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 - JackBauersPowerHour

Easy fix - Don't put them into movies.

If I was running a movie or TV show, here is my dilemma. If I take a Jewish, a black, a homosexual or a woman character and actually make them three dimensional - all the lobbying groups for the "For Proft Martyr" ideology will complain to advertisers that I'm showing those groups in a bad light. If I place a single character of each on the show but make them very very sterile so I don't offend anyone but try to draw in that demographic, those same lobbying groups will complain to advertisers and demand that these characters get true "development" and not be stuck in the background.

You can't win. It's a classic lose/lose situation. If you had more men hacked up in movies, the feminists would complain that the woman isn't the hero. If you hack up more men, the feminists would complain that the female protagonist is shown as depicting the appeal of violence. You could kill every man on Earth in a movie and feminists would still complain about something. No matter what you do, they will complain. The issues change, but the core action is for them to complain and garner some kind of reaction. Look the blacks do it all the time. No matter how stupid the accusation, the have lobbyists that love to complain and try to stir the pot.

Here's the answer - Don't put women in movies. That's it. Unemployment is a great way to get all those B actresses into a position where they won't be exploited or misrepresented on film.

When you deal with people who are impossible to deal with, then you just ignore them.

I own several businesses and I don't hire women. I won't do it. I'm not in a position to hear their complaints and their problems and their issues and deal with their potential lawsuits. I also rarely hire blacks, gays, people who've done long stretches in prison, single parents, and a whole host of groups. Because I hate these groups? No, because they end up costing me more money, increase my liability and tend to be less productive than other hires. I can't get sued for allowing some employees to "harass" a gay person, as if I could control every single thing that happens on a daily basis,  if I don't have gay people on staff.  I won't be in a position to have a black guy say to me "Well I know I come in late everyday, but you don't like me because I'm black and that's why you are firing me, not because of the late thing, so I'm going to sue you" if I don't hire him in the first place.

Easy fix to me - take all the women out of these horror movies. Take their jobs, take their paychecks and let them see how that feels. Thats why I feel lots of these feminists are just really fucking stupid. They grandstand these issues and fail to understand that for lots of these B and C actresses (because most horror and action out there is actually B and C grade, not every movie made is a blockbuster summer flick)  - it's a paycheck. It's a way to keep food on the table. Again, where elitist feminists fail to see the daily reality of others, including women who are just trying to get by in life.

Pretty simple to me.

No tourism = No one spending money = No hard currency = An idea that will flop

People "travel" to see new sights, try exotic foods, interact with different cultures. If this place's only draw is chicks are in charge, it's going to flop.

Best method to oppose this is just to never visit China. If you were thinking about it, go somewhere else instead. Punish people economically, even if you know it's only in principle for the most part.

Nice thing about China is, if you fuck up over there, if you fuck up big enough, you die. Someone had to come up with this harebrained idea and its going to cost someone alot of money when this flops. Too bad for whomever came up with this stupid idea and too bad for their families, but hey, they asked for it.
The few always ruin it for the many.

I'd like to think all of us, we all had one really great teacher at some point who made a difference for us. There were way more jerkoffs and lazy bastards, but usually most people have fond memories of one good teacher.

I think stuff like this works two ways. A) It shows how fear of lawsuits cripples just plain common sense. At some level, these schools are also just covering their asses from future liability. They want to keep their jobs. At some level, can you blame them? And some level, how can you not? B) Its going to drive the most talented people out of the field. The best and brightest are already leaving medicine. Why slave all day and years of education and massive loans to be underpaid, stressed out, disrespected and be under constant threat of lawsuit?

Stuff like this will only drive the best and brightest away from the profession of teaching. No one will want the bullshit.

I think sometimes teachers need to get punched in the face, sometimes I think the students need a punch in the face. People think repression will curb violence. That doesn't work. If kids were allowed to fight, then they get that aggression out. Look at Japan, they have some pretty sick entertainment over there. But thats how their culture releases their violent thoughts and tendencies.



I agree with almost everything you said, save the above paragraph.  Sure, I totally agree they WANT (and NEED) you to react to their "in your face" attitudeHowever, the kid, IMHO, did exactly the right thing.  He did not insult gays, he did not use the tape to make a derisive comment to them.  He affirmed HIS sexuality.  The school was promoting a "pro-gay" message, and this kid simply gave a positive affirmation to his sexuality.

In the way he did this he showed the school's blatant PCism.  Think about this Jack - had this kid picked any other week or month I doubt he would have gotten a reaction at all.  It was this specific event wherein he was proudly showing his orientation, while taking nothing away from, nor insulting, the gay students.

This kid did a POSITIVE affirmation w/out insulting the gay students - but he did it on the day the administration was doing an "in your face" day of pro-gay indoctrination.

As I read this, but it is not said explicitly, the TEACHERS were handing out the duct tape.   

Just give it some thought



I see where you are coming from and your perspective.

But the kid picked a position he could not defend. Let's just be real and honest about this all - women, gays, blacks, Jews and run down the list - you are guilty of whatever they accuse you of in America and they get their way most of the time because they whine and whine and whine and then they threaten to sue everyone.

All the gays have to do is say "This kid did this because he hates gays, see how we are persecuted" Yes that line or reasoning would be absurd. But they do it. They've done it before. They will do it again. This is how the "For Profit Martyr" groups work. They take any reaction at all and turn it into an attack on them. And its an attack on them in terms of perception (its not about reality because all that matters is perception) in the eyes of schools, the government, whatever - simply because they say so.

If you work with any women in your workplace, you are one sentence away from losing your job, getting blackballed from your career and tossed in jail.

"He touched by breasts and told me if I told anyone, that he'd get me fired"

True? Untrue? Doesn't matter. In America, sexual harassment is what the female accuser says it is, thats just how it works.

Same thing with gays. Whatever they call an "attack on them" is treated by the schools, the government, etc as an attack on them. I wish it was different, but it's not. Trust me, there is nothing I'd rather do more than advocate to people to take others head on. But it's about results to me, not perception of results. But I can't deny the reality of how perception works for and against the MRA movement.

If you go head on with the liberal entitlement complex gays, you will lose. It's a rigged fight.

If you get every teacher and administrator who wants to shove their personal agendas in schools fired, then you prevent having to go head on with anyone. You cut them down before they even got up in the first place. All it takes is some principals and teachers to get their asses fired for the message to be clear - "Bring your agenda in my kids schools and lose your fucking jobs" That kind of message doesn't go to one school, it goes to all schools. Every teacher, every school administrator will think about paying the light bill and buying their groceries and keep their duct tape and their mouths shut. Then the gays can't scream "You hate gays" No, you hate people who are entrusted to teach children with your tax dollars who want to make a political grandstand instead of teaching math or science or english.

I wished we lived in a world where one could make a valid argument like this kid did and have it just be that, one statement. But it doesn't work that way. It's not effective for the long run. Getting people kicked out of their jobs and making people leery of having to live in a Trinitron box in an alleyway and eating out of garbage cans is how you get people into line.


What  the "stupid" kid should'a done is moot. Minors can't bring legal actions against
"educational administration", "diversity", or other racist, sexist, or ignorant socialist bullies. What he did caused an uproar that all of us here (and I suspect elsewhere) are now aware of. Mission Accomplished!

No offense, but mission not accomplished.

The gays in that community (and I find gays generally everywhere) wanted a reaction. They got just as much publicity as this kid did. They got their reaction.

What do you think will please the "For Profit Martyrs" more? Doing a rally where there is a mob of angry counter protesters? Or doing a rally where no one shows up at all?

The rally where no one shows up at all is the rally where they have to stare at the silence and say to themselves "No one gives a fuck about me, my agenda and my self pity"

By reacting, this student only played into the hands of the gays in that community. He was the little sock puppet for their amusement and profit. Now they can cite that "See yes, there are people who have a problem with gays" no matter how much of a stretch it is. This is a tactic used by all martyr groups looking for political leverage and dollars, they want to incite you, they want to bait you, they want you to scream at them.

And I never said the kid should sue anyone. I said he should use the system against the system. I mean alot of this goes beyond men and women and just goes into basic real life problem solving. When someone wants a raise, what do they do most of the time? They come to see the boss and point out how they are saving the company money and also making the company money. They present their argument in a way that shows the benefit to the company, because the employee knows the company probably doesn't give a rats ass about the employee outside of whats needed to maintain that bottom line. If you go in and say "I work hard, I've been loyal, I've been here a while" thats not as effective as saying "I've saved you X percent on projects A-G, profit margins have gone up Y percent under my supervision each year from years H-O and as it shows here, I've never gone over budget or over time" You fight the system with the system. What are schools afraid of? A) Lowered test scores across the board B) Lowered headcount and C) Legal liability - All three of those things cost them money.

If this kid and his father walked into the principals office a week before this stupid pro gay day event and said "You are cooking the test scores that you report to the state, I can prove it by way of this and that, go ahead and have your pro gay day, but someone here is going to lose their jobs" Under No Child Left Behind, teachers, admins and entire schools have been fired or shut down. I assure you with a position like that, Pro Gay Day never happens. Liberals might love their heavy handed politics, but they love not getting fired or laid off or dealing with a paper nightmare much much more.

You fight the system with the system. You show them, in their own language, how crossing you is really destroying their bottom line and sense of economic security and they will cave.

Kid deserved to be suspended. He knew what kind of reaction he'd get, he knew the consequences of doing it.

There are two wholly different issue here for me.

1) Yes, I think the Church Of Bleeding Heart Liberalism has gone too far and pretty much run anything decent into a cesspool of PC paranoia about getting sued. No I don't think there should be "Pro Gay Day" anywhere in a public school.

2) I still think the best protest is to A) cut people out financially then B) ignore them.

I don't like all the things that women do in American. I particularly don't like all the complications of having women in many areas of specific professions. My view on it? I don't like being told to hire someone I can't fire for merit based reasons just because I want to bid on a government contract. How do I react to that? I just don't hire women period. Some find my views excessive, but there's no chance that I'll get a sexual harassment claim at one of my businesses from an employee. I don't hire them so that cuts them off financially. If more business owners did it, then you'd have a real statement on your hands. Money or a lack of it talks. It's all that really matters to most people, even the liberals, in the end. Then I just ignore them. I have better things to do.

The best protest by this kid would have been to find a way to financially ream out the school and any organization that pushed this stupid event. If this kid was smart, he would have found any loophole or weakness in the No Child Left Behind policy and shown how his high school was out of compliance. That's tax dollars lost that go somewhere else. Let the school administration know - "Fine, you can have your gay day if you like, but see X , Y and Z, well the IRS will be interested to hear about those things and now they will. Have a great day"

A) Hit people in the wallet
B) Ignore them afterwards

This is the only effective one two combo that really hurts these "for profit martyrs" out there. You take out the "for profit" and they have lost their incentive to fight. You ignore them, and there is no one to react or listen to their desperate pleas to be martyrs.

Kid was stupid. Well he's a kid what can you expect. He took a position of weak leverage and gave his opposition exactly what they wanted - a reaction.

I assure, MRAs will only win out in the end when they convince the world that feminism will only cost everyone more money whereas MRAs can make them more money. It really is that simple. Say for example if every man in America decided to not get married, what happens? No one is buying flowers.  No one is wooing at fancy restaurants. No one is buying wedding cakes. No one is spending any money. That's the loudest voice. If that happened, and people weren't making money, you'd better believe things would change to make marriage more attractive to men in America. They'd have no choice. Surrender or financially starve. Feminism is winning because marriage and divorce are cash cows for everyone except men. Take out that money and you see a whole different playing field.

Main / Re: Ruth Sheehan: "I'm sorry...."
Apr 25, 2007, 04:22 AM
This isn't the way to go. If you want to lay the hurt on Sheehan, find all the ad sponsors of that publication. Then blitz them with your disgust at their support of the publication. Then get a real name from each ad sponsor and name drop them. "I spoke to Bob X, head of PR at Company Y and asked why his organization supports a publication that will do Z"

They only care about money. The only reason Sheehan apologized is money. The publication loses money if it looks like it had a role in getting someone fired like Pressler. This is damage control to mitigate potential liability and bad PR spin.

If you want Sheehan to pay, you have to make a fiscal argument to her publication to explain why she's costing them money instead of making them money.

Easiest way to put it into context for the average person is the kids issue.

If you were a loving father and then suddenly you went from seeing your kids everyday to seeing them 4 days out of the month and your ex wife is now trying to move them out of state away from you and her new boyfriend, the one she cheated on you with, is banging her and  your kids are calling him Daddy, under the roof you still pay for - that's something people can relate to.

The average person may not understand all the nuances of feminism, but they do understand Seeing Your Kids 4 Days A Month Just Barely = Shit. Your Ex Trying To Keep You From Seeing Your Kids = Shit. You Got Cheated On = Shit.

The reason feminism comes off as lame in modern times (i.e. people roll their eyes at the typical femnazi, even if she's actually got a real point to make, it won't matter, no one will listen to what they think is for profit martyrdom) is it's selfish. Me, me, me, me. MRAs can sound the same way if they lose their shit over issues most people don't care about or can't relate to.

The kids issue though is one that stabs most people in the heart.

"I want to see my kids more, but I can't, the courts say I can't see them more and thats all I care about. Fuck the money, fuck the house, fuck the sleeping on my friends couch because alimony and child support have bankrupted me, I just want to see my kids"

There is no defense to that. If Mother Teresa was a single divorced mother and cut off the father of her kids, people wouldn't hesitate to call her a heartless bitch either.

No offense, I see the posters up on this board sometimes. The big signature photos. The banners. The bumper stickers. Most people don't give a shit, they have no context to draw on. But everyone was a kid once. And they remember at least one time they wished they could have more time with someone who made a difference in their lives.

MRAs I think make the mistake of picking positions to attack, I think its better to pick a position that you can defend absolutely like kids. It's not being a victim, playing the martyr like women, it's showing how the children are the real losers in this war between men and women. In our society, if a woman hits a man, she's "strong and independent" or some other bullshit. If she hits a kid, she's just another stupid cunt. Kid had a gun aimed at her? Doesn't matter, she's still another stupid cunt. Kid just nail gunned her cat to her front door? Doesn't matter, she's still another stupid cunt. Even in jail, where there are no rules, if you hurt a kid, you die. In the jungle, an animal will fight to the death to protect it's offspring. Kids have virtual immunity in our society, even from women and their femnazi bullshit. It's the tactically sound angle to play.

The problem I see with alot of MRAs is that some are borderline fanatical about it in terms of public perception of their views.

There's nothing wrong with caring about a particular topic or issue, but I think one has to be practical in how they are perceived by the outside world. It's easy to say, "I don't care what people think of me" but that's just not the truth.

The typical reaction to an MRA who voices their opinion is "You have a problem with women" and every variation of that. Well, here's the thing, if you have a problem with a woman before you even know her a little, enough for a first impression, then you are just as guilty as the man haters out there.

This is how I see it. Most women are just irrational. I wish it was different but it's not. There's almost no point in bringing up MRA issues with them unless they bring a situation to a head. As for men, I don't think they are stupid, I think most are just trying to get by and live a good life. They get married and give in to women and have kids and turn into walking wallets because that's the natural progression of things. I mean most guys I know who got married, you ask them why and they say "I don't know, I went to college, I got a job, I got a house, guess it was the logical thing to do next before having kids"

If you want to change hearts and minds of the masses, do it in the mediums that impact them the most - movies, music, TV, magazines, sports, etc. If you want to change one heart and one mind, just live a good life. If someone else has a shitty life, they'll see yours and ask you on their own how you got there. Then you can tell them what you think and then they will listen to you. I think MRAs just have to be above reproach in all things. Have no chinks in the armor that anyone can criticize. When you live the life that others want to live themselves, then you'll find plenty of people for an audience for your views.

Main / Re: Say you got a feminist pregnant...
Apr 20, 2007, 11:40 AM
If you have sex with anyone, you risk having a baby with that person, and you risk getting run through the wringer no matter what.

I guess if I got someone pregnant, I'd have to own up to it, even though I know the system would be loaded against me in most cases.

It's an interesting question because it's a rock and a hard place situation. Everyone, IMHO, needs sex. I've read several medical articles that say regular sex has many physical and emotional and mental benefits. On the flip side, if you have sex in the US with a western woman, you risk knocking her up and just dealing with all the trouble that comes with it.

One of the nice things about younger women in this situation is lots of women want to establish their career first. I think many would get an abortion in that situation. If not, I'd have to take a page from Tom Leykis on this one, promise marriage in exchange for an abortion then renege after the abortion and leave.

Main / Re: Doctors Blamed for Abortions
Apr 17, 2007, 05:05 AM
This article completely misses the real point.

If a doctor gets sued enough, even if he/she did nothing wrong, they can't get malpractice insurance. If you can't get insured, you can't work. There are fewer insurance carriers now thanks to mergers and smaller companies being swallowed up by the mega corporations.

Doctors don't want to deal with kids. Anyone who is having a kid, anyone who is pregnant, anyone who needs specialized medicine for young children. There's no money in the field, it's high liability and there are just easier paths to more money/less bullshit in a career in medicine. The best medical talent in the US doesn't rush to be by OB/GYNs.

The truth is young doctors don't want to get sued by people without money themselves. Take a look at the world around you. There are fewer men being Little League coaches. Boy Scout Masters? Working with kids in day care centers? Entering the teaching profession? Men are leaving those activities and careers in droves, who wants the bullshit? Who wants the liability? Who wants to stay in a career or activity where the best you can hope for is the status quo?

If feminists didn't sue the fuck out of absolutely everyone then maybe they would actually get quality people doing quality work on their behalf when they need it. But instead, they are now a for profit martyr group on par with the gays, Jews and blacks where people just don't want to deal with the lawsuits and liability anymore.

I think to be fair, not all marriages are bad.

There are some good marriages out there. I know some people in good marriages, it's just that it happens so infrequently. Is that because of feminism? To some degree sure, the framework in modern marriages is kind of oppressive from the male perspective. But I also think it's a raw numbers game. You've only got X amount of years on Earth and only Y amount of time to court/date/meet people. If there is a "right person", odds are you won't meet them. That extends way past feminism and just becomes a pure numbers crunch.

I also think lots of women aren't looking for blood in divorces. Many are, so many that it's a minefield for men, but I think there are lots who just want to be as rid of you and you are of them.

The biggest issue I see obviously is a person not getting to see their kids. You go from everyday to four days a month and personally I think that's just too much for any person to bear.

The second biggest issue I see is the sex issue. Well if I can't cheat and someone decides to dry out on me, where does that leave me? Fidelity implies access, I think that's fair. I think where this starts to get fuzzy for me is the idea that you can get cut off but the other person expects you to be faithful. What kind of backwards ass thinking is that? The classic "I won't fuck you but neither will anyone else .... FOREVER"

I think the article makes perfect sense to me, people want to have their lives "improve" with marriage, not decline. Arguably the womans life tends to improve, but not always, sometimes they get beaten or mistreated or abused like anyone else, but I'd say most of the time, they come out ahead. I think for men, your best bet is the simple status quo and it can only get rougher from there. That's not much of a deal.

I don't think all marriages are worthless. I just think 99 percent of them are worthless and just by simple math, I have to really really be in the right situation to consider marriage.

I don't want to date single mothers. For better or worse, to me, it's a genetic dead end.

I guess I can see this couples point of view in terms of disappointment from that perspective. I do think they could have just said nothing if they were emotional. It's just not a good idea, man or woman, to speak in public when you are emotionally charged. Nothing good ever comes out of it.

I think there is a bit of conflict here in terms of the cost. Fertility work is not cheap. Not everyone can afford these procedures. I think there is a reasonable expectation if you are laying out the big coin that you are getting quality top notch service. I also think this couple is in for a rough ride in terms of pain and suffering. Obviously they are going to get reactions like in here, some will agree with them, some will not, and they are going to have to live with the personal, emotional and social repercussions of that. And consider this - that woman is still the mother. She is still legally and financially bound to that child in alot of ways. I don't know how fair that is for the couple if they want to move on and they can't one day. (What if this kid grows up from adoption and finds them one day?)

If anything I wish fertility clinics were banned. At some level, I feel like if you were meant to have a child, you'd be able to have one. I'm not a big fan of playing chicken with Mother Nature.

I think the article is spot on.

No one wants to give something for nothing. That's all it boils down to for me.

I thought about marriage a few times, and I have to admit, I asked myself, for the long term, what's in it for me?

In current times, nothing. There is nothing in it for me except the consistent legal access to sex, but from what I've seen with my friends and other people in my life, it's neither truly consistent nor is access all that worthwhile for what you give up. What's in it for her? My business, my money, my home, my sperm, my kids, making me live under the threat of jail regarding child support, etc, etc.

Here's something my buddy told me once. Imagine justifying every single little thing you do in life to someone else. He said "That's marriage" Wow, what a simple yet brutal way for me to see what it's really all about.

This is how I feel. Feminists are stupid. That's it, they are dumb as a box of rocks. They want to build a lemonade stand, remove all the lemons and sugar and demand you keep paying for glass after glass of water anyway. That's just stupid. If feminists were smart, they would simply screw a guys brains out every single night. That's it, that's all it takes for most men to comply. Instead they nag you and harp  on you and make you miserable, instead of just realizing that a man getting laid is a man who is more than happy to build a castle for his queen. Sex is a weapon against men, always has been, always will be, but at least these women should be smart enough to let us fire the old gun on a regular basis for it to work for their benefit.

Main / Re: virginia tech.
Apr 16, 2007, 08:53 PM
Things like this can't be prevented. Sometimes things go bad, people go wrong, and some innocent folks are at the wrong place at the wrong time.

In the end, the police department on that campus will take the blame. Because , quite simply, law enforcement in this country has been sued and sued and sued and threatened with lawsuits over and over until finally these agencies have submitted. No one is to blame for a wild crazed gunman losing his shit. But plenty are to blame for the PC liberal whining touchy feely Appletini sipping limp wristed culture that has pretty much cut the balls off of every law enforcement agency in America.

As for arming students or staff at a major university, you gotta be kidding me. People are, without a doubt, in general, fucking stupid. They would kill each other before they could be of any use in a situation like this. Every major university has a police department. While they might not be the cream of the law enforcement crop, they do have training and tactics on their side.

Things like this are not preventable. Major universities are wide open, densely packed and anyone can walk in and blend in easily. The logistics of having said university function requires it to be this way.

This was just bad luck and bad timing and bad situation, there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.