The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Monday, November 26, 2007

USA Today censors MEN's comments.

From time to time Bob visits other web sites and occasionally posts reader comments if they have a comment page. Reading news stories is part of doing research for The World According to Bob. One of the hazards Bob faces in posting a real man's opinion is that most of the media is run by left wingnuts, rump riders, pussy boys, and of course legions of feminist cunts. If there is anything those bigots can't stand it's a real man's honest opinion. To them it's all PC femspeak and gayspeak. Any real man who deviates from their usual PC opinions and femspeak is “abusive,” or as they say, their female readers “felt abused.” Of course it never matters to the femspeak pansies when their main article was “abusive” to men readers, fathers, and families. If we “felt abused' that's just too bad. But when their rump riders and feminists “felt abused” its a major infraction.

Issue with USA TODAY Account
Standard Header|Full Message View
"Cooper, Patrick"

AddMonday, November 26, 2007 12:38:33 PM

I work in the USA TODAY newsroom connecting readers and reporting, and I'm writing to let you know about an issue with your account on our site. Our moderators have suspended your account after determining your comments do not meet the community guidelines.

The site welcomes a broad array of perspectives in the community's conversations, and these differing opinions are what lead to strong and engaging discussions. But we require civil contributions that are respectful of readers of all ages and backgrounds.
Your comments violate the site guidelines against hate speech and personal attacks on other readers. Other readers correctly report these comments as abusive, and the moderators feel it is necessary to intervene. Thank you for your time.
Patrick Cooper
Network Editor

USA Today is the latest of the gayspeak, femspeak, PC mainstream media to censor the voice of a different opinion. Their two bit rag is failing in circulation as fewer and fewer people want fish wrap, and the rest won't put up with their anti-white, anti-men, anti-family, and anti-straight abusive articles. Let them find customers elsewhere. I posted Ms. Cooper's e-mail address so you can let her know to pound sand if you like.

Now Bob will have to invent a sock puppet to post comments letting the bitches, faggots, and manginas at USA Today know how the real world of men views their filthy un-American misandry.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

USA Today was within their rights to deal with you as they did, bob. I support them.

November 26, 2007 3:32 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous; It's not about "rights." Of course a publisher can limit what they publish. It's about honesty, integrety and fairness. USA Today claims to support open discussion of all opinions, and then bars those who's opinions don't correspond with theirs. That's dishonest and prejudiced.

November 26, 2007 5:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
1. That long IRC log was rejected as a comment because it's really off topic.
2. Young women of child bearing age should be rightly called "women." Using correct language limits confusion.
3. Off hand comments about killing someone on IRC are far too common to take seriously.

November 26, 2007 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see. You freely censor any and all comments about your blog that you don't care for, but get upset when USA censors your rants.

right. Now I see why you left couldn't stop people from replying to you there like you can here. Censorship good when Bob does it, bad when USA does the same to you. Got it.

November 26, 2007 7:52 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Unlike Usenet, we try here to maintain a civil discourse. Contrary opinions are welcome here provided they are done in a civil manner and germane to the topic.

Here are the rules:
Comments from readers are generally welcomed on The World According to Bob. Comments must be germane to the topic. If you wish to comment, make sure your comment is about the topic, and preferably adds information or reflective views about the topic.

Comments which include ad-hominem insults or criticism of either Bob or one of the other comment authors will be deleted summarily.

In addition, comments which are primarily quotations of scripture will be deleted.

November 26, 2007 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note: anonomyous person who dislikes Bob is not IRC Log poster. IRC Log poster is a fan of Bobs. IRC Log poster was showing that if you pick a random techi out of an IRC croud, he will be pro-women's rights. Why are techies such faggots?

November 26, 2007 8:26 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Bob, I don't know why you think that just because USA Today hates you that they are misandrists. They don't hate all men, just YOU.

Poor baby.

I have a serious question though...

Why does Bob not like the gays? It seems to me that the gay lifestyle is exactly what you guys are striving for. Maybe not the trannies and stuff, but the Bear Force One type. That way you can keep the ladies in a little cage and artificially inseminate them so you don't have to ever deal with them again.

Come on, Bob. I mean, men are superior to women in just about every way, right? Gaydom seems like the next logical step on the road to total male domination.

November 27, 2007 4:58 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup: You are waaaaay off the mark on your understanding of men and men's rights advocates. Men's advocates are almost all straight men who value good women and desire to have warm loving families. Rump riders, in contrast, reject women entirely and support feminism because they don't care if females are at war with men. Rump riders have no desire ever to have a normal family with a good wife and children.

Most men's rights advocates don't welcome rump riders because they support anti-men feminist goals and propaganda while opposing normal families.

November 27, 2007 6:04 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

I guess the question is then, what is a "good woman"?

November 29, 2007 2:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A good woman is a female who is obedient to her husband.

November 29, 2007 7:41 AM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Wow! Is that all?

What if her husband happens to be a sociopath? (And NO Bob, I'm not saying ALL men are sociopaths.) What then, anonymous? Should she obey him no matter what? What if he tells her to kill somebody for his personal enjoyment?

I think you guys can come up with a better definition of a "good woman". That one is a little simplistic.

November 29, 2007 10:14 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup:
Like a typical feminist you again leap to the assumption that her husband is a “sociopath.” There are several things wrong with that assumption. The first is that despite your contrary claim, you have assumed that being a husband he will be a sociopath, and hence all men are sociopaths. You ignore the millions of husbands who are caring, loving, men who take good care of their wives and families.

Second, the psychobabble excuses such as “sociopath” are created by a self serving and generally misandrist psychology profession and has little credibility among wise readers. Such accusations exist primarily in the gobbledygook of self serving professionals who stand to make money by pandering to female nonsense.

Third, females have proven repeatedly that their word can not be relied upon when asking if the husband was good or bad. Millions of deranged wives have falsely accused men of criminal violence. If a wife accuses her husband of being a “sociopath” the probability is that he is not, based on the record of female false accusations. Females often deliberately work up anger and false beliefs about their husband’s actions in order to create the energy and to justify destroying his family and hurting their children. Even if she now believes that he is a “sociopath” he probably is a warm, loving husband who has done nothing but take good care of his family.

Females are so unreliable that a whining female calling her husband names should be given a good hard spanking and told to go back to her kitchen and take care of her family.

November 29, 2007 11:26 AM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Bob, I did not say that ALL men are sociopaths. I did not say that ALL husbands are sociopaths. I do not think that all men have learning disabilities either, although I question whether YOU have one.

From your comment, I gather that you don't hold stock in modern psychology. That's fine, and a valid opinion. But to claim that since some women lie about their husbands that no women should be believed is the height of stupidity. If you can make that argument, then you should also say that since some men are cops and unfair and violent, then we can assume ALL men are violent and unfair. That is clearly not the case since you yourself are not a violent or unfair man (although you do have a tendency to dismiss logic and reason), and I know MANY men who are not.

I think that you're illogical and sweeping generalities only serve to distract from you're real mission of men's rights.

I'm not a feminist. I don't hate men or women. In fact, I like them both just swell.

Feel free to take anything I've said above out of context and accuse me of hating men again though. It makes you look so smart!

November 29, 2007 12:52 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup:
Another man described you well on another forum this morning.

What you are doing is simply nagging. Nagging is repeating negative messages about a man or commands directed at him over and over and over in order to work the negativity into his thoughts and the command into his habits. Feminism uses nagging to great effectiveness and, if for no other reason, men will go along with it in the hope the females will shut up. They simply start back up in a little while because no matter what they get it isn't what they wanted and you just didn't understand.

November 29, 2007 1:52 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

I'm sorry that my argument is so persuasive that you think I've stooped to some feminist mystique to try and change your mind. LOL It's just good ole logic.

I haven't "commanded" you to do anything. I'm simply trying to understand you're point of view, and you are woefully bad at expressing it. All you've done is take snippets of what I've said and tried to make it seem like I hate men. On the contrary, I like men. Just because I disagree with you on your methods doesn't mean I don't agree with some of your points of view.

It's sort of sad that you don't see the difference.

Your inability to come out and say what you REALLY think about things is why I have to ask the same questions and push the issues. Once again, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but if you were better at making your points and backing them up, you might be able to sway people who don't think like you already. Isn't that the point of your blog?

Or could it be that you would dismiss whatever I say because I am a woman? Maybe we just have a personality conflict? Are there any women in your life that you respect and can have a conversation with that isn't dismissive? Just wondering...

Because I can have conversations with men that are enlightening and thought provoking and interesting. Why? Because I don't dismiss them out right because they are men.

I'm afraid I would respect you more, Bob, if you would come out and say, "I don't like women. I like what women can do for me, i.e. fix my supper, clean my house, lay on her back spread eagle." That's what you are saying in so many words, yet when confronted with it, you refuse to admit it? Why?

P.S. You said, "Another man described you well on another forum this morning." Were you guys gossiping about me in particular or just a woman's tendency to nag?

November 29, 2007 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if a husband is "bad", the female must never be allowed to divorce him, she is his property. Bob are you going soft?

November 29, 2007 3:09 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup:
Describing a nagging feminist is much the same no matter which nagging feminist one is describing. It's all the same, nag, nag, nag.

November 29, 2007 5:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup:
Your nagging has gotten off topic and is being summarily deleted.

November 30, 2007 5:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home