Behold, a Witless Wall of Wankers!
Here is an interesting discussion thread on an Irish political forum - three pages worth! You'll want to read the first two pages at the very least:
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=26415&postdays
=0&postorder=asc&start=0
For certain I admire the staunch Irish MRA who posted the thread - although I think he could have played his cards a bit differently and come off better. But he was a game lad for all o' that: a tip of the hat to him!
Reading this material ought to have you spitting fire and brimstone. When you are done with it, you might get the uncontrollable urge to storm onto the streets like sansculottes in order to rip out cobblestones and build barricades! Fair warning, chums!
Study the respondent posts on the thread, and you will understand with sickening clarity that the more things change, the more they stay the same! These people are simply a recycled edition of the fat-headed bourgeoisie of yesteryear! That's right: they are the Establishment; they are the Pigs!
And nowadays (in case you hadn't noticed) piggery prospers clean across the entire political spectrum, in all of its reaches - left, right, center. . . it's all good!
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. . .
If it had been me, I'd have spent less time arguing, and more time simply reading them the riot act! Scrying their palms and predicting their future, you might say.
Is it possible to get through to these people by any means short of a palpable threat to their position? Is raw, cold FEAR the only force that will ever move such immovable objects? Rhetorically speaking, a cobblestone full in the teeth? Would such a missile have gone amiss? Will it come to that? Must it come to that..?? Certainly, this bears thinking about.
Peace.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=26415&postdays
=0&postorder=asc&start=0
For certain I admire the staunch Irish MRA who posted the thread - although I think he could have played his cards a bit differently and come off better. But he was a game lad for all o' that: a tip of the hat to him!
Reading this material ought to have you spitting fire and brimstone. When you are done with it, you might get the uncontrollable urge to storm onto the streets like sansculottes in order to rip out cobblestones and build barricades! Fair warning, chums!
Study the respondent posts on the thread, and you will understand with sickening clarity that the more things change, the more they stay the same! These people are simply a recycled edition of the fat-headed bourgeoisie of yesteryear! That's right: they are the Establishment; they are the Pigs!
And nowadays (in case you hadn't noticed) piggery prospers clean across the entire political spectrum, in all of its reaches - left, right, center. . . it's all good!
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. . .
If it had been me, I'd have spent less time arguing, and more time simply reading them the riot act! Scrying their palms and predicting their future, you might say.
Is it possible to get through to these people by any means short of a palpable threat to their position? Is raw, cold FEAR the only force that will ever move such immovable objects? Rhetorically speaking, a cobblestone full in the teeth? Would such a missile have gone amiss? Will it come to that? Must it come to that..?? Certainly, this bears thinking about.
Peace.
posted by Fidelbogen at 9:18 PM
12 Comments:
I read one and a half pages, could not continue.
Even though we got one sense making MRA talking to two dipshits, I could not handle it.
Even thought there are only two opponents, the arrogance, ignorance, righteousness in their attitude I see all around me.
Men have no rights, men always are wrong, and we shall take it like a man.
One day, one day, men will understand equality means treating women like men. That day, I hope things change before that, will be a rude awakening to these two dipshits.
No fact thrown at them, they accept. And there are only that many facts to be stated. One day the facts will come to an end.
That will be the day not when women wake up, but when men will wake up.
Even a wall bends when faced with facts.
Electro should simply translate his feelings into actions: if he feels that he was tricked into having a child OR if his wife pulled the bait and switch on him after marriage, he should bolt the country by any means necessary. Many will feel that he has an obligation to his kid but does a woman have an obligation to the fetus in her due to a rapist?
If, within the context of bad marriages, more rich men took off for greener pastures, it would leave behind a majority of poor men within bad marriages. Now, if you had a lot of poor men, other rich men and women would have to foot the bill for the divorced women and their progeny. Single rich men and women (an increasing sector of the population) would be firmly against welfare, since they are paying for the welfare of others, never their own, and they would find ways to weasel out. Hence, the burden would fall more on married men and married women. These folks wont like it one bit either but they will have to foot the bill anyways.
In the US, the response has been to seize men's passports/revoking their driving licenses or garnishing wages. However, the creative man can (and should) still get around these roadblocks. The government will have to devote more resources to foil men fleeing and this will cause those within the system to either see benefits cut, taxes raised or inflation to be hiked. Another alternative has been to put men in jail. In this scenario, who is paying for the women and kids in jail? Why, it's the taxpayer! Unfortunately, some will go to jail but ultimately, the government will become overwhelmed because it will be paying for the upkeep of the jailed men too!
Perhaps then, some positive change will be fostered. Until such time, men should extricate themselves from financial rape by any means necessary. Let the government tie itself into pretzels running after its own citizens.
@Davout: Did it escape your eye that ELectro was not talking about his own case in particular..?
Other than that, kudos for your comments! And I would add, bring on the marriage strike... and politically-based male bonding in general.
@Ze German: Ahhh....ve haff another German here, ja? We also have Michael hereabouts. ;)
But yes, it was a wretched, sickening conversation - and more than just 2 antagonists, as I recall.
As for ze wall - I don't think "facts" will bend this one. Oh no. I believe that only fear (or threat of some kind) will do the trick. In the present case, I believe this will consist of politically based arm-twisting that will go into action as the Movement develops itself and builds coalitions.
And if not that? Well then, I predict it shall be cobblestones and worse. . .
Hi Fidelbogen! I'm not going to click on that link today, because after clicking on one of your recent links, I always need an insane amount of listening to Van Morrison to get my belief in humankind back again... ;-)
But maybe I'll click on it tomorrow... :-)
And greetings to ze german of course!
@fidel: It completely escaped me.
I guess I jumped into that one without the requisite doublecheck because I know someone who shafted via paternity fraud and who is now paying alimony+child support.
The guy I'm talking about is similar to the prototypical 'nice guy+provider' is more of an acquaintance than a friend. He cohabitated with someone whom I consider to be a demanding chick. From what he told me, they both had an understanding that there would be NO children involved. He didn't have a problem with abortion and said that his girlfriend didn't either. Consequently, there was no foreseeable problem to having sex with her in his eyes: they would use contraceptives, and in the unlikely event she did get pregnant, she would get an abortion.... as he said she had promised to....
Lo and behold, she suddenly became pregnant after three months of shacking up. Now, this guy figured that she would get the abortion. As it turns out, she decided to keep the baby and he couldn't do a damn thing about it. Adding to his consternation, the baby boy didn't have any of his features. On top of all this, the woman demanded that he 'man up' to his paternal 'responsibilities', as she saw it. Rather than bolt for the great unknown, this guy then married her! She listed him as the biological dad and he did not object, even though he had niggling doubts. Two years down the road, the woman dumped him and went with a 'bad boy'. Some people confirmed that she was sleeping with the other guy during the faux marriage.
To cut a long, melodramatic story short, he is paying alimony to a female who initiated the divorce because she felt like doing another guy, and also paying child support for a kid that may or may not be his but which was born against his will in any case. I recommended he get a paternity test but he told me the ex-wife wouldn't allow it. Apparently, there is a time deadline which one cannot exceed if one wants to contest paternity.
The story gets my goat because the guy got penalised for reasons that were absolutely not his fault. These very same reasons are enshrined in law as women's 'rights'. What's scary is that he, for a while, bought the notion that paying her alimony and child support was 'the manly thing to do' regardless of her trickery.
In the end, one can say he picked a lemon to begin with or ask questions as to why he did not demand a paternity test immediately or accuse him of marrying for the wrong reasons. Regardless, I think his ex-wife is completely responsible for the paternity fraud, assuming what he and others have told me is accurate, whether or not the kid is his.
But... *IF* the child is biologically his, it isn't really paternity fraud by definition, is it..?
I don't give a shit how much I get slandered here for this comment, but that Kate P. bitch needs to die a slow & painful death.
I am sick & tired of reading this feminazi shit on political message boards, and I am not staying silent about it any longer!
You guys need to start getting plum mad-dog mean, and not express affability toward these damn broads like you've been doing for the last 2 years on these blogs!
Sorry, but to me that's what has been transpiring.
"I don't give a shit how much I get slandered here for this comment, but that Kate P. bitch needs to die a slow & painful death."
Whatever slandering comes your way, I can assure you that none of it will issue from myself. You have discharged your mind sir, most candidly, and far be it from me to question your sincerity.
----------------------
To any feminist or collaborationist who might be reading this:
SEE?? See the storm that is brewing against you? See the howling tempest? The roaring tsunami? The blazing inferno?
DO YOU SEE IT COMING?
You ought to be concerned.
I truly, seriously think you ought to be concerned.
For your own sake. . .
Fidel,
It is still paternity fraud because the original arrangement was that she would get an abortion if she got pregnant.
She still had the kid against his will and against the original agreement. That's fraud in my book. I think Matt Dubay would also agree.
Davout:
Granted that her behavior was reprehensible - no question about that. But I'm just thinking of the purely legal angles here. What she did might be "fraud" in some ethical sense of the term, but it doesn't sound like the law can touch her in this case. However, supposing the child *was* in fact his (just supposing), then the particular "fraud" in this case would not have been about paternity, but something else entirely.
......................
Definition of FRAUD scarfed from the web:
"All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated."
And from the same website:
"WHAT CONSTITUTES FRAUD -
Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement, and damages."
Source:http://www.aicpa.org/PUBS/jofa/
oct2004/lawrence.htm
.......................
So yes, the woman's behavior DOES fit the criteria for fraud (whether legally admissible or otherwise). But only a conclusive DNA test could establish if veritable paternity fraud occurred in addition to the "breach of contract" behavior you have described.
And paternity fraud per se, as we know, is *THE* political hot potato nowadays. . . (And those are always more profitable to throw around on the political battlefield than the lukewarm kind!;)
Anyway, in the end, it sounds like there could have been more than just one level of fraud occurring here.
fidel,
You are right. The material false statement is absent. Hence, the law cannot touch her.
In fact, even if the kid is not his, he is still screwed because the courts always put the 'best interests of the child' above those of the faux dad after a very small time period. HATE that euphemism. Meanwhile, biological dad is off somewhere else sowing wild oats that all of us will have to pay for.
He is screwed due to a combination of his stupidity (not getting a paternity test immediately) and her duplicity.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home