"This politeness is evident in Sacks' own account, in which he said that "several financial contributors" to The Family Place, the service provider that placed the offending ads, "withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season" as a result of Sacks' efforts. But Sacks added, "I don't say this with pleasure -- I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding they did." So Conservatism 2.0, it would appear, will distinguish itself from its gay enemies by getting their targets bankrupted rather than fired, and by acting sorry about it afterwards." (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3018)
Now he acted in subterfuge by not alerting his readership to this course of action. He simply selected a few "good men and women" to contact the list of supporters to The Family Place and they informed these supporters of The Family Place with the sole intent of having funding removed (my own assumption what is the need for contacting these people if not to get them to succumb to this pressure).
3) A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place's financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads. Most contributors said they sympathized with us, and many told us they thought the ads and the subsequent protest were an embarrassment to The Family Place. Many contacted Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink with their concerns.
Several of The Family Place's financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season. I don't say this with pleasure--I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding.
So if this does not give you pleasure Glenn - why did you do it? You knew what you were attempting to do, you continued on this course of action and you achieved the results you desired and yet you think we are naive enough to believe you are not getting pleasure from this fact? PUHLEASE!!!!
 |
15 comments:
Right. Intentional--like what they did in Cali and the Woods v. Shewry appeal.
Exactly. The main reason for keeping this information from the majority of his followers and only using a select few was to keep anyone who disagreed from contacting those same supporters of The famnily Place. The damage is not completely done however. I am hoping that this site will generate enough traffic and people will see (with my help of course) the attitudes of misogyny at Sacks' website.
Oh yeah, and just like his hunt and kill for Jennifer Collins
Soo- next -I know of homeless shelters and food banks that need shutting down- especially because there are a lot of battered mothers and their children going to them. Sacks- you can leave the men's shelters alone- after all- it is undoubtedly women's fault that these men are homeless-right ? and the mothers and children brought it on themselves. Do you guys torture and kill stray dogs and cats- for fun, too ? Just wondering.
"Nearly 83 percent (82.4%) of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person. Approximately, 40 percent (39.9%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; and 17.8 percent were abused by both parents."
Take from:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter3.htm#perp
@ McThree
But what you have failed to mention is that even in households with both mother and father present it is typically the mother who cares for the children (notice I said typically - there are rare cases of father cared children but those are rare) and she spends more time with the children. Please visit www.thelizlibrary.org for more info on this statistic and many more like it.
HHS (the stats the Mc3 quoted) is also sponsoring Fatherhood Programs...trust their stats if you want to...
If I considered you all to be anything but a few pathetic whiners I would tell you never to trust anything blindly. Ever. Always dig deeper. Go to God himself if you have to.
Or you could just keep bitching on your pretty pink blog instead. That's all you really want to do aint it.
Oh Mc3 we are much much more than a "few pathetic whiners". Count on that one......
It always amazes me how if a man is homeless it is the women's fault (ie extremely high child support or alimony, she 'stole' the house, etc). But when a woman is at poverty level, she should buck up and get a better job and qwuit relying on child support/alimony to live off of. This is so men can get a free pass on when they want to pay support.
Damn, you're right.
Yes, I am a pathetic whiner...but what does that make you for coming and wasting your precious time commenting?...LMAO
Sacks- you can leave the men's shelters alone- after all- it is undoubtedly women's fault that these men are homeless-right
What men's shelters? Most shelters won't even accept the male teenaged sons of the women they accept with open arms. Your ignorance is showing.
KellyMac...the point of your comment was????
I don't know where you live, but where I live any child up to the day before their 18th birthday is accepted at a shelter. You can spew your anti-female vermin if you choose, but please make sure that you know facts.
Post a Comment