Ahhhhhh poor MRA baby is all upset because the government is giving away money......

This poor little baby has his panties in a knot because the government under Obama is attempting to fix the mess left behind with years and years of this mess. Will he be able to fix it before we have another Great Depression? Before people are on ration cards as we once were in times of war? And what has this poor poor poor MRA all upset? In a 13 page summary report, one sentence on page 12. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter of this one sentence in a 13 page report would be? Two words and the first is CHILD. I will leave the rest to your fertile imaginations.

Bernie, bernie, bernie..........

I never saw these words said - not even one single time during this commercial.... bernie bernie bernie bernie.........



Bernie Misiura Says:

December 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
Kurt Says:

December 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am

Lighten up guys, it really didn't bash anyone. I thought it was kind of funny too.

========

Um, it stated that you cannot expect anything out of your husband except a beer guzzling couch potato.

b

Like the filth and vermin the FRs spew is rational? Feed me another line

pawn on line Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Anyone not yet convinced that there are deliberate efforts to displace men from industrialized societies?
If you don't see it, then you haven't been reading enough men's issue blogs.
I just wanted to make that point before tuning back into the sports channel and starting on my six pack and bags of potato chips. Researching batting averages for the year 1964 is so much more rewarding than knowing what is going on in the real world. You wimps writing on this blog are a bunch of whining losers.



ManCan Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Ok. That was rational.


sonja Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
pawn on line: O-Kay then...

pawn on line who are you? I rolled on the floor reading your comments even if you might be one of them!!!!

Collins case and Glenn's "veiled" attempt to engage someone to stalk her and her family

Sister Charity Says:

December 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
This family is suffering and Jennifer has obviously been abused by one of her parents, but I am not sure that it is her father that was abusive to her. She sounds very much like other adults that I have spoken to when they are still under the control of an alienator. I pray that she is able to move on to have a healthy and truthful relationship with both of her parents.

Jennifer DID try to have a healthy relationship with her father. She asked for what MOST abuse victims ask for - an acknowledgement of what the abuser did as well as ammends for those actions. What did Collins' dad do? He basically hung up on her. Realllllllllllll healthy dad...................

The last oink for the night

Incidentally, if I wanted to continue to comment I would simply get a false email account and a false Blogger id, but I suspect Obama/Biden will give us all much bigger fish to fry.

I for one am extremely grateful that we will have the Obama/Biden team leading our country. This just might be the time where women are recognized for the contributions we have made to society. The fringe movements in our society might very well have something to fear. And those deadbeats and those who would abuse a mother and/or child will be held to account for those crimes instead of skating. Maybe the laws will get tougher on those inclined to exert their will onto someone else in the form of entitlement, POWER, and CONTROL. I wait patiently for that day.

With that I bid you all a good night and see you tomorrow with more from the world known as MRA. (oh and lets not forget porky either - we must mention him so we can feed that thing called an ego).

Porky have fun :-)

Again, as a long time reader i can tell you that it is not a change- this has been his attitude for at least the 18 plus months ive been reading his blog. I also detect something of a hint that it is her doing that he has "changed his attitude". If i am correct in this, she is kidding herself as to how much power someone with a readership of one person actually has.

Now I am not going to argue semantics with "porky, but I too have been a long time reader of Mr. Sacks. I was in fact a subsriber to his weekly ENewsletter. I believe I subscribed to this newsletter back in 2006, possibly early 2007. When the time is right I can prove this by providing the email address I used to subsribe as well as one of the emails sent by Sacks himself. In fact I can provide several of those newsletters. I can say as a general rule, Sacks does not publish this many articles in a row that are positive in nature. I am also not claiming to be responsible for the change in his behavior. Porky is simply ASS U ME ing again ;-). If I was asked my opinion on why the multiple posts about positive non-degrading reports, I would simply say that my OPINION is that the holidays are near and most people do not feel atagonistic during the holiday season. Perhaps the feel good from his child's birthday is sticking around. I do not claim responsibility for this change however.

As far as porky being my only reader, I can show otherwise, but I need not prove this. Even if there is only one other person reading this blog, then I will have accomplished my purpose. I am simply trying to show that many of the men who claim to be only interested in being a part of their children's lives do indeed have an ulterior motive. In fact if anyone reading this blog cares to actually read his blog, they will see that the most strenuous comments and the most read articles are the ones which contain references to child support and child custody. Custody articles contain references to child support (which most claim is illegal - except those trying to collect from low income mothers - then they are all for it and are quick to complain about the deadbeat moms). Then we have those posts about child support and again the attitudes are perfectly clear. Child support in their minds is illegal - again unless it is the mother who is obligated to pay such support and these men are quick to point out the deadbeat in their own life.

A commenter on my blog makes a comment that is so true

Many times we will read on many father's rights websites about men who are being treated savagely and inhumanely in family courts across the land. These posts often leave out material items. I am discussing a recent mens rights blog post. This blog post discusses a man who has been jailed over child support issues. He has issues which have caused him to be unable to pay support. Now if what happened to him is true, why did he not contact any mainstream newspapers or television reporters? If he did so please feel free to post the link here (only mainstream websites - not "mens rights" sites). His savior is also engaging in slightly less than stellar performance by publishing the ex-wife's personal information via their website. If this man wants to put his information on the Internet, then that is his prerogative. However his ex-wife should be able to pursue a case against him as well as this website for exposing her information in this fashion. There are ways to go about this and to publish documents with personal information without the approval of the person to which they pertain is against the law. Now I wonder if the "savior" site will black out the offending personal information, or if our site will be attacked yet again?

Also of mention is the fact that there were several cases against the man mentioned in this story, beginning in 2000.

I challenge all sites that contain links to this information to remove the offending "personal" information and black it out if these documents must be published.

Last on Glenn's Rules

I just want to add one thing before I head off to homework land :-)

I could accept the ban if Glenn had stated something truthful like breaking rule number three, because I will admit to debating for days with his followers over points they were trying to make, and imo I broke every point with anecdotes from my own life. But I could see how I was harping over minor points. So Glenn, is that really the case? Admitting it won't make it go away (meaning this website). You are stuck with me for the long haul. I have the blog, the domain name will come next, and then the advertisement will follow. I have told a total of 10 people about this blog and my visits on my first day due to posting on 3 other blogs were through the roof. I plan to "carp" on this website until I turn blue in the face, because this is MY website and I can do what I want to do. I guess that flies in the face of everything MRAs believe, oh no!!! A woman who is doing what SHE wants to do when SHE wants to do it and how SHE wants to do it. The world is going to fall apart now, so watch out.

Now what should we do?

Poor Glenn. He is so despondent over the fact that he has banned me from posting on his site.

Glenn’s Cult Writes “I tried speaking on Sacks website, then realized I had been banned. I have been told that if I reveal personal information about me in a place I do not feel safe that my permissions will be reinstated.”

Actually, “Glenn’s Cult” was permitted to publish hundreds of critical comments on my website. However, she repeatedly violated rule # 1 of My Rules on Blog Comments prohibiting “Personal attacks.”

Normally when someone violates the rules I send them a note explaining what the violation was. If they continue over and over again, I’ll ban them, but usually not until they’ve had several chances. Because “Glenn’s Cult” refused to leave a valid email address, I had no way of communicating with her after she violated the rules, so eventually I got tired of wasting time and banned her.

She could come back if she wants, but only with a valid email address.

BTW, a valid email address–which I ask for from all posters–is all she means when she says I’m demanding that she “reveal personal information.” Another example (sigh) of how feminists twist and distort simple, reasonable things I do. –GS

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/02/anti-feminists-protest-domestic-violence-awareness-ads-in-dallas/#comment-346797


I would love to know where I personally attacked anyone (I recall it was more like defending myself). But that is neither here nor there. Numerous of his followers have stated that he deleted those comments so what proof does either side have of these attacks. Again, this boils down to a he said she said situation. Hmmmm where does that sound familiar? Anyone care to hazard a guess where he said she said is prevelant?



NOTE: I should note here that I have published a true and accesible email on several blogs (Alas, Womanist Musings, Randi James, and many more) and Glenn still has me blocked. He has in fact taken the route of blocking all people from posting links to their own sites and has removed all link to others sites on his blog in order to be "protective" of his followers. Jim Jones was protective of his followers also. Well until they drank the koolaid.