Obama: Feminist/Marxist?

Some of you will get the reference. Anyway, I am going to say I am no fan of McCain. He scares me. I am afraid he won't be able to govern effectively so much of the decisions will be made by his staff (not unlike the Reagan years). Being a president requires having a very sharp, active, deft mind able to assess, process and decide about a million things a day, each one having a significant effect on the country or the world or both. I don't believe McCain has that ability, at least not anymore. He did I am sure when he was younger but not now. Obama certainly has it. But I am even more afraid of what he will use it for! And just as scary, what the people who will be empowered by their association with him will be able to get away with. Can you imagine how a William Ayres or a NOW official who is buddies with Obama will use that incredible presumed support from the POTUS? Can you just imagine such people with governmental authority or near-governmental authority, access to all the financial and legal resources holding the Executive Branch will give them? Truly terrifying.

This is a choice between the lesser of two bad choices. I would rather have an incompetent largely-as-it-is-now presidency than the kind of incredibly radical state of affairs Obama would introduce via a legislative agenda and executive orders, whose authority, in case you haven't noticed, carries a great deal more power than any law the Congress passes. There was once a time when people argued endlessly about who to vote for for the Congress and left the presidency up to their less-dynamic peers who viewed actually voting in a real electoral college process as a chore but one that needed doing. Now it's just the opposite. Whoever sits in the Oval Office is the single most powerful person in the world. And America is on the verge of voting a radical Marxist/feminist into that position. I really, really hope that doesn't happen.

Biden is the Anti-Christ himself as far as I am concerned.

Obama's big mistake was choosing that maggot as his VP choice.

That decision destroyed any credibility he had with me.

Of course he and Stalin Joe will win and that ain't gonna be too good for us MRA's.

My first impression of Obama was that he would be good for MRAs, seeing that he's a black male who had to work his way up from the bottom. It seemed to me that someone who had to deal with their fair share of unjust discrimination would be good news for us MRAs. That's what I thought until he opened his mouth and droned on and on about a bunch of women's issues that aren't even real, and in the process put down men, and kissed women's butts.

Then he had to choose the "antichrist" as Luek put it, as his running mate. Now I'm just confused. Here, you have a man who has definitely been treated differently by some for his cultural background, and gender, and for some reason instead of stopping this kind of discrimination, he panders to women. Black men are still treated much worse than any female (regardless of what the hag Gloria Steinem believes). What we actually have here is the fulfilling of that political cartoon of a black man taking complaints from a well-off women. Sad world! It's times like these I'm glad I live in Canada; although our government does some pretty stupid stuff too a lot of the time.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

manonthestreet

Reading these comments and many others over the years just reinforces what I have always thought. For us men there are only false dawns. So often I read something hopeful but never do I believe that there will be any improvement.

I have must have read predictions of the death of feminism many times. Be it from those who thought Obama might be a good thing to others who just think it will fall like the Soviet Union. Well I see no sign of this and think that by the time we die we will be leaving this earth more bitter and angry than we are now.

The reason things will not change is because men will not do what is necessary to change them. No politically correct method of "talking it out" has ever worked with an unjust system. Yet many of the so-called "MRAs" think they can "talk it out" with a gender that has shown itself to be unethical, uncaring and quite relentless.

Even still PC men try in vain to "befriend" and "love" a wild animal (i.e. A woman).

Thus men will remain slaves and many will die at the hands of the woman's matriarchal environment which is entirely accomodating of her animalistic ways.

I fail to see exactly why socialism is "the devil".

"Oh no! Don't resdistribute the wealth! That would be crazy! Don't make the insanely rich slighlty less rich, and the insanely poor slightly less poor, that would be just crazy, our system would fall apart!"

Bear in mind that most of the feminism bullshit Obama has been spewing was necessary in order to beat Hillary, and then win over her voters who were sour to her rival.

I'm hoping he was just playing the politics game, and he won't actually come through on any of this crap.

....i guess that's a pretty vain hope though. Especially considering his vice president.

Both candidates for president seem like they'd do a fair enough job to me (although i prefer obama), but both vice presidents are despicable, so it's a lose lose situation really.

Redistributing wealth is another term for what happens to men in family court. If you are OK, with that, then redistributing wealth in other areas should be no problem - take from those who produce, give to those who consume. That certainly motivates me to produce, so my ex can consume.....

manonthestreet

I doubt redistribution of wealth effects the very rich significantly. It's your average Joe who works for just OK money who really feels the strain. There are a lot of them and squeezing them hard can produce a bucket full of cash.

The trouble is these principles sound good. Just like equal opportunity sound good - but some how when your at the sharp end it does not look so good after all.

Anyone that believes in redistribution of wealth but claims to be against women's entitlements is clearly confused or just plain retarded.

It is my opinion that a few of the idiotic "wolves in sheep's clothing" frequenting MANN's boards may have originated here: http://www.feministing.com

Their arguments are circular, emotive and largely in defense of women's less than savory actions. It is very telling.

Hi Timothy,

You are new to posting on MANN so you may not be familiar with some of the traditions of the site.

Some traditions shouldn't be made into laws while others should be. Still others should be "rules" as it were, not being laws but not being mere rituals either. "No personal attacks" are a rule here on MANN. The reason for this is, and I invite you to look at posts from this past spring and summer, that getting into flame wars and penning personal insults is distracting from the issues and discourages people from addressing issues out of tiring of having particular individuals flame them at every turn.

Enforcement of this happens in stages. First, a person gets this explained to them. Next they get warned to stop. Third time they get suspended from posting for some number of days. That is usually enough. In the entire time I have been a co-mod here on MANN, I have only once had to ban someone from the site entirely, and that is what happens if the previous actions are not sufficient.

Matt

Where was this PC speech I am getting when the so-called "insulted" person wrote the following a day ago?

han090 wrote: "We're supposed to want equality for fuck sake. You can't have equality if you consider all women to be animals. Grow the fuck up."

You were "right there" when he wrote that and said NOTHING.

Not only is that an "insult" it contains "profanity." You're just mad because I don't take a PC stance like the rest of the dogs here that are scared of women. Completely lame and biased. Get lost man. You get no respect as a PC lapdog. I'll do you a favor and leave this site full of PC slaves.

It's not worth my time anyway. I would say it's been nice but it clearly hasn't.

I tried seeing if I could close the account in my Profile. No luck. So please, make yourself useful and close it for me?

Thanks!

Your account has been deactivated.

But it would come at way too high a price. VAWA Joe in the vice-presidency, I couldn't see a lot of progress on men's issues being made in the next 4 years on a federal gov't level.

Thank you Matt, for telling timothy off for his complete lies. I posted angrily in reply to him a few days ago because he called women animals (which is what feminist have been doing to men for years), and he essentially completely misread what i said, and then started spreading his misinterpretation of what i said around.

As for redistrubution of the wealth being what happens in divorce court....well, then really depends on your interpretation of the sentence.

In socialism, redistribution of the wealth typically describes passing wealth from rich to poor. (this is the most well known attribute of socialism).

But that's really just a matter of interpretation as i said.

I'm opposed to men getting the shaft, but i an in favour of taxing the incredibly wealthy higher amounts in order to help the poor. (or even the mildly wealthy slightly higher amounts to help the very poor).

How this help is given, and how it's decided who deserves the help is my real concern.

I don't take sides, even as outrageous and offensive as some things people may say. When it comes to sanctioning posters it's all about how they behave toward other posters on the site, and even then the standards are quite liberal. You may swear at other posters. You may insult the ideas of other posters. You may make fun of the writing style of other posters. You may critique their grammar and spelling. You may even compare their ideas to those of the least savory people in human history. But you cannot insult them personally. What Timothy was doing was calling you "an idiot", which is a personal insult. He did not say your ideas were "idiotic"; that would have been fine. Rude and unlikely to sway you, but fine. Instead he insulted you personally. I told him to stop, what would happen if it continued, and why. He complained that I was being one-sided and then asked shortly after to have his account suspended. So I honored his request. It is all that simple.

People who post such things as "All x are idiots/evil/etc." need no further comment. They are showing themselves to be what they are. But as offensive as that is for some to read, it isn't a personal insult. A member of the group of such people may take it personally, but it isn't a personal insult. It's a tried and true way of revealing one's own myopia and bigotry, but that is all it is. So as much as I find those kinds of comments objectionable, as with others' political POVs, I too must tolerate, be patient, and remember that if I am engaged in a thread with someone else, my goal is to bring people over to my POV (or at least get them to see how I might hold my POV, which tends to lead to greater cooperation anyway), not insult them. That just isn't constructive. MANN is no one's personal ideological playground. It is one of several news and activist clearinghouse web sites for men's rights issues, that's all. In that scope a lot of things are fit for entry into discussion, and so the berth is wide.