale. A 1 on the scale is the silent treatment. That lasts for about a week or until said woman figures out that’s the dumbest fucking way on Earth to show a man you’re upset with him. That’s like heaven to a man. It also has never lasted less than a week.
When a woman is talking to you like a child — very patronizingly and almost giddy with a repressed psycho-mania — that’s when you know you’ve pissed her off. By the way, that’s also when you know she’s about ten seconds away from pulling your pants off. That’s information you can use at your discretion.
That’s why women shouldn’t be allowed to raise babies on their own. They hate babies. Women treat people they hate the same way they treat children — patronizing and bubbly. Men don’t ever pull that kind of shit. When a man is upset, he calmly, cooly, and sternly explains himself. Men treat babies differently than people they hate. That’s what I’m saying here.
It’s a myth that women like babies. They just want to have them. They want to have babies like they want to have purses and Starbuck’s. The only difference is you can’t sell babies on eBay.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 14 … 11 10 9 8 7 [6] 5 4 3 2 1 » Show All
Luka said:
Nobody deserves to be beaten black and blue in a relationship, it is not an appropriate way to behave, even when provoked. There is never any justification or excuse for that behaviour. People who engage in violence within a relationship have issues - with anger or self-control whatever and need to seek help.
-I think that you are wrong here, take for example the dog that is constantly beaten and whipped. Chained to its post it cannot do anything against its tormentors. Yet you would blame the dog for lashing out violently? It’s similar in principle Luka, after years of physical, emotional, and mental abuse, SUPRISINGLY SOME MEN LASH OUT! WHAT A SURPRISE! I WONDER WHY THAT HAPPENED!? Not every case is like this however I wonder how many actually are like that. Women have no concept of what they do to other people, nor do they care.–
However, if a woman is with a man with such issues and is fully aware of his temper it makes no sense to call her a victim if she provokes him with jealousy and mind games. I am not defending his actions, but she is partly responsible for the reaction she has provoked. Usually such women provoke a man in this way to gain a reaction and is another form of bullying in itself.
–It’s called manipulation, and women are experts at it. They recieve training from birth onwards. Why do you think that women talk about how they are going to “catch” a man e.g. “Nice catch”? There are many examples of this and many womens approaches and thoughts torwards men are flawed to begin with, thats why they get used and thrown away. They aren’t worth the time to decipher.–
No, I am not avoiding the viewpoint that such women deserve a beating because I ‘dont have the balls’ as you put it. That is because I don’t think anyone ‘deserves’ a beating. Who am I to judge who is or isn’t deserving of such treatment?
I would never ever wish that upon another human being. I know it may appear that way but I am limited on an internet forum to communicate a subtle difference in my point… what I am looking at is cause and effect… if a woman knows how to press the buttons to create a violent reaction in a man who she knows has issues with anger and violence, who is really the victim in such a situation?
–In my view, many women gain power through being a “victim”. The refusal to accept responsibility for your own words or actions, gives you power. You don’t have to have a “conscience”. You don’t have to work with a code of ethics, which would limit you torwards an honorable course of action. In todays society being a victim is what its all about. You gain power through being “powerless” (a true perversion of nature).–
Feminists create their own enemies every day. How long do you have to hear that you’re a violent oppressor of women, day in and day out before you actually become one? How long do you have to listen to the lies, the self-effacing comments, the subtle denials, the narcissim, ect ect, before you become completely disgusted with that whole aspect of humanity? What does it take? Tell me Luka I am interested in your anwser to this question.
-Strength and Honor-
So to your fat arse likely does.
Despite the slightly mocking tone you have there, I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.
Nobody deserves to be beaten black and blue in a relationship, it is not an appropriate way to behave, even when provoked. There is never any justification or excuse for that behaviour. People who engage in violence within a relationship have issues - with anger or self-control whatever and need to seek help.
However, if a woman is with a man with such issues and is fully aware of his temper it makes no sense to call her a victim if she provokes him with jealousy and mind games. I am not defending his actions, but she is partly responsible for the reaction she has provoked. Usually such women provoke a man in this way to gain a reaction and is another form of bullying in itself.
No, I am not avoiding the viewpoint that such women deserve a beating because I ‘dont have the balls’ as you put it. That is because I don’t think anyone ‘deserves’ a beating. Who am I to judge who is or isn’t deserving of such treatment?
I would never ever wish that upon another human being. I know it may appear that way but I am limited on an internet forum to communicate a subtle difference in my point… what I am looking at is cause and effect… if a woman knows how to press the buttons to create a violent reaction in a man who she knows has issues with anger and violence, who is really the victim in such a situation?
Luka, that was a typical feminine response, and I guess I didn’t expect anything different from you. The fact that you didn’t say something similar is a bit shocking. Even more amazing is:
What you said was 50% correct, so I took the liberty of putting the other 50% in. But that was a very good attempt at open minded thinking there. Congrats, Luka, because I am starting to gain respect for you.
However, that is exactly what you’re saying. If you were a man, you wouldn’t have to say it without saying it like that. That’s why men are born with balls.
Gents, take it to the Politik Man Forums.
-Dick
wolfe, surely the Muslim masses support Bin Laden no matter what he does. They fundamentally hate America and to them any alternative is better. But the actual top teirs of the structure of Al Queda? Of course they have different opinions than him. They’re not pawns, there associates and fellow terrorists and veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war.
Do you think they don’t have say in the strategy of their Jihad against the west? It has been said that Bin Laden is the figurehead, but Dr. Zawahiri the mastermind of operations.
And Bin Laden’s persmission from Islamic religous elites is vital to his propaganda effort and recruiting in this war. Was not Caesar even proclaimed Emporer for life by the pagan religious leaders before the Senate said so?
It’s extremely difficult for me to evaluate the threat posed to the US by Muslim terrorists. The problem is simple: what information do you trust?
A fair percentage of the information comes from the press. Unfortunately for the press, I’ve had too many dealings with its members in the past to trust anything they report. I’ve been directly involved in news stories on a number of occasions, and in every single one, what the press reported and what I saw or did didn’t match. In one instance, I even had a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times actually make up quotes. Admittedly, I liked what she claimed I said better than what I actually said, but the fact remains that it was total fiction. It wasn’t a misquote: what I said had the same intent, but she reworked it so that it had greater emotional impact.
So I’ve learned to assume that anything you read from the member of the press should be assumed to be wholly fiction — or at best, tangential to reality.
Leaving out the press as a source of information, we have government sources. The problem with trusting them is that they’ve already proved themselves to be either unreliable or outright lies. On a good day, I tend to choose the former explanation, and today is a good day.
Given: the intelligence wings of the government have consistently failed to do good work for decades (they said the Soviet Union was still a threat almost as it was imploding).
Given: under the best of circumstances, information released by government to the public will have as a first goal reassuring the public and secondarily to confuse the enemy.
Given: the press is inherently inaccurate.
What source can one trust to inform one’s opinions?
There is only one: personal friends. That’s all. People that you’ve known and trusted for a long time and who have personal experience in whatever it is that you’re interested in.
This is why, when the WTC towers fell in what looked like a controlled demolition, I immediately called my oldest friend. He is a forensic engineer who worked for a number of years at Boeing, and his job was to take planes that had crashed, reconstruct them, and figure out what failed and how they fell apart. While not an expert in building construction, you can see that the same scientific principles apply.
When he told me that the towers probably pancaked, I believed him. I still believe him. I didn’t pay the slightest attention to the press or the government or the conspiracy theorists, I listened to the informed opinion of someone I knew I could trust.
Who involved in international terrorism can I trust?
No one I know.
Consequently, I don’t have a basis on which to evaluate the true threat Muslim terrorists pose. I agree that there is a potential threat, but it’s possible that this is simply a case of “the mouse that roared.” I mean, I could get some people to give me permission to kill ten million Americans, but could I actually pull it off?
Heh. Women are not 100% angels in the relationship department, let’s face it.
I know this is very non-PC but I am completely against violence in a relationship - that said, some women I know in my life I would easily give a punch in the gob if I were her boyfriend. What some feminists seem to ignore is the fact that some women ARE SO ANNOYING that they earn themselves a slap in the face.
A woman I once knew used to tease her boyfriend about her sleeping with other men among other fucked up mindgames and wonder why he would get all insecure and violent towards her… don’t get me wrong, there is rarely an excuse for using violence nor would I say she ‘deserved’ to be treated that way….however she is NOT a victim, she provokes him to act against his better nature, when he lashes out she is the victim, not him - even though she is emotionally and psychologically abusing him!
Women are capable of malice, mind games and violence, it is not impossible that a divorce would be an option for a man with such a woman as a wife and that a woman can be mostly to blame for that turn of events.
The idea that bin Laden lost support from the faithful Muslims? Hmmm… did you see all the people from Morocco through Indonesia cheering in the streets after 9/11?
I don’t think bin Laden feels he needs permission from anyone to take 10 million US lives.
I also doubt they he can take that many, not without a lot of nuclear weapons, and I don’t see them gaining (and smuggling in) more than one or so. A hundred thousand dead? Sure.
And that, ironically, would be the one thing that probably would rouse America: mass civilian casualties.
The other scenario of 4 million Iranians pouring across the border… while awful, that’d be a very bad move on the Iranian’s part. First, most Arabs would view that as Persians attacking Arabs. Second, they’d be relatively easy to stop if they poured across the border like that. Finally, it’d be a blatant causus belli, even for the Europeans. Coupled with a nuclear strike on New York killing 100,000 innocent people, I imagine even (especially) Hillary Clinton would be screaming for us to nuke Tehran.
No, it’s the slow steady drip of military casualties combined with defeatist democrats that poses the biggest threat to us, I think. Quiet Iranian funding, technology transfer, and a slow steady stream of suicide bombers being infiltrated seems more likely from the Iranians. From non-state actors, I agree, a nuclear device used on US soil is a near certainty over the next 20 years.
-wolfe
But those wars of attrition and massive deaths are exactly what our enemies are willing to do, for however long it takes. Bin Laden and friends once believed that terrorist attacks with convential weapons and guerilla tactics alone would shake the will of the US. It has, but so far it appears we’re not waving the surrender flag yet…
But what happens with a combination of a nuclear strike on NYC or DC, and 4 million Iranian suicide bombers and soldiers pouring across the border into Iraq to slaughter our troops?
I don’t know how many of you are really informed about Al Queda, but there is a reason US soil has not been attacked since 9/11. And I’m sorry fellas, it’s not because of anything we’re doing.
After the 9/11 strikes, Bin Laden lost much support from his most trusted troops, who even fought with him against the USSR in the 80’s. Even his own son abandoned him!! You see, in Islam, Muhammed orders you give your enemies ample chance to convert before attacking. And in the past 5 years Al Queda has done nothing but tell Americans the shock that is coming and they can make it all go away. Now the warnings are finished and Bin Laden has been given permission from Muslim scholars to take 10 MILLION AMERICAN LIVES.
@Dakota, on your argument re US rule over Europe, the short answer is “No.”. Here’s the long answer:
Actually just that happened, and back in 1986 during the Cold War. (Pre-Bush, back when everyone supposedly loved us and feared the Soviets). The strike on Soviet-backed Libya. Libyan terrorists had set off bombs in Germany, supplied arms to the IRA and been up to their usual nastiness. That wasn’t enough for Europe.
With the exception of Great Britain, everyone in Europe refused the Reagan administration overflight/airspace rights. So the US had to fly a 2800-mile mission, refueling in the air 5 times.
Having visited (and even lived there), the idea that the US rules Europe is not one that’s easy for me to give much credence to. Exercises a lot of commercial influence? Cultural influence? Sure. Rules? No.
I’d agree with that. And, as in the 1986 example, Europe has only grown more hostile to operational US military use of their airspace. Don’t count on any flights out of (or even over) European countries with the possible exception of Britain if (say) Iran gets bombed.
Your view on PNAC/WoT is more cynical than mine, but I agree with most of it.
Your final paragraph on “nasty war… no connections to the US” and what we’d do in the event of a WW2-type situation are bang on. I concur completely.
-wolfe
Actually, I disagree: the US does, in fact, rule all of Europe and a fair chunk of Asia (though not all).
The proof? There are very few countries left that control their own airspace.
If a US military aircraft takes off from a base in Germany or Japan, it need not wind its way around borders. It may go effectively wherever it likes whenever it likes.
Certainly in most cases the US will make the pretense of “asking permission” for the aircraft to fly through another country’s airspace, but that’s a formality at best. Few countries would deny permission, and if they did, there would be hell to pay. Furthermore, what if they did deny permission? There’s nothing to stop the US from ignoring them short of actually shooting down a US aircraft. How many countries are technologically capable of doing so? How many would take the risk?
I submit that since the first wave of attack in any war for the forseeable future will come from the air, any country that has relinquished sovereignity of its airspace to another country no longer has effective sovereignity at all.
Reverse it to see what I mean: would the US allow, say, a North Korean bomber to take off from a base in Canada and overfly American airspace? Not on your life, it wouldn’t! Yet a vast majority of countries in the world will allow a US bomber to overfly them.
Consequently, any country that acts as though it is sovereign in this day and age is doing so with the US’ blessing. In real life, if any of them gave the US real trouble, the US could come in and destroy them at any time.
This is as close to a true world government as we’ll ever see.
PNAC seeks to expand this kind of sovereignity to the entire world. It’s doomed to failure because, as we both agree, the US citizenry simply won’t put up for what’s necessary to see it through for the time necessary for it to be successful.
The intent, I assume, is to use the War On Terror as a new Cold War to get people used to at least footing the bill and providing soldiers to implement PNAC. As long as terrorists exist somewhere there can always be a War On Terror. And since terrorism is a tactic employed by the undergunned in any conflict, there will always be terrorism somewhere.
Again, I don’t think getting people used to funding PNAC via the War On Terror will work long-term. The problem is that if the War On Terror is fairly successful (which it’s been so far), eventually terrorists will stop threatening the US in favor of a lesser target. At the point at which there’s been no threats to the US, people will start wondering why all the money is being spent to fund overseas operations that have nothing to do with American security.
And of course, all it takes is for one really nasty war in a foreign country with no connections to a US threat to make the whole house of cards fall down. In reality, the war in Iraq hasn’t even been a war compared to anything fought in the 20th century. I’m not sure what the American public would do in this day and age if conditions were anything like what my grandparents experienced in WWII.
@Son of the suns - Dakota’s advice is very good. I’d toss in (even though it’s a bit juvenile, and even if he has become more conservative) J Neil Schulman’s Alongside Night. He also had another book written (I think) in the 80’s that had the Politically Correct winning control of society. It was disturbingly prescient as to the changes that would appear in our society.
Heinlein of course if you haven’t already.
Jerry Pournelle — mostly, though not exclusively conservative. But his book “Oath of Fealty” was, I felt, a relatively libertarian work that had some interesting thoughts on order, security and freedom. I believe that book coined the phrase “Think of it as evolution in action”, used when someone dies doing something very stupid and evil.
-wolfe
@Dakota A Nokia 770. And there’s a passable PDF reader included, but the rendering engine is horribly slow. Given that it’s a 225/250 MHz (forget which) StrongARM processor, this is hardly surprising. Even if it were a fast rendering engine, I greatly prefer using FBReader which is lightning fast and lets you customize ebooks to look the way you want them to. At 275 dpi, the 770 is very close to passable laserprint quality. It’s not typeset, but it’s very nice and readable. Good for people who like to play around with technology; not so good for typical end users.
As for Northwoods — and I only know what I read back in the late 90’s, so if more’s come out since then, I might be out of date — my understanding was that it was a DoD produced, military-approved document rather than something out of the civilian/political side. It certainly did contain a number of terrible ideas though. That doesn’t totally invalidate your argument, but it does let politicians off the hook, IMO, on that narrow charge.
I do think that the greatest danger is not Politican X, but the faceless bureaucrat X. Virtually every single one of the Patriot Act proposals had been charted out in the Justice Department at least as far back as the Janet Reno days.
As you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but if it’s any consolation, I do think there are plenty of bureaucrats as dark and nasty as you suggest (and Northwoods certainly supports that view)… just not well enough organized or capable of mounting such a conspiracy.
I don’t see PNAC as trying to rule 5 billion people via a world government; I do see it trying to repeat what was done in Germany and Japan after WW2. (You could of course argue that involved ruling over Germany and Japan for some years. True enough… but not over all Europe and Asia). And even that lesser goal is simply not overly feasible, given the state of the rest of the world.
The British Empire had a lengthy try over some centuries, and it had some spectacular successes, but Singapore, and Hong Kong are the only ‘non-colonized’ places that really stand out. Moreover, South Korea was about as a big a success on the part of the US, and that at least didn’t involve the burden of Empire.
Given that US efforts are going to be generally lesser (though may involve a lot more money) unless we really do want American Empire (I don’t; you sure don’t!), I just don’t see it as overly feasible.
As usual, I’ve a marginally sunnier view of PNAC; we both do agree whatever the view it’s approaching zero feasibility.
-wolfe
By using a police state and not being afraid to kill anyone who gets in the way. Note that I said short of a worldwide police state, ruling five billion people was impossible.
Note that the shreading of the US Constitution began in earnest only after the first Federal victim disarmament laws a little under a century ago. There is a causal relationship.
See, every human being pulling down a government check needs to be afraid for his life every waking hour.
Specifically, Congressman Joe Blow should sleep with his back to the wall, worried that one his constituents — packing the same or better heat than his personal guards might carry — will at any moment show up and blow his brains all over the Rotunda ceiling.
If government officials are afraid that the next law they pass might be their last, they won’t pass very many laws.
A century ago, politicians had every reason to be afraid. Consequently, government was limited. Today they have no reason to be afraid, and they’re spreading government overseas.
China will collapse for the same reason as the Soviet Union did, and under the same circumstances: the United States will stop propping it up. Without outside help, China is no more economically viable than the Soviet Union was.
For that matter, it’s pretty clear that the US will ultimately collapse the same way. Socialism is economically unstable for a variety of reasons and in the end causes its own demise.
My fear is that China and the US will collapse at about the same time — China falling shortly after the US because it no longer had US checks to keep it afloat.
That’s preposterous. China alone is what? 2 billion? They seem to be managing quite well indeed at keeping all the biorobots in line.
Such arguments are akin to that that legally, or otherwise, possessing and hauling firearms on the thigh is somehow an effective deterrent towards governmental legislated and institutionalised abuse of its own citizens that yanks seem to dread every waking moment as well as in their nightmares.
Perhaps not all that unwarranted or undue an uneasiness, after all. Merely the precautions against such that are risibly childish.
One thing though. China ruling the world is far worse a prospect, from where I stand, than America.
And, worryingly, America isn’t going to be even the de facto world ruler for much longer. It’s China’s ascendence as economic world leader that will usher the end times.
I urge you to read L. Neil Smith, then. There’s nothing he writes that is not anarcho-capitalist. Even his Llando Calrissian Adventures (some of the first Star Wars tie-in novels) have an anarcho-capitalist message.
Start with The Probability Broach. It’s still in print and can be found at Amazon and a number of higher-end booksellers. I also recommend the graphic novel of TPB released last year. I forget who published it, but you can ask for it from your local comic store or Google it.
After that, buy and download the unexpurgated Tom Paine Maru. It’s very useful to have read TPB first.
There are a number of books that fall chronologically between TPB and TPM, and all of them are quite good. But TPB and TPM are by far my favorites. Also, the other books are out of print, so you have to go to online used bookstores to find them.
Also try Forge Of the Elders, which I believe is also in print. It’s a massive book and was originally planned as three books — the final book of which was cancelled by the publisher for being far too politically incorrect. Imagine a near-future where Soviet-style totalitarianism was rescued from its 1990s demise by the American government …
Neil’s also working on a book he calls “the Texas book” that I’ve been lucky enough to read drafts of. Imagine an alternate universe where Taxas became its own country … and something very strange happened in Roswell in 1948 …
It doesn’t have DRM that I’m aware of. Neil’s not a believer in DRM, and in any case I know how the PDF was generated and I’m pretty sure there’s no provision for DRM in that process.
What handheld, by the way? I’ve got a variety of PDF readers for a variety of handhelds …
There were about 40 pages of the book cut immediately before the book went to print. Neil was not happy. He thought the cuts were pointless, gutting much of his message about repression as a survival characteristic. I didn’t notice it so much reading the book, but when I read the unexpurgated version, I understood what he was talking about.
The additional text does not, in my mind, transform the book dramatically, it clarifies some portions that seemed a little vague.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s just that I still remember the days before 9/11 when everyone in Washington was a blood-sucking bottom-feeder rife with amoral strife. 9/11 didn’t change anyone’s personality, so why should I assume they’re better today?
I’ve also read a fair amount about Operation Northwoods. so I’m pretty sure Washington bottom-feeders fantasize about things like that. If Johnson was doing it, why would any of his antecedants be any better? They’re all the same kind of power-mad sociopath, after all.
At worst, they think that if they were dictator, they could change the world for the better. At best, they’re all about the pussy they can get while in office.
We’ve kind of discussed this, but moral questions aside, I think PNAC is bad because it is unimplementable. I totally understand that they think they’d be doing the world a favor by making the US the de jure world government instead of only the de facto one. I don’t see, however, that it’s possible to implement short of a world police state. Five billion people simply can’t be ruled from a central government if five billion people don’t want to be ruled.
There is no way to convince five billion people to want to be ruled from a central government. It’s just not happening. So unless the US is prepared to commit serious resources to the project — trillions of dollars over many years, with a concerted effort and the understanding that it will kill a generation or two of soldiers — then there’s no point in even getting started.
A central government ruling five billion individuals is only marginally more implementable than herding five billion cats.
I need to start reading libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic SciFi.
I’ve always despised Star Trek which is the antithesis of a free future. Star Wars is kind of in between, we know George Lucas is a Jedi fanboy and the Jedi stand for the Republic, but do they also stand for the corruption that goes with it? The Sith seem to think so, which is how the chosen one was seduced to join them to wipe the Jedi clean.. well that and seeing his wife with the former best friend who has come to kill you.
As far as tv/movies go.. Firefly or Farscape, seems like a better future. The only standing goverments in those universes are far from governed, and are notably evil and imperialistic. But people can choose to live the rough life, survive, and keep their souls from damnation.