Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - stands2p

If you can't laugh at the differences between men and women there is no hope.  Here are a few in the interest of balance.

Anti-Male Jokes
1. Why do men prefer blondes?
--Men always like intellectual company.
2. Why do black widow spiders kill their mates after mating?
--To stop the snoring before it starts.
3. Why do men chase women they have no intention of marrying?
--For the same reason dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving.
4. Why are husbands like lawn mowers?
--They're hard to get started, emit foul odors, and don't work half the time.
5. What's the difference between a man and a catfish?
--One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is a fish.
6. Husband: Want a quickie?
Wife: As opposed to what?
7. Why do jocks play on artificial turf?
--To keep them from grazing.
8. Why is it so hard for women to find men who are sensitive, caring, and good-looking?
--Because they already have boyfriends.
9. What is gross stupidity?
--144 men in one room.
10. Husband: I don't know why you wear a bra, you've got nothing to put in it.
Wife: You wear briefs, don't you?
11. How many men does it take to pop popcorn?
--Three-one to hold the pan and two others to act macho and shake the stove.
12. How do men sort their laundry?
--Filthy, and Filthy But Wearable.
13. Why were men given larger brains than dogs?
--A. So they wouldn't hump women's legs at cocktail parties.
B. So they wouldn't stop to play with every other man they see when you take them around the block.
14. What is the thinnest book in the world?
--What men know about women.
15. How many men does it take to screw a light bulb?
--A. One - men will screw anything
B. One - men will screw up anything
C. Five - one to actually do the screwing, four to listen to him brag about it.
16. How can you tell if a man is aroused?
--He's breathing.
17. What's the difference between men and government bonds?
--Bonds mature.
18. How do you save a man from drowning?
--You take your foot off his head.
19. How many men does it take to change a roll of toilet paper?
--Who cares? Has it ever happened?
20. What is a man's idea of doing housework?
--Lifting his legs so you can vacuum under them.
21. What does a man consider a seven-course meal?
--A hot dog and a six-pack.
22. Why are men like laxatives?
--They can irritate the shit out of you.
23. How do you get a man to do sit-ups?
--Put the remote control between his toes.
24. How do men exercise on the beach?
--By sucking in their stomachs every time they see a bikini.
25. What are two reasons why men don't mind their own business?
--1. No mind.
2. No business.
26. Why is a woman different from a PC?
--A woman won't accept a 3 1/2-inch floppy.
27. Why do bachelors like smart women?
--Opposites attract.
Did they break the numbers out by butch and femme categories?  Also, when Heather has two mommies, do they both gain weight after the non-traditional childbirthing experience of their choice?
Main / Re: The future is female' BT predicts
Apr 24, 2007, 01:02 PM
Eh, time will tell.
I've had a good seat for most of the "information revolution" so my sexist observations are at least as good as this guy's.   My earliest jobs all had paper forms, hand-typed pick lists etc. and now I am an IT guy so I've seen it all.  Technology isn't making work go away, it's just changing the way it gets done and it is still people who can solve problems that are worth keeping around.
I've worked alongside too many people who would follow a useless process forever if you let them, almost always women.  It takes an aggressive, obnoxious, selfish person to barge into a department and change the way things are done and, in my experience, these are almost always men.
I started a new job as a peon in a loan department and asked why a large pile of loan apps hadn't been touched.  There had been a falling out with that dealer and we were waiting one knew what we were waiting for, everyone was afraid to call him.  I called the guy and asked if he wanted us to start processing x hundred thousand worth of business and he said sure.  Problem solved.  The women in the department honestly thought I was going to get fired.  My (slightly effeminate male) boss gave me the account.

The stories could go on and on.

When women run the world, civilization will last until the oil needs changing.

Main / Re: Only in San Francisco!
Apr 19, 2007, 12:54 PM

I am totally with you on the moral/ethical issue, but I need to know how you pull a baby out by the feet then puncture its skull which is still inside. There is only one opening, how are they getting to the head if the baby is the other way around?

The technician, at the direction of an M.D., inserts a thin tube alongside the baby's body and guides it carefully up the birth canal to the base of the baby's skull.  The tube has a sharp point which is used to penetrate the baby's skull.  Once the skull has been penetrated, the technician applies suction to evacuate the contents of the baby's skull.  With the brain removed, the skull is easily crushed and the baby's body is removed from the birth canal.  Are you glad you asked?

Even if that procedure is ever truly necessary, it should be regulated to the point where a formal board is convened to approve each case.  If that kind of regulation causes someone to have hurt feelings or suffer embarassment, I think I can live with that.
Main / Re: What do you guys think of this?
Apr 19, 2007, 11:14 AM
If this guy is truly guilty of creating a market for child porn, you'll find me in the front row with a tidy pile of fist-sized rocks, limbering up my throwin' arm.


This story seems to me to be an embellishment by a columnist of something that may or may not have happened at all.
The guy's alleged reactions and behavior seem to me more like a woman's imaginations of how a guy would react to getting caught with kiddie porn (dismissive, angry, defiant.)  Based on the information in the column, it seems more like a false accusation aimed at putting him on the defensive in a pre-meditated divorce scheme.  Once a man is accused of something as horrible as child porn, the severity of the charge will blind even reasonable people to the possibility that he might be innocent.  He's already been found guilty and sentenced so my opinion isn't going to make any difference.

For some context, look at some of the other columns in the series.  They are mostly about how a woman felt as a result of things happening to her, you know, VICTIM STORIES.  In one of the other stories, a woman is frightened by letters she is getting from an admirer.  She calls the police and then later finds out the letters are being sent by the husband of her friend.  She is still troubled but no longer afraid for her life so of course she calls the police and tells them they can drop the case and she and her friends will resolve the matter between them.  WAIT, my mistake, she calls the cops and turns the guy in and has him prosecuted.  Then she mopes about losing her friend.   The columnist and many of the comments salute the hag for having the courage to take back her life. :icon_puke_r:
at least prostitution is honest and upfront as a pure business transaction with nobody having unreasonable expectations, or misrepresenting why they are there.

As long as you shop carefully.  Whores are hustlers and con artists.  Their goal is to separate you from as much of your money as they can while doing as little as possible.  The risks are great.
Main / Re: What do you guys think of this?
Apr 19, 2007, 07:05 AM
LibertarianDad's link provides an important piece of the puzzle.  This columnist has a running theme of "emotional" stories meant to push women's buttons.  They are mostly stories about the bad things men do and the "innocent" women who are inconvenienced by them.

Based on the "facts" presented in this story, my hunch is that substantive facts (real ones) were left out because they detracted from the entertainment value of the article.  The story does not ring true to me.
Main / Re: virginia tech.
Apr 18, 2007, 07:27 AM
She goes on to say in the comments that if they had been Native American, Buddhist or pagan, a prayer gathering would be fine but the fact that they are Christians is what bothers her.

It's nice when they come right out in the open with their twisted sense of justice.
Main / Re: A truly great man.
Apr 18, 2007, 07:09 AM
A decent person who thinks of other first as this gentleman did SHOULD be armed at all times.

Robert Heinlen is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society."  This sounds ominous or flippant to some people but not to anyone who ever backed down from a fight out of concern for the other person's well-being.

If more people started carrying guns, society would have to find a new equilibrium; there might be a temporary rise in shootings and accidents.  But the responsibility that goes along with being armed spreads to other areas of life also; it might go out of fashion for adults to act like children. 

The limitations of what a weapon can do force a person to think carefully about their actions.  For example, using a gun to intimidate someone is a central fantasy in movies and TV.  In reality, humiliating someone at gunpoint only guarantees that the next time you see this person they will be armed and possibly desperate to get their dignity back. 

Giving even a moment's thought to treating other people with some minimal level of respect and consideration is a skill that falls into disuse in our current nanny state; "we are all just wards of the big, fat government so piss on you, pal."  The government will never be able to truly protect our individual rights.  This is why we have an inalienable right to protect ourselves and the right to use the fruits of technology to do so (guns.)

The erratic behavior of the student would never have been ignored and mishandled as it was in the context of an armed campus.  The notion of an armed person acting as he did would have brought instant attention.

Is Follini, who is patently madly in love with her own son, ever tempted just to tell her clients to get on with it? And do these women not have friends to confide in who will say the same? She laughs.

"Get on with it..."  In other words, commit paternity fraud in one form or another.  Pretty funny :angryfire:
This is a puff piece but here is a thought.
She says:
A man, like a woman, needs an incentive to get married and stay married; feminism forgot that, and forgot too that marriage is more in women's interests than in men's.

She just kind of glides over the specific reasons why these strong, modern, liberated women need or want husbands.  Maybe there was a paragraph to address that point and she left it out.  I guess her mostly women readers will forgive a lapse in logic far more quickly than a lapse in ideology.  Notice that she is careful to distance herself from any notion of giving up women's hard "earned" gains with her descriptions of traditional marriage: "ridiculous, laughable, repressive, Stepford wives, surrendered wives."  That list should placate the gals on the editorial board.
Contrary to Minnie Marrin, women will need to do more than find a man with deep pockets and keep his knob polished until the house is paid for.  Men are not nearly as simple as she claims.  A marriage is supposed to be a lifetime partnership with shared goals and interests, not just a revenue stream for women.  Men and women alike should boycott this notion of marriage as fashion accessory.  If women REALLY want a family, they should look up the word "sacrifice."  Young men should be advised to boycott the institution of marriage as it is now; it has nothing for them.
This is alarming to say the least.  Mexico sends hundreds of examples of their economy across the U.S. border every day.  Further entanglments with their failed economy are the wrong way to go.  How a Mexican diplomat sat there with a straight face and suggested we pool ANY of our entitlements programs is beyond my comprehension. 

But apparently these totalization agreements are not new and the U.S. already has them with several countries (see below.)
The social security administration has information about totalization here:

Country Effective Date
Italy November 1, 1978  Portugal  August 1, 1989
Germany  December 1, 1979  Netherlands  November 1, 1990
Switzerland  November 1, 1980  Austria  November 1, 1991
Belgium  July 1, 1984  Finland  November 1, 1992
Norway  July 1, 1984  Ireland  September 1, 1993
Canada  August 1, 1984  Luxembourg   November 1, 1993
United Kingdom   January 1, 1985  Greece  September 1, 1994 
Sweden  January 1, 1987  South Korea  April 1, 2001
Spain  April 1, 1988  Chile  December 1, 2001
France  July 1, 1988  Australia  October 1, 2002
Main / Re: When Fatherhood gets criminalized,
Apr 12, 2007, 06:51 AM
Wow, she kicks ass!

I dug through the comments to find the one person who found a way to take the psychotic girlfriend's side:

Posted by: rebecca at April 11, 2007 11:35 AM
I think our letter writer may have gotten a bad rap here; you say, Amy, that you don't sneak around to buy broccoli. That's why she wants to know why he's sneaking around. It sounds to me like he's doing the patented "you're crazy" when she points out that if it was just to talk to the kids, there's no reason for him to be sneaking it.

Riiiight, if you're so innocent, then WHY am I still suspicious? Huh?!?!?! NOT SO EASY TO ANSWER THAT IS IT MISTER?!?!?! HOWL, GARGLE, WHERE'S MY F*CKING PILLS?!?!?
Main / Re: did it!
Apr 11, 2007, 08:27 AM
The M.P.'s assistant was surprised by my request but SHE was very help-full

The idea of a thank you card pops into my old-fashioned mind. Having a friend on your MP's staff sounds like an asset to me!
Main / Re: did it!
Apr 11, 2007, 06:42 AM
:headbang: :hello2: :occasion14: :hello2: :headbang:

Way to go outdoors!
That sounds VERY successful.
Can you tell us how you arranged this meeting?