27 July 2014

What Men Should Know BEFORE Getting Married

Guys,

I was reading Dalrock's post about the secret the KGB couldn't keep, followed by the comments.  One of the respondents linked to a post on the Happy Bachelor's forum, where I found THIS...

---------------------


Date: 2008-01-01, 6:15PM EST

I think that there is a lot of unduly inflammatory and derogatory talk about women and marriage these days, and I believe that this stifles men from understanding several truisms about marriage. Women are not bad people, out to destroy men, or trying to trick men. Women and society simply have certain characteristics and men should be aware of these characteristics when they decide whether or not to get married.

1. You will be having sex once a month. This is not because women are trying to withhold sex from you. It is also not because women view sex (and particularly fellatio) as a loss leader or necessary evil before marriage. It is simply because women (unlike men) need to be seduced before sex. This means that during the courtship period where there are many romantic and fun events going on, she will want to have sex more often. After marriage, on the other hand, there will be far fewer of these romantic and fun events because (particularly if there are children) there is a lot of work to be done in order for the family to function smoothly. You will notice that if you take your wife to Paris or buy her jewelry, then you will all of sudden be having sex as often as you did before marriage. Some men would interpret this as a woman being some type of gold-digger or prostitute. However, it is simply a reflection that if a woman is feeling elated (something that will not happen very often after dealing with screaming kids all day), then she will want to have sex.

2. Women need a lot of attention. If you have ambitions on having a great career, then you should definitely not get married. This is because wives take a lot of time. You will need to speak to her on the phone, be home for dinner, go on vacations with her, and so one. Many men think that women will understand and accept that careers take a lot of time and effort to build, but this is not the case. Women, however, are unwilling to be left sitting at home all day until you arrive at 10:00 pm because you had a big meeting. Again, inflammatory language about women being dream killers or life destroyers is not helpful. You simply need to know that careers take a lot of time and your wife will also take a lot of time, and there will not be enough time available to have both. To put it another way, how would you like to live with someone you rarely saw? Wouldnt you want to find someone that you could at least see on a regular basis?

3. Women become less attractive over time. First, they gain weight. This is because married women have a lot to do (ie. taking care of the kids) and it is difficult to make exercising a priority. When they were younger, they could count on their high metabolism to keep thin, but that high metabolism is long gone. It is not that your wife is intentionally ballooning up after marriage, but this is what happens. If you cant accept being with a fattie, then dont get married. Second, wrinkles etc. appear and there is little that even the finest and expensive plastic surgeon can do. If you dont believe me, type in the name of any aging movie star and see how she looked in her prime and how she looks today.)

4. Marriage is a partnership. This, to my mind, is one of the hardest concepts for men to understand. They typically think of marriage as being what it used to be - a lifetime commitment. You need to understand that in a partnership (any partnership), if one person is unhappy, then that person can leave at anytime. Saying till death do us part in church is only binding in church. Once you are out the church doors, the marriage is determinable at will.

5. Men are always the losers in a divorce. If you or your wife want to get divorced, then the court will follow a very set pattern. The first issue is money. Since you have a greater earning capacity than your wife, the court will order that you must work to provide money to support the family. The second issue is custody of the kids. Since you are busy working, your wife will get custody. The third issue is the residence of the kids. Since your wife will decide that she wants a fresh start on the other side of the country and since it is in the best interests of the kids to have a happy custodial parent, the court will allow her to move across the country.

6. It is crucial that you ask your potential wife if she will change her last name to yours after marriage. If she refuses, then you will know that she is a very independent women and does not have family values. Any aspirations that you may have of someone calling your house and hearing an outgoing phone message saying that they have reached the Smith family will be over when she says she is not changing her last name. Also, there is going to be big problem with the last of the children, because your wife is not going to want the last name of her kids to be different than her last name. You should note that in some jurisdications (like Ontario, Canada), women have the sole right to name the children. Men have no right to any input whatsoever.

7. Your only role in the family is to pay the bills. This is very hard for men to accept, but women are absolutely convinced that they know what is best. You will not have discussions with your wife. Instead, she will explain to you why things must be done her way. This will, in effect, limit your input into the family to supplying the money that is needed to allow the family to function. You should also know that making money will be seen as very easy by your wife and not something that is worthy of respect. This is because she will know about all the hardships she suffered that day (because she experienced them), but the hardships you suffered will be foreign and unrelatable to her. Also, if you do not fulfill your role of paying the bills, then your wife will divorce you. This will be dressed up as her not being happy but you will notice very quickly that her new husband, coincidentally, is able to pay a lot of bills. (I would add that your only defence in a bad marriage is to quit your job. To be clear, dont threaten to quit your job, just quit it. This will shock your wife into seeing that you were doing something useful for the family afterall.)

8. You will not be able to watch what you want on television. This may sound trivial, but you should definitely try unplugging your television for a couple of months before getting married.

9. Ugly women can cause just as much trouble as good looking women. I am only making this point, because I know that some men think that the problems with women only apply to very attractive women and so if they find a less attractive woman, then they wont have to deal with the above. This is not true. Women behave very similarly in similar circumstances. Even the ugliest woman among us believes that she is beautiful on the inside and once you get married she will act as married women do.

I know what you are thinking. That your girlfriend is different and that the above wont apply to you. You are also thinking that you and your girlfriend are in love and that this again makes you an exception. You are, of course, free to think what you want, but I wish I had been warned.

-----------------

What more could I POSSIBLY add?

MarkyMark

01 June 2014

M113 to Area Police Force?!

Guys,

Yesterday, I was out riding my Suzuki.  It was a beautiful day in North Jersey, so why not?  I took a ride up PA 611, then 191 to Stroudsburg.  That was  ride I used to make all the time, but I hadn't done it in a while.  Anyway, while I was out and about, I took a ride over to the Stroudsburg area of PA.  I took a quick ride through ESU to see if any cute college chicks were still around; they were.  After that, on the way out of town, I saw something that made me do a double take...

As I was crossing the Brown Street bridge, I saw a small, single axle dump truck hauling a trailer.  That isn't unusual; you see many small dump trucks hauling trailers with backhoes, bobcats, etc.  What WAS unusual about this particular dump truck & trailer was what was on the trailer: an M113 armored personnel carrier!  Not only that, it was painted in livery denoting it was for the "Stroud Area Region" police.  WTF does a small area police department need a M113?!  I could understand a big city police department wanting one for SWAT operations against real bad guys or terrorists, but you don't see either of those in Stroudsburg, PA!

The M113 was painted in a semi-gloss black with white lettering.  The word 'police' was in large, capital letters, while the the department name was painted in smaller letters below 'police'.  I did some quick searching, and it seems that Stroud Township, Stroudsburg, and East Stroudsburg have combined their police departments into the Stroud Area Regional Police Department.  Again, I could NOT believe what I was seeing, because the Stroudsburg area is a nice, sleepy college town with a good, regional hospital.

Oh, by the way, the truck towing the M113 went over a 13 ton bridge!  That's right; they violated the weight limit of the bridge.  According to Wikipedia, the M113 alone weighs 13.6 tons.  That's short tons, which is the ton used in the US; in fact, we just use ton to denote the 2,000 lb short ton.  The truck and trailer had to weigh another five or six tons minimum, for a combined weight of of about 19 tons.  Not only was the bridge rated for 13 tons (much less than the approximate 19 tons of the truck, trailer, and APC); it was old, so it may not even bee good for 13 tons anymore.  Ah, but because it was a police vehicle, I guess it was ok; after all, the blue gun thugs can and do do what they want.

In closing, I cannot believe that a small, PA police force is using an M113 APC!  I could understand a big city department needing one, but not a small police department.  When would they ever need to do SWAT operations, let alone fight real bad guys with real weapons justifying the need for an M113?  In any case, the police are indeed being militarized, and it's not a good thing.  Until next time...

MarkyMark

17 May 2014

A Warning from Judge Napolitano

Guys,

Here's a sober warning from one of America's foremost Constitutional scholars and watchdogs, Judge Andrew Napolitano...



Scary stuff, isn't it?
MarkyMark

24 April 2014

A Good Insight in to Women

Guys,

I heard this song while skating recently, and I thought it was funny.  This song shows the true, VAPID nature of women.  After watching this, you'll have to ask yourself: we let these creatures vote?!



What more can I say?

MarkyMark

21 April 2014

The Law, Sir, Is an Ass!

Folks,

I cannot make this up; I simply cannot!  Read this story, and shake your head.  Here's a prime example of the old cliche' about the law being an ass.  As always, my commentary is provided free of charge...

------------------

Earlier, Prep Rally brought you the story of Plymouth (Mich.) Salem High soccer coach Scott Duhl, who was allegedly fired over a parent complaint before the start of the season. Well, across town at Plymouth High in Canton, Mich., another complaint has the prep sports community as equally fired up.

You're going to love this-not!

Six years ago, parents of Plymouth High's boys' varsity team raised money and built stadium seating so they could watch from above a black chain-link fence that made spectating difficult, according to WJBK-TV. The parents also installed a new scoreboard for the baseball field.

Note two things here.  One, the parents paid for these field improvements with their OWN money!  Two, that this money is above and beyond the school taxes they already pay on their homes.

Now, the school must tear it all down. The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation following an anonymous complaint. Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities (pictured). The boys' seating is also not handicap accessible, which is a separate violation of government regulations.

Here we have a woman and feminist (redundant?) whinging that it's not fair that the boys' ball field has nicer seating-waaaaaaahhh!  Never mind the fact that it was the boys' PARENTS who paid for it out of their own money.  This is from the same Obama Administration that has an office for women and girls, yet has no equivalent for men.  You have to love the hypocrisy here!

Plymouth High School superintendent Michael Meissen said the seats and scoreboard will be preserved until the district decides how to remedy the situation. Meissen told WJBK-TV that the school wants to follow the government's regulations and be "fair to everyone," but it does not have the funds to upgrade the girls' softball bleachers. The school reportedly plans to install a new scoreboard on the softball field, though.

Why should the school upgrade the girls' softball field bleacher seats?  Why should they give the girls preferential treatment here?  Why shouldn't the girls' PARENTS pay for improved seating, just like the boys' parents did?  Finally, what would the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights response be if the school upgraded the girls' field, when the boys field received no such largesse from the school?  I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

There are obvious Title IX implications to this story, as federally funded schools are required to provide equal opportunity for both boys' and girls' sports. Forty-two years after the law was passed, schools and colleges across the country are still struggling to comply with the rules in the face of shrinking budgets. Plymouth joins a long list of schools that may be in violation of Title IX, whether they realize it or not.

Uh, pardon me, but what Title IX implications are there here?  Does anyone care to explain THAT one to me?  While the school itself may receive federal funding, the improvement to the boys' baseball field did not.  Since the parents paid for the new seats and scoreboard themselves, does that not mean that no government funding (either federal, state, or local) was used?

Furthermore, how do spectator seats provide or diminish opportunity for sports participation?!  Don't the girls have the opportunity to play softball if they are so inclined?  Don't the boys have the opportunity to do likewise?  After all, don't they each have ball fields on which they can play their respective sports?  Pardon me, but how does Title IX even apply in this instance?!

Of course, there could be a quick resolution to this controversy. The girls' softball parents might also think about raising money to build their own stadium seating. It seemed to work for the boys' baseball parents for six years.

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!  We have a winner!  THAT is how this whole mess can be solved-provided the girls' parents are so inclined, of course.  The fact that they haven't ponied up one, red cent for improved seating and scoreboards on the girls' softball field; the fact that they haven't done this over the preceding six years tells us all we need to know; it tells us that it isn't that important to the girls' parents-duh!  Until next time...

MarkyMark

13 April 2014

Former Obama Supporter NAILS It!

Guys,

I've seen this video on Mancoat, FB, and other places.  It's gone viral.  It's a video of Carey Wedler, a former Obama supporter, burning one of his shirts.  In the video, she also lists a few of Obama's crimes against the American people.



Though I do wish she mentioned Obama's use of the IRS to squelch political opponents, I think she did a pretty good job. One thing she's DEFINITELY right about is the lack of meaningful differences between the two major parties, something of which I need to be reminded. Thanks, and have a good day now... MarkyMark

13 March 2014

M-18 Hellcat

Guys,

I just watched this documentary again.  Yes, I've seen it before; the last time I saw it was with my late mother, who died two years ago.  My mom, born just before the beginning of WWII, was old enough to remember Pearl Harbor; she was a little girl when the attack happened.  Ma always loved & admired the WWII generation, which was one reason why she enjoyed this documentary you're about to see.  Not only did it depict a WWII machine; it was reunited with its commander, the guy who rode in it during the war.  Enjoy...




What I especially loved about this series of documentaries was that they were about guys doing guy stuff-rebuilding awesome machines!  No chickies here-can't break a nail now, can we?  I also like the connection to history featured in these documentaries.  I know that this particular episode choked me up when I finished watching it a few minutes ago.  Well, bye for now...

MarkyMark

09 March 2014

Screw Sheryl Sandberg & The Horse She Rode In On!

Guys,

As I so often say, I CANNOT make this stuff up; I just cannot!  My imagination isn't that good.  Anyway, it seems that Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, wants to ban the word, "bossy", because of all its negative connotations and how it supposedly holds women back from pursuing leadership positions-gag!  Vance, a member of Mancoat, found this; it was too good to pass up, so I'm posting it here.  I'll post the article below, and render my unique brand of commentary and analysis...

-----------------------

Sheryl Sandberg Wants To Ban The Word 'Bossy' 
Jillian D'Onfro
Mar. 7, 2014, 9:03 AM 

Sheryl Sandberg's ninth grade teacher once called her out for being too aggressive and too "bossy."

People use the word to describe someone who likes giving orders, someone they consider pushy or domineering. The word is inherently negative, and yet it is almost always only applied to women. While man is a "boss," a woman is "bossy."

No, you dumb bitch (a Miss Jillian D'Onofrio wrote this poor excuse of an article), bossy isn't applied exclusively to women; it's applied to men too!  I know, because I and other coworkers (both male AND female, I might add!) have used it to describe asshole male bosses too.  Folks, it only gets better, as you shall soon see...

Thankfully, Facebook COO and "Lean In" author Sandberg didn't let that early criticism stop her from continuing to be a strong leader.

There's no stopping this strong, independent woman!   Never mind the fact that she: 1) took advantage of preferential treatment in college admissions; 2) never mind the fact that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action when hired; and 3) never mind the fact that, because the all too often held "we just have to give women a chance" meme held by the management of Whoreporate America, she was given preferential treatment on the career ladder, enabling a quick and easy trip to the executive suite.  Strong, independent woman, my ass!

Now, Sandberg is teaming up with former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Maria Ch├ívez to launch a public service campaign called "Ban Bossy," according to a Parade Magazine interview

Are you KIDDING me?!  Are you freakin' kidding me?!  Waaaaahhhh, we don't like the word, so we're going to ban it-waaaaaaahhhhh!  Leave it to a woman & a feminist (redundant?) to ban words, ideas, and beliefs that they don't like.  Women & feminists are always seeking comfort and comity, so we can't have any dissent & disagreement here-no sir!  Or should I say, no ma'am?

Oh, and did you notice that former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is a member of this campaign?!  If memory serves me right, she was a member of the Bush Administration (Bush 43, not Bush 41)?  You see, feminists are found in BOTH political parties, even though they're predominantly in the Democrat Party.

Another thing I'd like to point out here is this: banning the word will not stop its use; people will simply be more covert in using it.  People who have to work for a bossy person will simply use it amongst themselves; they won't use it where the higher-ups will hear it.  Did you ever think of THAT, Ladies?

Before I forget, Miss D'Onofrio, you're a poor excuse of a writer!  You actually got PAID to write that preceding, clumsy phrase?  What clumsy phrase are you alluding to, MarkyMark?  I'm referring to this: "...and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Marie Chavez...".   It would have been better to say: Girl Scouts CEO Anna Marie Chavez, Miss D'Onofrio-and I'm not even a professional writer!  And what about capitalizing the title, Secretary of State, hmmm?  I learned about that in eighth grade, Sweet Pee!  You know, Miss D'Onofrio is living proof that women are beneficiaries of affirmative action; she actually got PAID to write such a poor turn of phrase.  Who is the editor over there at Business Insider?  Why did he let such an obvious faux pas past him?

Because of the negativity built into the word and its potential to stop girls from pursuing leadership roles, they want to strike it from common vernacular and empower women and young girls.

Excuse me, but I'm confused here.  I thought girls and women were strong, independent, and empowered.  I thought that they could do anything a man could do, and do it better.  Yet, we're to believe that, because of one, little word, girls are being discouraged from pursuing leadership positions; they're too weak and fragile to overcome one, unpleasant word.  So, which is it?  Are women strong, independent, and empowered, capable of doing anything?  Or are they such fragile little flowers who need a word banned?  Which is it?!  Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways, Ladies...

“Women still represent only 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. And more worrisome is that the number has been stagnant for a decade," Sandberg told Parade. "What hasn’t changed fast enough is our acceptance and encouragement of female leadership. That goes for all of us – parents, teachers, managers, society, everyone.”

Uh, Miss Sandberg, might there be-gasp-a REASON for that?  Might there be a reason that the number of female, Fortune 500 CEOs has remained stagnant?  Could it have something to do with the CHOICES women make with respect to their lifestyles?  Isn't it true that women will often take more flexible, less lucrative jobs so they can spend more time with the families?  Isn't it also true that these choices will impact women's abilities to rise to more lucrative and more demanding positions in a company?  If someone wants more pay, will they not have to accept more responsibility to go with it?  Will they not have to-gasp-give the company a reason to pay that person more?

My brother is a VP of a well known company (a household name everyone would know), and he NEVER, ever works less than 50 hours a week; in fact, he considers a 40 hour week a vacation!  THAT is the kind of dedication it takes to rise to the executive suite, and it's not everyone has that level of dedication.  Furthermore, on average, men work 200 hours more per year than woman do; that is to say, over the course of a year, a man will work the equivalent of five, normal (i.e. 40 hour) work weeks!  Gee, when it comes time to promote someone to a demanding position, who will the company pick?  Will they pick the woman who leaves on time or early to spend time with her kids?  Or will they give that promotion to the guy who's willing to go the extra mile?  Who, in short, provides extra value to the company?

You know, when I was working in Whoreporate America (I worked at two, well known Fortune 500 companies, household names everyone would know), women we always promoted ahead of the guys-always!  In fact, when I was new there, a biker chick told me that, if I wanted to get ahead, I'd have to have boobs and a vagina.  Only the division president was a man; everyone else in positions of leadership was a woman!  It's not that women aren't given chances to rise to leadership; if anything, they're given too much preference, I think; no, women simply aren't willing to do what it TAKES to rise to the very top-end of story.

They hope the Ban Bossy campaign will not only start an open dialogue about women in leadership and their obstacles, but help inspire young girls to speak up and seek out leadership roles early.

Oh, gag a maggot!  Either women are strong, independent, empowered, and capable of anything; or, they're such fragile little flowers who cower at the mere mention of an unpleasant word.  Which is it?!  If they're strong, independent, and empowered, why does a mere word need to be banned?  If women are everything we're told they are, should a mere word matter?

You know what needs to be banned?  It's PC, fascist bitches like Sheryl Sandberg!  I feel sorry for the poor SOBs who have to work under her.  After all, she considers "bossy" a compliment; she considers it a good thing!  Well, I and others who've had to work for bossy people consider it many things, but none of them are good.  Until next time...

MarkyMark

28 February 2014

Don't Worry about Looks, by Chris in Oregon

Guys,

There was a discussion on Happy Bachelors about what attracts women to certain men.  Here were Christopher in Oregon's thoughts on this...

----------------



Guys,


Let me hammer this point home:


It does NOT matter what you look like physically. Every so-called ugly man could bed down the most beautiful women on the planet. All it takes is money. Every woman has her price. EVERY woman. You could look like something out of a grade-B horror movie, but if you've got $100 million dollars, pretty much every broad alive will spread her legs for you.


All it ever takes is money. The more money you have, the more available she becomes. If you're rich, ugly becomes "rugged". Fat becomes "solid". Three eyes and horns on your head become...well, I don't know. But if you've got three eyes and horns as well as $100 million, you WILL get laid with any woman you choose.


A woman is a whore by nature. Period.


So stop this useless whining about whether or not your looks are acceptable to these foul, smelly broads. If you just have to get laid, then get rich.


While we're on the subject, I'm reminded of something from long ago. In high school, in my senior year, we all took showers after gym class. Or maybe it was my junior year. There was this guy in gym class, James. He had the tiniest dick I've ever seen on a guy. Like a tiny button mushroom. He used to get teased about it. A lot. He was dull average in the looks department. Wore glasses. Not the least bit athletic. Kind of reclusive. But, his father was the head of some company with several hundred employees. The kid was slated to inherit, and ultimately, he did inherit- a lot.


Guess what this dinky-dick kid's girlfriend looked like? Yeah, she was a knockout. Drop-dead gorgeous to the extreme. I know he was banging her at the time, the only question was "how?" (And with what?) But, she was all over this weird kid. We were all jealous as hell.


So, stop worrying about looks.


Christopher in Oregon

----------------

Chris has a point.  Look at Donald Trump.  How many hotties has he married in their prime?  At least three that I can think of.  First was Ivana.  When she accumulated some wear & tear, the Donald went for the busty, blond Georgia peach of Marla Maples.  Now, he's married to Melania Knauss, who was a model.  I have ONE question to ask you people: if Donald Trump were collecting Social Security checks rather than being a billionaire, do you REALLY think that he'd have any female attention at all, let alone from some of the most desirable women on the planet?  I think we all know the answer to that one!  IOW, Christopher in Oregon is right.  Until next time...

MarkyMark

25 February 2014

A Fine Example of 'Chyck Logic'

Folks,

I was reading a thread on Mancoat earlier today. In that thread, someone had a link to an old thread on JDUnderground, a site for lawyers. Anyway, the entire thread is good; I could make a few posts out of the material in it. That said, I thought that this post was particularly good, as it shows American women's 'thought process'-or lack thereof, I should say. This woman is a PIECE OF WORK! I and other guys have known her type; indeed, some of us have been on the RECEIVING END of these fun & games. These are the same ones who, at 30+ years of age, cry out wondering where all the good men are...

----------------


Author: al anonTime: June 22, 2008 - 10:32 am

Women in their late 20s/early 30s have to learn to be "nice" and develop great personalities because the aloof/angry-at-the world/depressive mentality many have - and many have used successfully in the past doesn't work as well with the guys who are "left" so to speak.

Being nice goes a lot further than I think women understand. They see being bitchy and elusive when you are young and nubile and then try to replicate it when the dating pool has already weeded out the guys who fall for that shit (plus as women age they lose a lot of their sexual capital and guys just won't put up with it anymore.)


Naw, they don't need to learn THAT, Man! Why if women are nice to their men, or even entertain the mere THOUGHT of doing so, why they're letting down the Sisterhood! That would be weak; that would be giving in to her 'oppressor', for crying out loud! They can't be NICE to no stinkin' man now; why, he might take advantage of her...

That, and these chicks, when they were young, hot, desirable, and carrying less baggage than a luggage factory were 'in demand'; they were wanted, big time, so they were drunk with their power. They didn't have to be nice, since there were 100 guys lining up to replace the one she just blew off. They got USED to having men come down the tracks like rush hour trains, and they figured that this would continue forever. Silly girls...

Al anon is also right that, once men reach a certain point, then they're no longer willing to PUT UP with a woman's crap. Once men reach a certain point, they are no longer slaves to their hormones, so they're no longer willing to anything or put up with anything just to get some nookie. I find that the older I get, the less willing I am to put up with a woman's crap. Shoot, if I even THINK a woman will play head games, I'm G-O-N-E...

So yeah. Here's a rough approximation of a random panicked phone call I got from a close female friend last week to give you a peek into the mindset of late 20s female...


her -I've been crying all night, so and so is getting married. This is horrible. My life is OVER, I have nothing now.

me -Thats great, he's such a good dude. Who is he marrying?

her - some pasty-white 25-year old blond grad student bimbo bitch with bad ears.

me - Wait...Why aren't you happy for him? He was like your best friend in law school.

her - Because I loved him and now I can't have him. Everyone is getting married and no one wants to marry me.


Yeah, Darlin', your best friend is marrying someone else! Whose FAULT is that?!

me - Love him? You guys live five minutes from each other and never hang out. And aren't you dating some other dude?

her - I don't really want to talk about that.


Al anon, my friend, the LAST thing this stupid bitch wanted was to be confused with the facts! She didn't want to talk about HER role in losing a good man now. Why, that would mean she'd have to accept RESPONSIBILITY for herself and her actions! AW can't have that now...

me - I don't know, maybe he assumed since you are dating other people that you weren't interested in him.

Dude, you just HAD to point out the obvious, didn't you? Leave it to a MAN to look at things logically, and to remind this little dearie of the facts...

her - You are a boy, you don't understand. I should have never called you. You don't get it, I can't just be available and hang around him, he'll never like me then. I don't want to look too forward you know. I don't want to be rejected.

Darlin', you didn't waste ANY time dispensing the insults or shaming language, did you?! And I just LOVE the bullshit answer you give to his obvious, yet pointed question...

me - Too forward? Didn't you claim he only moved down here to be closer to you?

her - I don't know, maybe...he was going for his MBA.


Trying to deny past, narcissistic statements, my dear?

me - And moved five minutes away from you. When was the last time you saw him?

her - I don't know, December maybe. We hung out more in the fall. I'm busy, he's busy.


Ah, excuses, excuses. You know what they say: excuses are like anuses; everyone has one, and they ALL stink...

me - Why didn't something happen between you two?

her - He tried, two or three times invited me back to his place and such but I never went. I thought he'd think I was being a slut.


Ah, now we have a GLIMMER of truth trying to break through the clouds of your lies & deception, my dear! Now the truth is starting to come out...

me - We all just assumed you two were sleeping together in law school. You two were always together. He doesn't think you are a slut, he thinks you are the world's biggest prude and tease and after getting shot down he found someone else.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Of COURSE your buddy thought this chick was a prude and tease; she led him to think she was interested, then blew off your friend when he ACTED on the false signals this bitch sent out. Of COURSE he found someone else; he wanted a gal who wanted HIM-duh!

her - He stopped calling me too, the phone works both ways.

Oh, I just LOVE how you try deflecting responisibilty, Darlin'; I just love how you try saying, "It's not all my fault-waaahhhh!" How freakin' TYPICAL...

me - You shot him down sexually, you think he's gonna be hanging around?

Dude, you're being a patriarchal oppressor; you're being LOGICAL, for goodness sake!

her - We used to talk ALL the time. ALL the time. He was my SOUL MATE.

Too bad you didn't TREAT him like your soul mate, my dear...

me - He wanted to have sex with you, when you took that off the table he took that talk to someone or somewhere it could actually lead to something.

Dude, you keep pointing out the obvious! When are you going to learn that chicks do NOT want to be confused with logic, the facts, or the truth-ESPECIALLY if it makes them look bad?!

her - But we were like EPIC friends, I've never known anyone, ANYONE in the world who understood me like he did. Or at least tried to understand me like he did.

me - Maybe thats it, maybe he did finally understand you and knew he had to move on. I've been there...


Yeah, your buddy, Mr. NG understood that this stupid bitch didn't want him, so he went and found someone who DID-what a concept! Imagine that, a man finding a woman who actually WANTS him...

her - shut up. You are such an idiot. I suppose I could have called him back more. But I'm busy. And I have canceled plans with him three or four times in the past month or so.

me - So you never called him, canceled plans with him regularly, and shot down his sexual advances, I'm happy for him. He's too nice to date you. He should have moved on long ago.


So, this stupid, clueless bitch blew off Mr. NG REPEATEDLY, shot down his advances, etc., and yet she STILL expects him to be pining away for her?! COME ON!!

her - I hate you.

me - Yeah I know whatever, you have NO REASON to be upset. Really no reason.

her - He LIKED Me! Not some other bitch.


Yeah, but your ACTIONS told him that his love for you was UNWANTED; you told him, via your actions that you were not INTERESTED-duh!

me - Guys aren't that complicated. You are secretly dating someone else, never call him, cancel plans, haven't hung out with him in 6 months and yet you are shocked and crying on the phone with me about your best friend getting married. I can't help you with that. It doesn't compute.

What can I POSSIBLY add to that?! Al anon, you NAILED it, brother! Are you sure you haven't been hanging around MRA/MGTOW sites & blogs?

(sorry for the length but after perusing this thread I just had to share.)

Thanks for sharing with us, al anon...

-----------------

Guys, THIS is what passes for 'chyck logic'; this is what passes for female 'thinking'.  And to think we allowed these creatures to vote!  No WONDER our once great nation is taking a swan dive into the crapper.  Until next time...

MarkyMark

22 February 2014

A Female Reader's Experience with Women...

Guys,

Some time ago, I got this e-mail from a female reader.  In it, she related an experience she had at work recently.  She's in her late 20s, happily married, loves pleasing her man, and she's aiming to break free of the rat race in the near future.  She's a Christian woman who's trying to survive in an increasingly wicked and hostile world.  Here's Ruth's (not her real name; I never use real names) e-mail, along with my reply to her.

---------------

Ruth,

I just got home from work and cruise night. All I can say is welcome to a man's world! I don't say that to be flippant; I say that because that is my reality-having to be careful what I say & do around women.

I was going to post on it, but in case someone from work ever stumbles upon my blog, the details give me away and I wanted to share it with someone in the blogosphere....so anyway....I was asked to stay late at work today and not having my guard upm I made the fatal mistake of saying, "I can't stay more than 30 mins. I have a husband at home to feed/take care of". Flew right out of me and sounds innocent enough.....HA! I said the magic words and flipped the feminist switch in my co-worker. She immediately said, "giirrrrllll don't talk like that, you don't have to feed anyone. He needs to realize that he can do these things for himself. He shouldn't be dependent on you. You'll learn that when you have kids that someday you just have to have cereal for dinner. I used to do that a lot....feed my family cereal for dinner and he never complained (proudly boasting). It then got very awkward. I said something like, "of course he can do these things for himself, but I WANT to do them". She didn't like that either, the fact that I still have this pesky nurturing/loving thing going on. I'm not supposed to want to take care of him. That is a big feminist NO-NO. The fact that women WANT to do these things, to think of someone other than themselves, baffles them.


Your story reminded me of a post I read on Eternal Bachelor long ago. He talked about this woman he worked with; her name was Claire. Like you, she was in her mid-late 20s and happily married. Like you, she wanted to and did take care of her man. The other women in the office chided her for this-UNTIL she got a huge bouquet of flowers delivered to her desk! Then, the women were all envious, wondering why THEIR men did not send them big bouquets of flowers. Well, duh! If you took care of your man like Claire took care of hers, then maybe they would!

Perhaps next time it would be best to simply say that you have stuff to do, and leave it at that. If these witches press you, then simply say that it's personal business. That should get 'em to back off. If they still press you, then bluntly tell them it's none of their business.

Oh, and I wonder how this feminist harpy colleague of yours would like it if her man decided that he didn't have to take out the garbage, kill bugs, check for things going bump in the night, etc.; ask her how SHE would like it if her husband took the same attitude. I have a sneakin' suspicion that she wouldn't like that very much. Women like this are all fine & dandy about shirking their duties, but woe to their man if he does the same thing! The hypocrisy is astounding...


All I could think of was had I not known better and had I been younger and more impressionable, I probably would have started to consider what she is saying. After all she is in her 50s, with grown kids, what do I know? BUT thank God, I can see through all that. I just think this is how it starts. How many other women are in situations like these and, not knowing any better, listen more to the co-worker than to the needs of her own husband? It was just so shocking, because I liked this woman.....she seemed reasonable....but gosh not now after I saw her true side, what she is really about. That's scary stuff. I have to be so careful what I say around women. They are like piranhas waiting to bite. By simply saying I need to make my husband dinner, or do anything for him, they immediately think that he is abusing/oppressing me. I have this bruise on my arm right now from being a klutz,,,and I actually worry about if some feminist crazed woman at work will notice it and say "how'd you get this"? When I worked the ramp, a woman there was bruised from working with the bags. She went to her doctor and the doctor suspected DV, became this huge old mess for her. It's just unreal. I can't trust or form any kind of relationship with women. How can you when you have to guard everything you say and when you can't make a very normal remark? Once again I am left with my head spinning with how deep the feminist problem goes.

Perhaps that's how the feminist BS starts, but what gets me is why young women never ask themselves if THEY want a marriage (or lack thereof) like their older, female colleagues have. Part of this tendency to go along is part of women's herd instinct; a woman would rather DIE than go against the consensus of her friends. If a gal, partiularly a young one, thinks that the herd has the opinion that your older, feminazi colleague has, then she'll adopt it. If a gal likes a guy, while her friends don't, then many women will dump the guy because he doesn't get the approval of her girlfriends.

Your story about the bruise reminds me of a story Hestia told me. I can't remember all the particulars, but her situation was similar to yours. She had an injury of some sort, and she didn't want birth control pills. Well, she was given the third degree about DV-even though her husband was on a tour of duty in Iraq! He was only on the other side of the world, and thus quite unable to inflict any DV; even if he'd wanted to (he doesn't), he couldn't have hurt her in any way, because he was thousands of miles away. The hospital personnel then said that she didn't need to be afraid; that she could tell the truth; and so on. They didn't want to hear the fact that her husband was thousands of miles away; they had their minds made up that it was DV; and that was that.

Hopefully, your colleagues won't notice the bruise. If they do, then be careful. Even if you tell the truth, your feminist minded colleagues will be inclined to think the worst anyway. That'd be especially true of Mrs. Harpy, the one who admonished you for wanting to treat your man right. Who knows what she'll do? Be careful-very careful! I say this as a man experienced in dealing with female colleagues.

I know what you say about the trust issue, because I ran into it too. Remember my telling the story about the woman I thought was a good friend, the one I asked out to lunch? Her reaction floored me, because I'd NEVER made a play for her, nor did I ever hint of doing so! I considered her a good friend, nothing more; she was the sister I never had. I still shake my head and feel hurt 11 years later.

I remember when I was new on that assignment, and I met this young college grad, Katie. I'd seen her in passing, so I talked to her. I could SEE the mistrust in her eyes, all because I was a man! I remember her saying that she had 60 pair of shoes-60 pair! I don't think I've owned that many in my entire lifetime. Anyway, she got all defensive because I tried to be nice, introduce myself, and talk to her.

I could tell stories like this for hours, Ruth. After a few experiences like yours, one gets paranoid-execpt in this case, they really ARE out to get you! You'll find yourself being more deliberate in your conversations around women after this; I know I am. Now do you understand why I was cautious about Maria?

I'm going to close this out. I and any guy could easily relate to the story you just told. Why? Because we've LIVED it ourselves! At least you're a woman; you won't automatically be assumed guilty like I would. I know some women, like Hestia, could tell stories too. Tell her your friend's story (the one who got bruised on the ramp), and see if she doesn't spill the beans on the hospital visit I mentioned above.

I hope that this helps you. The big thing (and I hate to say it) is to be VERY CAREFUL what you say around women, and men too. There are manginas out there, and they're just as bad as any woman, if not worse. You'll have to be careful around everyone, not just women. I wish I had something more profound to say, but I don't. Have a good night, and I hope things work out well...


MarkyMark

14 February 2014

Global Warming, My Ass!

Folks,

We've had yet ANOTHER snow storm-a record setting snow storm.  Where I am, we got over a foot of snow!  Where I am, even in North Jersey, we don't usually measure our snowfalls in feet.  That's for places like Buffalo, NY; Chicago, IL; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, et al; that's NOT for locales where I am.  You have to love all that 'global warming', folks!

Secondly, during the last couple of summers, we have had only a handful of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit, or 32 degrees Celsius.  Our summers are getting cooler too.  The whole year is cooler.  Ah, but we have global warming-not!

Thirdly, what's telling is that the language WRT this issue has changed.  It's no longer called global warming, because there IS no warming-duh!  Now, they call it 'climate change'.  That's the de rigeur name for it now, since the original is BS.

No, what climate change is about is not the environment; that is just a red herring.  What it is is an excuse by gov't, control freaks, and wannabe tyrants to oppress us with more regulations.  Under the ruse of protecting the environment, the federal government tells us what light bulbs we can buy, what toilets we can use in our house, and what cars we can buy.

For example, under the ruse of protecting the environment, the Obama Administration has gone after coal fired powerplants.  Never mind the fact that they provide a good percentage of our electricity, and that shutting them down will give us rolling blackouts.  That's great-not!  Now, we can be like every other Third World country without a reliable electric supply.

Another example is the cars we drive.  Thanks to the new CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, our cars are becoming smaller, less powerful, and more expensive.  The government wants US riding around in Smart Cars, while they enjoy their limos-fucking hypocrites!

I could go on, but you get my point.  Global warming isn't happening, so they call it climate change now.  Global warming proponents like Obama demonize private jets and those who have them, while they fly around on Air Force One.  Air Force One, the President's plane, is a modified Boeing 747-200.  The last time I checked, a B-747 burns about 3, 200 gallons of jet fuel per hour; that's one HELL of a carbon footprint!  Ah, but Barack Hussein Obama wants to chastise private citizens for having private jets, though his jet uses an order of magnitude more fuel per hour more than any private jet does.  There's a name for that: hypocrisy...

In closing, global warming is a ruse; it's not happening .  If it were, then those pushing the global warming fantasy wouldn't have to change what it's called; they wouldn't have to call it climate change now, would they?  No, this is just a ruse to take away more of our freedoms, more of our rights, and usurp even MORE power for the government-as if they don't have enough already!  If global warming were happening, we wouldn't be measuring our snowfalls in feet.  Have a good day now...

MarkyMark

05 February 2014

Traffic Stops

Guys,

While searching for something else, I stumbled across the video you're about to watch.  Though I don't smoke pot, I found the most of the information useful.  Though you may never haul drugs in your car, you may haul a gun or something else deemed to be illegal.  For example, you may live in a very blue state like NJ.  You buy a rifle or pistol at a gun show in Virginia or other nearby state, and you bring it back.  By crossing into NJ with the gun, you've committed an illegal act.  The question is this: how do you not get caught?  Barry Cooper, former law enforcement officer and maker of the video, will show you how to remain free.

Now, the video will take about an hour and a half (1.5 hours).  I would encourage you to view the whole thing; it's time well spent.  You don't have to watch it all in one sitting; you can view a topic or two at a time as Mr. Cooper covers them.  IOW, you can either view this in one sitting, or do it in multiple sittings.  However you watch the video, please, WATCH THE VIDEO!  The life you save may be your own.  Now, on to the video...



Good stuff, huh?  Only here at MarkyMark's place can you find useful information!  Have a good day now...

MarkyMark

01 January 2014

Another Fascinating Invention by Men!

Guys,

In the past, my company has partnered with Tesla Motors, America's premier EV builder.  As such, I take interest in what Tesla does.  No, I'm not an environmental whacko, but kicking the expensive gasoline (or petrol for our British friends) habit would be nice.  I drive an economical vehicle, and I spend $50-$55 a week; that equates to $2,500-$2,860 a year.  That's a lot of money!  Ergo, I'm a bit of a Tesla fan, and I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of their Model E.

In any case, I don't have to tell you that diesel vehicles, especially larger ones, are dirty.  That goes for city buses too, the subject of this video.  I know, I know; diesels are a lot cleaner than they used to be, but still.  To address the pollution of diesel powered buses, many cities in Europe use trolley buses, but they require overhead lines for power; that limits where they can be used, because they can only run where overhead lines are installed.  They cannot be used anywhere like an internal combustion powered bus can.

That was until now!  ABB has come up with an electric bus that can run all day long, and can do so without overhead lines.  How did they do this?  One, they charge it overnight at the depot; this provides the bulk of the battery's charge.  Two, they charge the bus at its termini, which are at either end of its route.  Finally, they do a flash charge at every third or fourth stop; in 15 seconds, they top off the battery while the bus is picking up or dropping off passengers.  The beauty of what ABB has done is that this would require minimal changes to a transit system's infrastructure.

What you'll note in the video is that men invented this; men saw this through to completion.  As Camille Paglia has said in the past, if we left invention up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts.  Now, enjoy a video about the fruits of male ingenuity at its finest...



Male ingenuity at its finest-you gotta love it! Until next time...

MarkyMark

07 December 2013

Nelson Mandela: Communist & Terrorist Extraordinarie, Died

Guys,

This past week, the terrorist and communist, Nelson Mandela, died.  The liberal media (redundant?) has had their hopelessly predictable orgasm over this, which didn't surprise me.  They have a hard-on for any and all communists, socialists, and statists.  Why wouldn't they, since they're brothers in arms?

What did surprise and dishearten me some was that the purported conservative media has gone easy on Mandela as well.  You can go to Breitbart.com, and read a piece by Joel Pollak, entitled: Why Conservatives Should Celebrate Nelson Mandela.  Sorry, but I cannot and will not celebrate a barbaric communist who killed those who disagreed with him; not only that, he killed them by a most grisly method: necklacing.  Notice how communists, socialists, and statists always kill those who disagree with them?  I'll come back to necklacing in a bit...

Mark Levin, the well known conservative firebrand who's on during drive time along the east coast, devoted the first hour of his Thursday evening show to Mandela's passing.  Since Levin had worked in the President Reagan's Justice Department, I would have expected him to take a harder line against Mandela; after all, when Reagan was president, Nelson Mandela was allied with the USSR & Cuba.  Anyway, you can hear the whole love fest here.

You know what's even MORE galling?!  The local McDonalds has their American flag at half mast to honor the passing of Nelson Mandela!  That's right; the all-American company, McDonalds, is flying their flags at half mast to honor Mandela's death.  I'm sorry, but that's just wrong!  Even if you think Mandela was a saint (and I don't); even if he were a saint (he was not!); it goes against the flag etiquette I learned as a Boy Scout.  I was always told that you only lower the flag to half staff for the passing of a national leader, not international leaders.

Anyway, for the uninitiated, necklacing involved putting tires around the neck and ankles of the victim, filling them with gasoline (or petrol for our British friends), then setting them on fire.  Here are some pictures of what necklacing does to someone (HT Elusive Wapiti).  Warning: they are graphic!  It's bad enough that Mandela and his followers killed those who disagreed with and opposed them; it's even worse that they did so by the most grisly method of killing someone, i.e. burning them to death!  What kind of person does that?  A barbarian-that's who.

 In closing, I am not at all sad that Nelson Mandela is gone.  He was a communist, a terrorist, and one who ended up destroying the most prosperous nation on the African continent.  He has a pile of bodies behind him, because he killed those who disagreed with and opposed him; moreover, he killed his opponents in the most grisly method one can think of-by burning them to death!  All I can say is good riddance, and I wouldn't be sad if he burns in Hell.

MarkyMark