Sean_MacCloud wrote:
>
> caesarjbsquitti wrote:
>
>
>>Sean_MacCloud wrote:
>>
>>>caesarjbsquitti wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The devil inside social services.
>>>>
>>>>With so many problems plaguing the family unit, am I the only one
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>notice the anti-male agenda ?
>>>>
>>>>Here is a press release from the "Ontario Women's
Directorate"
>>>>
>>>>"OTTAWA - The McGuinty government is taking another
major step in
>>
>>its
>>
>>>>plan to fight domestic violence by helping women and their children
>>
>>who
>>
>>>>are victims re-build their lives and be safe in their own homes,
>>>>Community and Social Services Minister and Minister Responsible for
>>>>Women's Issues Sandra Pupatello announced today. "
>>>>
>>>>Women and children ?...at the exclusion of men ?  Why ?
>>>>
>>>>"A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTION PLAN FOR ONTARIO
>>>>
>>>>The government's new action plan to address domestic violence
>>>>enhances existing domestic violence programs and services and
>>>>implements new initiatives. It places new emphasis on prevention
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>better community support for abused women and their children. "
>>>>
>>>>Again do you notice the anti-male agenda ?
>>>>
>>>>Seems like normal people, men or women, have children and are
>>
>>concerned
>>
>>>>that they have good families, for their sons, daughters....?
>>>>
>>>>This "women and children" philosophy seems to
suggest a 'lesbian'
>>>>influence...
>>>>
>>>>What a bigoted, sexist program that I am sure will polarize the
>>
>>family
>>
>>>>and the sexes ....
>>>>
>>>>Remember the devil is in the details, and especiallly half-truths,
>>>>truths taht lie.....
>>>>
>>>>What a mistake...!    :twisted:
>>>>
>>>>The  anti-family Cult !
>>>>http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/webdoc3.5.html
>>>
>>>Females should be hit. It is the way you control the creature. You
>>>certainly can't reason with it.
>>
>>People should not be hit...kind of obvious on that one.
>>
>>"Control"...there are needed controls of people
>
>
> Females need to be controled. This is obvious.
>

I arrived at that conclusioon over twenty years
ago. Still not allowed to smack the bitches.

>
>
>
>>and not...laws control
>>some of us
>
Yep!
>
> Read: the men.
>
>
>
>>...and we are penalized if we do not obey the
>>laws..
>
>
> Females should be penalized if they don't obey "the law".

Yep!

> We ned laws that recognize females for the negative catalysts that they
> are.

Bin saying that for more than twenty years. It
is precisely because the legal system has
refused to do anything to control the
anti-social behaviour of females that I have
arrived (reluctantly) at the conclusion that we
must be allowed to smack the bitches.

> (Laws are relative constructs created by the prevailing morality of the
> day.)
>

May I suggest an rather well-known orifice in
which you might insert the prevailing morality?

>
>
>>.'control'is a difficult concept...it is not so black and
>>white...
>
>
> Note it becomes more black and white to you when you say "people should NOT
> be hit"... [But] controls of some people are needed"...
>
> It is this wiggle that you types create for the females that pro fem is
> able to exploit with a hypocrits aplumb.
>
>
>
>
>>>This 'violins against whimens' absurdity is the fault of the white
>>
>>male.

Back that up with argument.

>>>Yet we keep blaming everyone else.
>
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 9:34:48 PM ---