Pregnancy Tests for Sale!

Guys,

Just when I think women's morality can't get any lower; just when I think things can't be more insane; women's morality goes still lower, and things are sick and getting sicker.  I cannot make this stuff up.  Stand by for a Daily Mail article about pregnancy tests for sale, along with analysis from Yours Truly...

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

To pee or not to pee: Women sell positive pregnancy tests on Craigslist for $25 each. . . and there is no shortage of motivated buyers

• One seller writes 'Wanna get your boyfriend to pop the question?', while some buyers are motivated by revenge

PUBLISHED: 16:33 EST, 30 August 2013 | UPDATED: 17:39 EST, 30 August 2013 

A number of women across the country have listed their positive pregnancy tests for sale on Craigslist.

One expectant mother in the Buffalo, New York area is selling her used sticks for $25 each, The Daily Dot reports.

Another New Jersey mom writes: 'Wanna get your boyfriend to finally pop the question? Play a trick on mom, dad or one of your friends?

Who was it that said that women are natural liars?  Who was it that said that Nature endows all of its creatures with the necessary tools of survival?  Who was it that said that, since women are weaker than men, have been endowed with a degree of cunning and deception that men cannot begin to understand?  I don't know, but this shows that women are anything BUT sugar and spice and everything nice...

Scrolling through the site, there appears to be no shortage of sellers- and many are aware that their customers could be using the tests for dubious reasons.

What, women do things for dubious reasons?!  Say it isn't so!  The scary thing is that we allow women to VOTE!  Did you ever think about that? 

I'm pregnant and will sell you my positive pregnancy test for $20,' one woman on Manhattan's Lower East Side writes. 'I don't care what you need them for.'

One Los Angeles woman offers to buy a pregnancy test for $20 'to make a video on teen pregnancy' for her local boys and girls club, which commenters point out seems suspect.

Suspect, indeed!  Methinks that an entrapment is about to happen here...

Another Dallas-based buyer is motivated by revenge, because after five years and two children with her ex-boyfriend, he came home and told her that he got his receptionist pregnant.

'We had been trying for another [baby]' she writes.

'He texted and said he isn't sure who he wants to be with and I think I handled it well for what a cheating lying dog he is. I would like the last laugh out of this. I will give some girl $40.'

Aw, poor Little Missy took up with a bad boy, and she's surprised that he didn't remain faithful to her.  How CLUELESS can you be?!  Didn't Little Missy learn that leopards do NOT change their spots?!  I guess not...

I would like to ask some questions of Little Missy here.  One, why did you go out with a cheating, lying dog?  Why did you STAY with him?  Surely this isn't the first time he's done this; cheaters have always done it before, so you have no excuse, Darlin'.

Just goes to show you that women WANT promiscuous men-at least the increasingly number of feral women found today do.  Thanks to preselection and hypergamy, women want what other women want; to them, it shows that the man has 'value'-though in this case, that value is dubious, at best...

Still, is easy to see how expectant moms in need of extra cash could be tempted by the high markup.

Why not sell the tests for $200?  After all, that's a real markup.  Also, $200 is cheap compared the bonanza that's worth TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to be awarded in the form of child support, alimony, etc...

While drugstore pregnancy tests are priced at between $10 and $20, cheaper versions can be bought online or at discount outlets for as little as $1 each.

Yeah, but a used, positive pregnancy test could be worth thousands...

Craigslist has also become an underground online bazaar for other fertility items. Women are selling frozen breast milk for $1 per ounce, baby items and even drugs at a deep discount.

The breast milk works out to $128 per gallon-wow!  That begs an obvious question though: why wouldn't a woman just use her OWN breast milk?  After all, she'll make it when she gets pregnant and has a kid...

Fertility drugs such as Ganrilex, Menopur and Gonal-f used for IVF and egg freezing are offered at around $100 for several doses rather than the market rate, which can be around $120 for one syringe.

If women would have children when they are younger and more fertile (i.e. is more likely to have kids, and will have an easier time giving birth to them), they wouldn't NEED IVF!  Even with IVF, because an older woman's eggs are mostly gone; because those remaining eggs are of lower quality; IVF will only have success rate of 5% or so. 

But experts caution that there is no way to verify that the drugs inside the box are as advertised - or, since many medicines require refrigeration - that they have been stored properly.

What else can I add to this?

As with everything else on Craigslist, it seems that the advice let the buyer beware definitely applies here.

Caveat emptor-let the buyer beware, indeed...

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

Guys, I have some closing thoughts about this.  Normally, I'd say good bye here, but not this time; this time, I'll share my parting thoughts about this sort of thing...

If your woman insists that she's pregnant, then buy fresh pregnancy tests at the store yourself and have her use them; don't rely on a test she furnishes you.  How do you know it's legit if you go solely on her say-so?  Spend $20 for some tests; it's cheap insurance.

The second thought I have is that this proves women are NATURAL LIARS AND DECEIVERS; this proves it!  The safe thing to do is to assume a woman is always lying to you unless proven otherwise; even then, be suspicious of what she says.

Thirdly, we allow these creatures to VOTE!  Did you ever think about that?  Women vote; even though they pull these sorts of stunts, they are allowed to vote!  Since they comprise the majority of voters, it's no wonder we have increasing corruption, deception, and skullduggery on the part of government; after all, they are reflecting women's desires, inclinations, and wishes.

With that, I shall say good day, Gentlemen; have a good day now...

MarkyMark

Anti-Gun Editor OUT of a Job!

Guys,

I'm sure you all remember how the editor of NY's Rockland County Journal News thought it was cute to publish the names and addresses of area gun permit holders.  Well, that woman, Caryn McBride, is OUT of a job-yes!  I normally don't cheer over someone's job loss, even if I cannot stand them.  I've been out of a job before, and I can empathize with people in that situation.  However, there are certain people who deserve to lose their jobs, and that feminist bitch, Caryn McBride, is one of them.  Not only is she a feminist; she's anti-gun, which mean's she's anti Second Amendment; she's against God, our country, and its Constitution.  Karma's a bitch, Bitch!  Stand by for commentary from Yours Truly...

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

According to the Rockland Times, a competitor to the Gannett-owned Rockland County Journal News, editor Caryn McBride is among the casualties of a recent purge at the Journal News.
The report said 17 journalists were among a total of 26 staff members at the Journal News who were let go.

Yes!  It's nice to see karma visited upon those who truly deserve it, and it's nice to see it DURING our lifetime... :)

It was the Journal News that in 2012 published the names and addresses of all gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties under the headline “Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?”

Why did she think it was anyone ELSE'S business who had the gun permits in their neighborhood?  Better yet, why do we have gun permits at all?  Doesn't the Second Amendment say that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed."?   Isn't the requirement to obtain a permit to either own or carry a gun an infringement on one's Second Amendment right?

The Times said police reports showed McBride had called the Clarkstown Police Department to notify them of a flood of angry phone calls and letters the newspaper received after it published the map.

Aw, poor Little Missy can't take the heat, so she cries and moans about it-waaaahhh!  Little Missy, Harry Truman said that, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Even though you're a liberal, feminist, American hating woman; even though you've probably never been held to account for your actions (i.e. you've received the pussy pass for being a feminist and a woman); you should have had enough common sense to know that, after publishing the names and addresses of area gun owners, there would be a firestorm of controversy and anger over this-duh!  You do know that many Americans hold a dim view of anti-gun activists, don't you?

The Rockland editor said she felt threatened by the complaints, but local police didn’t believe there was a credible threat. McBride and other executives then decided to hire armed guards to protect their property, the Times reported, “causing an uproar due to the perceived hypocrisy of the avowed anti-gun editors hiring gun-toting men.”

That's probably because there was NEVER a credible threat.  Unlike liberal, anti-American, PC fascists like Caryn McBride, conservatives and libertarians don't engage in violent acts to carry out their aims.  If anyone doesn't believe me, just look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters or the government union protesters in Wisconsin last year in their budget showdown with Governor Scott Walker.

Also, like many others, I just LOVE the hypocrisy of Miss McBride and her staff who hired armed guards for protection; that is so rich!  On one hand, they decry gun ownership, yet they hire armed men to protect them.  The hypocrisy of women and feminists never cease to amaze me...

The layoffs were announced by the newspaper’s CEO, Janet Hasson.

What I ESPECIALLY love about this is that a fellow woman and feminist (redundant?) fired her-ha!

The fallout from the decision to publish the names and addresses of gun-permit holders continued for weeks.

Gee, I wonder why?  I mean, these sanctimonious pricks only took active actions against gun owners-people who are exercising their RIGHT to keep and bear arms!

Two months ago, the White Plains-based newspaper admitted that the information it published was badly outdated. The paper acknowledged many people had a dot on their house, indicating there was a gun permit at that address, even though they didn’t own a gun.

You see, THIS is why I am skeptical of anything and everything the news media say.  Here, they admitted to using old, inaccurate information!  Why does anyone take them seriously anymore?  These same, sanctimonious pricks wonder WHY their readership, circulation, and most crucially, their advertising revenues, are dropping-incredible...

For example, The New York Times recently announced its sale of The Boston Globe for a 93% LOSS!  That's right; after paying $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993, the Times sold The Boston Globe for a mere $70 million.  Also, The Washington Post was recently sold to Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, for $250 million; keep in mind that The Washington Post had been valued in the BILLIONS of dollars not so long ago...

The responses to the publication included the publication of a map showing “Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?” The Times said a Clarkstown police report confirmed that armed security guards were hired for the Journal News.

Hah, turnabout is fair play!  I remember how Caryn McBride and her staff were crying like stuck pigs after this happened.  It was all right for them to print the names and addresses of area gun owners, yet it wasn't all right to have the same thing done to them.  Again, the HYPOCRISY of these people NEVER ceases to amaze me...

The Times also reported that shortly after the publication of the map, authorities said burglars entered the home of one of the gun owners identified by the newspaper, and a gun safe that was on the premises was damaged in a robbery attempt.

There were actually numerous instances of this happening, because I heard it reported in the local media.  Since I'm in NJ, we receive newspapers and broadcasts (both TV & radio) from NYC and its surrounding environs; that would consist of NY state suburbs like Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam Counties for you low information voters out there.  Anyway, there were numerous stories like this.  Of course, area police chiefs denied any linkage between the stories and the attempted burglaries of gun owners.  Even so, outside of the NYC/Tri-State area, this facet of the story (i.e. the attempted burglaries of gun owners in the wake of the article) received little, if any, coverage...

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

Folks, as I often say, I CANNOT make this up.  Have a good day now...

MarkyMark

How to Treat Women Until Things Change

Guys,

I was looking for something else over @ Dr. Helen's place on PJ Media when I decided to read her response to Rush Limbaugh's on air review of her book, Men on Strike.  I heard him that day, and what he had to say was dead on target.  After reading her piece, I decided to peruse the comments as well, and I found THIS gem by Gawain's Ghost; in it, he discusses how he treats women these days, and why.  It's good reading, so I thought I would share it with my readers...

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

Well, Dr. Helen, as you point out in your interview, the great irony here is that this issue harms women more than men. And there can be no resolution until women realize that fact.

That begs and obvious question: will women ever realize that?  Given women's solipsistic, gynocentric point of view (i.e. everything is about them), are they capable of cause and effect thinking?  I'm not so sure, given women's penchant for choosing cads repeatedly, then complaining about the dearth of good men afterwards.  Women will ride the carousel for years, yet never seem to figure out that they may be doing something-gasp-wrong...

I suppose a resolution could be accelerated if more and more men treated women the way I do. I mean, I'm not a cad or a pick up artist. I treat women with respect. I'm polite and courteous, fun to be with. It's just that I understand the law and know that I am held accountable under the law.

Yes, yes, yes, a THOUSAND times yes!  Men should understand the law and our inferior legal standing therein.  One of the best investments in time a man can make is to take a day off, and spend it in his local family court; he'll see how gynocentric the legal system is, how biased against men it is.

My solution to the problem is really very simple. Marriage is out of the question. I do not allow her access to my property. I certainly do not allow her access to my money. We both have jobs, houses and cars. We both have money. So if she wants to get together, we'll agree on a place or an event, and meet each other there. If she wants to get intimate, we'll agree to share a hotel. After the date, or in the morning, we go our separate ways.

Keep 'em at arm's length, absolutely!  If you do this, then she cannot burn you.

Is there any romance in a relationship like that? No, not really. Is there any future in a relationship like that? No, not really. Would I prefer be in a relationship that involved romance and a future? Yes, I would. But unfortunately this culture, this marriage contract, and this legal system prevents it. So I came up with the only solution I could think of, separate lives.

THIS is what feminism led to.  THIS is what women wanted, via their support and/or their silence, i.e. their lack of opposition to feminist policies while they were being implemented.

She can take care of herself. Ever since I was 12, I've had girls tell me, "I don't need for you to take care of me." Okay.

Those of us over a certain age can remember Helen Reddy's battle cry: "I am woman, hear me roar in a voice too loud to ignore!"  We've also heard about how women are strong, independent, and how they don't need no stinkin' man, how sisters are doin' it for themselves, etc.

If I'm on a date, say we're having dinner at some restaurant, and she starts making snide comments or belittling remarks, which happens quite often, I just stand up, throw $20 on the table and leave. She can drive herself home.

Hear, hear!  Don't put up with her feminist bullshit...

If she comes to my house and knocks on the door, I step outside and close the door behind me. What can I do for you? "I wanted to see where you live." You don't need to see where I live. No way am I going to allow her into my house, because I know for a fact that the minute she leaves all she has to do is say "He tried to rape me!" And I will be in a world of trouble.

This is true; all she has to do is point the finger in YOUR direction, and you are toast.  Remember the Duke lacrosse team?  Remember the boys at Hofstra?

I once had this friend who was dating this girl, and he broke up with her. She called the police and said he was a major cocaine dealer. Saturday morning, we were kicking back on his couch, watching TV, and this tactical SWAT team burst in, held us at gunpoint, and ripped his house apart. They found nothing of course, because it was all a lie. But it did scare the hell out of us. This is what I'm talking about. All she has to do is make an accusation, and law enforcement comes storming in.

I only meet with women in public places. I only have sex in hotel rooms. Since she pays for half, there can be no question as to why she was there.

Absolutely-have a paper trail so you can prove your case.  Unfortunately, when it comes to men accused of anything these days, it's no longer innocent until proven guilty; it's guilty until proven INNOCENT!  That's a subtle, yet important distinction...

I've dated women, and after a few weeks, she asks, "Is this all there is? Dinners and hotels sex?" She wants to move into my house or she wants to get married. When I tell her that's not going to happen, she gets upset.

I'm nor going to argue with her. I try to explain to her that the terms and conditions of the marriage contract are unacceptable, and that the law and the court system make cohabitation impossible. She gets more upset and stomps off. Oh, well, on to the next girl.

Never argue with a woman; you'll NEVER get anywhere.  Also, remind her that THIS is the society women wanted; they're the majority of voters, so we, as men, are powerless to stop anything...

If more men treated women like that, it wouldn't take long before women began to understand that this is their problem. When she realizes that all she has to look forward to is work and going home alone, then she will start considering changes to the contract and the law.

Don't bet on it.  Women, given their solipsistic nature, will never draw a connection between X and Y; linear, logical, causal thinking is not women's strong suit.  If it were, then women wouldn't ride the carousel with cads for decades of their lives, then wonder why they cannot find a good man when their looks start to fade...

I doubt there will be an organized men's rights movement. Men just don't do that. I know that women don't have any interest in changing the way things are, because they currently have all the power and advantages.

Women have all the benefits and advantages, absolutely.  Moreover, they FOUGHT for these benefits and advantages.  Why would anyone with a brain think that they'd even think about giving up all their gains?!

So my proposal is for men to make a concerted effort to live separate lives. Oh, yeah, women will complain about it. They want romance. They want love. They want a future. When it becomes apparent that they're not going to get any of that, then things will change.

Again, I wouldn't bet on that, because women don't DO cause and effect thinking; it goes against their very nature.  That said, what have he got to lose?  After all, we're (i.e. men) a minority of the voters, so we cannot and will not change anything on our own.  Ergo, we might as well live our lives for ourselves, while letting women put their money where their mouths are.  After all, sisters can do it for themselves; after all, they don't NEED no stinkin' man... ;)

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

Have a good day, and I'll be back at you soon...

MarkyMark

Bridezillas as Aversion Therapy

Folks,

I couldn't watch this show for long periods of time; a minute or so was too long in most cases-ugghh! However, when I used to visit my mom in South Jersey, I would make it a point to take a gander at Bridezillas once in a while. Why? It's excellent AVERSION THERAPY! Whenever I got sappy & sentimental wishing I had that special someone, watching two seconds of Bridezillas snaps me right out of it...

Having said that, I don't understand WHY these guys (i.e. the grooms) go through with MARRYING these bitches; what are they thinking?! Do they think things will get better after the big day? Come on! Sorry, but these dumb fools get what they deserve. Just watching a few minutes of this wretched show is enough to cure me of ANY longing for marriage. Like I said, it's EXCELLENT aversion therapy!

For those who don't know of the show, Bridezillas is shown on the WE cable channel; it's in its tenth season. WE stands for Women's Entertainment. For the past ten years, they've run this reality show. It's my understanding that the producers had ORIGINALLY wanted to show the joys of getting married, and the process that took both the brides and grooms to the altar. However, when the first season was filmed, only 2 of the 15 couples had a happy ending-only two! The producers and cameramen couldn't believe what the vast majority of weddings were like.  So, they changed the show to its present format. The evidence doesn't lie, does it?

So, fellas, the next time you get any longings for having that special someone in your life, tune in the WE Channel, and watch some "Bridezillas". I promise that this will cure you of ANY such foolish feelings-ha! Enjoy this video sample from the show.

Makes you want to go out and get married, huh?  Just kidding!  Until next time...

MarkyMark

Titanic & Men's Choices

Guys,

I wanted to write this long ago, but for whatever reason, I never did.  Since it's still talked about; since it was re-released in 3D; I thought it was appropos to discuss the movie, Titanic, at this time.

The movie, Titanic, could have been the home run that Apollo 13 was; it could have provided good drama while respecting the history of the event. However, Titanic, in the words of Time or Newsweek, was nothing but “a quasi Marxian epic.”

I had a few problems with Titanic. One was the meme that women didn’t have any choices in those days-as if men did. Two, the romance between Jack & Rose was BS! Three, the characters, especially Rose’s fiance’, were PC caricatures. Four, as the authoress correctly points out, Rose betrayed her husband to be.

One thing that pissed me off when I saw Titanic was the BS line Rose’s mother uttered about women not having any choices. What, you think that MEN did?! Come on! We had no choice but to marry and have families! We had no choice but to take on any work (no matter how demeaning, dirty, and/or dangerous) to do so.  We, as men, had no choices in a lot of matters.

Ever been in a coal mine? I have. Trust me; it’s no place any rational person would want to work! Between the risk of death (black lung and cave-ins), maiming, darkness, and the drudgery of it all, what RATIONAL man would want to do this? Ah, but men did it by the thousands to take care of their wives and families! If a man was from ‘coal country’, what choices did HE have? That never, ever gets pointed out, let alone discussed; that angers me!

If a man lived out on the frontier, what choice did he have but to go out and get the food by old fashioned, hard, and DANGEROUS work? Feminists bitch about how women would be stuck in the home churning the butter, preparing the food, keeping house, etc.; what they ignore is how that food GOT there in the first place! The man had to go out and either farm it, working himself to the bone in the process; or, he had to go out into the wild to hunt and kill the family meals. When out hunting, he had to brave the elements, Indians, and wild animals also interested in his meals, e.g. bears wanting the same deer he was hunting. Feminists forget that just going out to get the family food was a life & death proposition in those days. Yeah, Wifey had to clean and cook the food, but Hubby had to risk life and limb just to PUT it there for her! Why do feminists overlook this? Why do feminists and women (I wonder if there’s difference) overlook the fact that men didn’t have choices, either?

Secondly, the romance between Jack & Rose was utter BS; that would NEVER happen in real life-never! Women, by their very nature, are hypergamous; that is, they seek out and marry men superior to themselves in terms of status, wealth, education, etc. Rose would never be caught dead with a man (i.e. Jack Dawson, Leo DeCaprio's character) from steerage or third class.

Thirdly, the characters in Titanic were PC caricatures. Jack, the working class man, was the virtuous hero. Rose was the put upon, oppressed, poor little woman. Rose’s fiance was the arrogant, uncaring, elitist, rich jerk who couldn’t be bothered with ‘the little people’. I recall that, when Time or Newsweek did a review of the movie (I can’t remember which magazine now, because this was in 1996, or 17 years ago now), they called the movie a “quasi Marxian epic”-and this was from a decidedly LIBERAL publication! The fact that one of those paragons of East Coast, elitist liberalism called the movie that says something.

Finally, Rose betrayed her husband to be-end of story. Even if Jack had had a practical skill and could find gainful employment upon arriving in New York, Rose betrayed her fiance. She’d made a commitment to him, so she owed it to stick by that commitment. Men get bashed for failure to make commitments to women, yet it’s women who break said commitments, e.g. by filing for divorce twice as often as men do.

In closing, I had a few problems with Titanic. One was that women had no choices, while men had endless choices; I demonstrated how that was false. Two was the fact that a woman like Rose wouldn’t be caught DEAD with a working class dog like Jack; her hypergamy wouldn’t allow it. Three, the characters were PC caricatures. Four, Rose betrayed her fiance and her commitment to him.

MarkyMark