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.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Reforming The Medical Industrial Complex

UPDATE August 25, 2009

Two more disturbing bits of news on the fascist "Blanc Check" medical industry takeover.

First: The Obama regime already controls medical care for aging veterans under the long established veteran's benefits programs. Obama rolled out its "euthanasia" plan for elderly veterans without waiting for Congress to enact a similar "death for the elderly" plan for all Americans. Elderly veterans now are to receive "counseling" on "Hospice," and pain medication in lieu of medical treatment. Meanwhile FactChuck keeps telling us that the Obama (Blanc Check) plan does not include euthanasia for the elderly.

Second: The Obama regime has extorted millions of dollars from pharmaceutical corporations by threatening them with loss of their monopoly protection, or loss of approval of their products by the FDA. They are being forced to pay for promotion of his (Blanc Check) fascist takeover of the medical industry. You may have noticed the ads on network TV praising Democratic Senators for their support of Obama fascism and asking you to phone them with more encouragement. When you see those ads, think "fascist extortion" being used for a fascist propaganda program.

Original Post. August 20, 2009


Everybody in the US knows that medical treatment has become so expensive that an average working man cannot afford it. Employers have responded by paying for insurance to spread the extreme cost of medical treatment over a whole population. Insurance makes people pay whether they need medical care or not. Mostly insurance makes men pay for the medical treatment of women. Men pay about 80% of medical insurance premiums and women receive about 75% of medical treatment.

From an economic perspective company paid medical insurance is part of the “real wages” that an employer pays to hire you. It gets deducted out of your pay before the taxes are calculated, but its a cost per employee that the employer has to pay. It is part of your pay. And no, of course, the Obama regime wants to tax your total wages, not just your paycheck wages. And you thought he said he wouldn't raise taxes on working people. ROFLMAO!!!

Little by little medical treatment has become so expensive that many employers can no longer afford to pay that much for employees. They have to compete with the next company down the road and so company paid insurance has become a huge expense that they are no longer paying.

Why, you might ask, is medical treatment so expensive? What you get for $400 is 45 minutes waiting in a room full of sick people, 10 minutes of a junior level nurse taking your weight and pulse, and maybe 5 minutes of a doctor's time during which he ignores most of your concerns and tells you to take the latest pills being pushed by some pharmaceutical corporation. The pills cost another $100. If you have insurance you only pay $15 or some token amount while the doctor has to hire 3 office staff to fill out the paperwork from insurance companies and government.

Why does that need to cost $500? Answer: It doesn't have to cost so much. It costs that much because it is a government created and enforced monopoly scheme to bleed your wallet. It is fundamentally a government created “pay or die” extortion scheme. How does the scheme work you might ask? Everyone in the media is talking about “reform” of the health care industry. Are they suggesting anything that will lower these extortion level prices? No, sorry. When you or I think about “reform” of a monopoly extortion racket we think about lowering costs and increasing our freedom of choice. That isn't what the Obama regime, the Democrats, nor the socialist propaganda outlets mean by “reform.” Whenever a corrupt politician is talking about “reform” what they are imagining is a creative new scheme to increase government control over your life and bleed the remaining life out of your wallet.

Instead of actually reforming the government's medical industrial monopoly, the Obama regime is planning to write them a massive blank check from your wallet, to pay all of their extreme prices and whatever they want to charge. They will save costs, as Obama said, by giving the elderly “pain pills” instead of medical treatment.


Here is a list of reforms that the government could do to greatly lower the extreme cost of medical care. If government would get their corrupt evil hands out of health care the prices would drop back to where you or I could just go into a clinic and buy some.

1. End the government's quota system that limits medical schools and the number of doctors. Our Congresscunt's web page whines about how “concerned” she is over the shortage of doctors, but she says nothing at all about ending the government's quota system. The function of the quota has nothing to do with quality of doctor education. It is solely intended to reduce price competition, create a shortage of doctors, and allow doctors to get rich by selling their time to the highest bidder. When Bob was in University the highly respected medical school accidentally graduated more doctors than allowed by its quota. The AMA/government threatened them with loss of license to educate doctors because the QUOTA had been exceeded. No allegations were made that the huge state university wasn't able to train twice as many quality doctors. They could educate many doctors, if they were allowed to. Its a quota. They exceeded the quota. Too many doctors would create completion and break the government monopoly.

2. Stop the ridiculously expensive over-schooling of doctors. The quota system goes hand in hand with the greatly over expensive training of doctors. It adds nothing to a doctor's medical education to require 16 plus years of school before being allowed to apply for medical school. The Bachelor's degree with “A” average that medical schools require for admission is used to cut the number of doctors and keep an artificial limit on supply, to keep prices up. For most General Practitioner and Family Doctor work it doesn't even really take 4 or 5 years in medical school followed by another 4 years as a “resident” doctor in training at a hospital.

Most medical treatment could be just as effective if done by a doctor who had 4 years of schooling, including part time apprentice work with senior doctors. In the small percentage of difficult cases or complicated surgeries a more expensive and more highly educated doctor could be hired. It is ridiculous and grossly over expensive to require all doctors to be massively over educated for the work they are doing.

The reason why you cannot choose a less expensive general practice doctor is because the government monopoly does not allow less expensive doctors to provide services at reduced cost. No freedom to choose. Lots of government control. A huge and extremely expensive government mandated monopoly is what we have. Will it be reformed? LOL. Not by the Obama regime.

3. Break the government monopoly's control of our basic right to purchase medication when we decide that we need it. Take for example, a typical man “Charlie” who needs another year of Alopurinol for gout. Charlie has been taking Alopurinol for years along with millions of other gout sufferers. One pill a day keeps gout away.

Twenty years ago Charlie consulted a doctor and was prescribed Alopurinol to stop the recurring gout attacks. Consulting with a doctor for a new malady is a good option that Charlie was glad to have. But that was 20 years ago, and the gout continues for the rest of your life if Charlie is like other men.

All the information about Alopurinol is available on the Internet, including the patient information and the “doctor” information. Charlie has read all that, has 20 years of personal experience dealing with gout, and relies on Alopurinol for prevention. Sometime this month Charlie's year supply of pills is running out. In order to purchase another year supply Charlie must have (by government fiat) the permission of a government monopoly overpriced doctor. The government will not allow Charlie to just buy some pills. That would not feed the monopoly that contributes so much to the reelection funds of Congressional swine.

In order to purchase another year of Alopurinol for his gout, Charlie has to pay $100 or more, wait in some stupid room full of sick people for an hour, and endure the indignity of having his body poked, prodded and touched in unfriendly ways. If he's lucky he will only have to pay $100 for the monopoly's permission to purchase his pills. Depending on the doctor Charlie could end up paying $400 or more.

Once Charlie has permission to purchase his pills, he can go to a government regulated pharmacy and pay another $100 for a package of pills that would be priced at $50 in Canada or $25 in Mexico. The reason that health care is so expensive in the US is because the government mandates that millions of men like Charlie have to pay $200 (or more) to purchase $10 worth of pills.

The people have a fundamental right to choose our own doctor, to choose a highly skilled specialist or an inexpensive general practitioner for a routine problem. We have a right to buy another year of our pills without paying the government monopoly for permission. It is the government that is responsible for extremely high prices in the medical industrial monopoly.

In Charlie's case, 95% of the cost is waste and abuse caused by government. That is typical of the whole medical industrial monopoly. Real “reform” would get the government out of our lives, out of our doctor's offices, and off our backs.

4. Break the trial lieyer's fraudulent lawsuits against doctors. In a typical fraud, Senator Edwards made a large fortune by filing fraudulent lawsuits against OBGYN doctors in small rural areas where uneducated juries could be found. Edwards would convince juries with crying women rather than facts and evidence. His lawsuits raised the price of a typical OBGYN's malpractice insurance greatly. Edwards is single handedly responsible for raising the cost of OBGYN services to the average woman by about 25% across the whole US. Lieyer Edwards made a huge fortune, and spent some of his money getting himself elected to the US Senate.

The Edwards fraudulent lawsuits of OBGYNs are just one example of out of control single party and class action suits that plague doctors every day. Something like 1/3 of all the money doctors and hospitals charge goes to their malpractice insurance. Many doctors also use “defensive” tests, expensive unneeded tests, done solely as a hedge against frivolous and costly lawsuits.

Sometimes called “Tort Reform” a law limiting medical lawsuit damages to reasonable actual damages and barring “punitive” extra damages would greatly reduce medical costs. Yes, it is sad when some patient suffers because a doctor made a mistake. Raising the price of medical care for all the other patients in the US will not restore an arm, vision, or life that was lost by the mistake.

Tort reform would prevent unscrupulous lieyers like Edwards from getting rich on the backs of hard working men and women who need medical care. Will the Senate consider Tort reform? Is Edwards a Senator? Who's ox is getting gored? You figure it out.

5. End the government required monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry pays big contributions to Congressmen to protect them from low priced competition. For example, several states that have free medical programs for poor people discovered that they could buy pills in Canada for less than the price in the US. The government passed a law making it illegal to purchase US made pills in Canada for lower prices than they are sold for in the US.

The price we pay for pills in the US is often 100 times what we should be paying without the government monopoly. A package of pills that costs 25 cents to produce will be sold for $2.50 in Africa, $25 in Europe, $50 in Mexico, $100 in Canada, and $250 in the US. If the government monopoly would allow competition, some small business startup would be producing the very same quality pills (or better) in your town and selling them for a handsome profit at $5. The rest of the $250 is the government monopoly.

Some will argue that the big corporate pill pushers are assuring quality. But small business often produces better quality than impersonal corporations. For example, the beer industry. Local small business often makes far better beer than big corporations. Local small business is much more sensitive to customers turning away when the quality slips. Big corporations can and often do sell crap to customers who can't tell the difference. The quality of corporate products is especially bad when they know that they have a government monopoly so you buy their crap made pill or die.

Some will argue that giving massive profits to corporations allows them to fund medical research. Okay, that's nice, but how many billion of our dollars goes to greedy profits and congressional corruption? There are far better ways to fund medical research than by giving a total monopoly to all the huge corporations for all the generic pills that can be produced on any corner.

Cutting off the government monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry would cut pill costs in the US to less than 10% of what we pay now. It would cut pharmaceutical corporation contributions to corrupt politicians by the same percentages. That's why they don't do it.

1.End the quota system for doctors
2.End the mandated extremely over-education of doctors
3.Allow free citizens to purchase pharmaceuticals at our own decision. It's our body.
4.Break the Lieyer scum with Tort Reform
5.Break the pharmaceutical monopoly by allowing open manufacture and sale of pills.


Obama, Congress, and the Fascist NYC propaganda machine are all taking about “reform” of medical care in the US. They are not suggesting any of the needed reforms. When a fascist politician talks about “reform” what he means is that he has invented a new scheme to further extend control of your life and bleed your purse even more than it is being bled now.

None of the Congress, of either party, are talking about real reform in medical care. Only the Republicans are talking about Tort Reform and they only bring it up because they know the Dem's won't talk about it.

Congress is planning to write a blank check to their obscenely overpriced medical industrial monopoly, and pay for the check by taxing YOUR bank account or wages. They are proposing to require all Americans to pay for the bloated sow of monopoly medicine whether you are healthy or sick, and to extend free benefits to every illegal alien who can run across the border. Obama promised free medical care to every Mexican who can get into the US during his recent trip to Mexico.


Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. You can only take every opportunity to speak with corrupt politicians and demand real reform. Don't expect the fascist government and corrupt politicians to listen to the people.

Perhaps when the total economic collapse that will inevitably come from their incompetent and corrupt mismanagement the people can reorganize a more just government. Save whiskey for trade goods.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Charles said...

Feminists "feel" that the healthcare system "oppresses" them...

These cunts are so spoiled

August 21, 2009 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not at all Charles. As a feminist I don't feel oppresses by the healthcare system at all. That might be because I'm in Canada. I think in some areas it favours men and in some it favours women but it works out being fairly equal. For instance: There is more awareness for say breast cancer then for prostate cancer but the symptoms for many medical issues such as heart attack are slightly different for men and women and the male symptoms are better known.
Perhaps it’s an imbalance for both genders that could be improved upon.

August 22, 2009 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of feminists, we have just discovered one major problem with medical care. The feminists supported by cowardly mangina losers have demanded equality in medicine. So, the med schools increase every year the number of female students, trying to make the number of practicing male and female doctors equal.

I forget the exact figures, but in the US it is something like half of female doctors are no longer in full-time practice within a few years of receiving their shingle. Thus, the more female students, the fewer doctors actually available to treat patients and there is no gain on the insane attempt to make silk out of a sow's ear.

And, it is much worse in Canada, which is the real reason they are in so much trouble that Canadians often cross into the US for medical treatment. Our Canadian anonymous person does not understand that the difference in medical care means women outlive men by more than five years. Of course, feminists really don't care if all males drop dead, which is pretty much why I tell feminists to go pound sand, as the rest of you men should be doing.

We have to decide if we want medical care, or if we want to kiss feminist posteriors. So far the cowardly manginas have chosen to kiss feminist posteriors.

Next, if most people would start eating properly, instead of following the AMA recommended diet, which is guaranteed to make you fat and give you diabetes, as well as joint problems from the excess weight, and exercised properly half the visits to doctors would cease to exist, and there would be an excess of doctors.

The AMA still tells you to eat plenty of carbs and avoid fat, which guarantees you will, in most cases, develop diabetes and/or heart problems from clogged arteries. I showed my best friend here in rural Mexico the book on the Atkins Diet, and he pooh-poohed it. But, he did say he was going to review his med school nutrition text book, which I saw him doing. He said not one more word about the low carb diet being correct for most people.

As far as not having lower qualifications for doctors, they do have such a program. They are called depending upon the state, nursing pracictioners or Physician Assistants. however, to keep the monopoly flowing, after each patient, the PA/NP has to show the file to a doctor who initializes it, which means the cost is the same with most of the office call going to the doctor, not the NP/PA.

Two years ago, my little grandson in the US developed fever and vomiting. This was on a Thursday, and the family doctor said he could fit him on Monday. I called a family member who was in med school, and he told me it was certainly roseola. Sure enough, on Saturday came the rash and the fever broke.


August 23, 2009 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here in Mexico, while you might not find a heart lung machine, or MRI in small villages, if your kid gets sick at 2 am, you ring the bell on the door of the doctor and he treats your kid at 2 am, not next Monday. It will probably cost you $15 for the office call plus another few dollars for the meds, but when your kid is sick you do what you gotta' do. Heh, heh.

My family member in med school was told in class that in Mexico the nation was filled with raging antibiotic resistant bacterian, because the people can buy their own antibiotics, and thus do not take the proper antibiotic for the full ten days. He asked me what a normal dose was for certain illnesses here, and it turns out to be exactly the same dose as in the US.

A recent study in a vets hospital involved a thirty day dose of antibiotics for prostate infections. They learned that when they started the patients stools contained only antibiotic susceptible bacteria. During the thirty days, the stools had antibiotic resistant bacteria. After the antibiotics stopped, the bacteria was once again antibiotic susceptible.

So, the bacteria do not at all evolve as the Morons in White Coats have been telling us.

And, the shorter time you take antibiotics, the less problems with resistant bacteria.

I have had salmonella, and the treatment was exactly the same as for a normal stomach infection. That is because in the US if you get salmonella, by the time you get access to a doctor, and get permission to buy antibiotics, and get the antibiotics, yo are in bad shape. So, it ends up on the news and everyone shivers with fear.

Here, I keep Bactrim in the house and when my stomach starts a real good imitation of Vesuvius, I take 2 Bactrim with lots of water, even if it is 2 am, which it usually is, and often by noon the infection is gone. Before I learned this, if I got an infection, I wouldn't see a doctor for twelve hours and I wouldn't be infection free for several days. Requiring a doctor for such routine issues puts you in danger.

Not to even mention getting infections in hospitals with a high chance of dying, while they all follow the usual medical procedures. Slap on Manuka honey at the first sign of a skin infection and your chances of dying drop dramatically.

Anonymous age 67

August 23, 2009 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon. If you mean that schools are letting women in based purely on the fact that they are women and not on marks then you have a right to be angry and I support you. If you mean you just don’t want women going to school that’s very presumptuous of you. If you are only concerned by the lack of doctors then I understand your concern but it is irrational of you to stop people with the desire and ability to attend their desired schooling. Perhaps a better solution would be to hire more teachers and open more schools.
I know there are people who got to the States for medical care. There must be. But no one I know has ever had the need despite health issues. I have heard that Canadians mostly use the US if they need a transplant and are low on the list.

“We have to decide if we want medical care, or if we want to kiss feminist posteriors. So far the cowardly manginas have chosen to kiss feminist posteriors.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. For the sake of argument let’s say you’re right. Wouldn’t using the medical care available to you only benefit you? Why would you have to kiss the “feminist posteriors” if most of the people in the medical profession are men?

You are right in that people need to start eating properly. But I admit I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with the AMA.


August 24, 2009 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that you think I wouldn't care if men dropped dead is absurd. Of course I care. There are many people who I cherish. Some are men and some are women. I know the pain of losing someone I care about. I am able to sympathise with others who feel that same pain. As for women outliving men if you want the biological reason just look at nature. I know a lot of people who frequent this sight do not believe or refuse to believe that females have been outliving males for ages, humans and animals alike. Also, when you take into account that men, though physically stronger in general, tend to be genetically weaker it shouldn’t be so surprising. There is a higher rate of birth deformities in males then females. Consider even: if you study the male and female sperm (containing and X chromosome vs. a Y chromosome) you will find that the female is much more heavily armoured but slower whereas the male is weaker but faster. Also, the higher levels of testosterone in males can, quiet frankly, lead them to do stupid things that result in their death. I'm not trying to say men are less intelligent then women but the different genders tend to think differently and the things women are more likely to do, though not necessarily smarter, tend not to get them killed as often. There are some scientists that believe the very presents of high testosterone can shorten lifespan. It's possible that this is true or very false. There is no way to test it and any 'proof' would be shaky at best.
Looking at history, nature and simple biology it is reasonable to believe that females outliving males is natural. If, in the future, this is proven false then I will consider it my moral duty to make sure such equality is obtained for men. Again, frequenters here will probably not believe that. That's okay with me as long as I'm allowed to say my piece.
But maybe you will understand if I tell you why I have always sought to be fair to all peoples.
When I was very young there was a boy in my kindergarten class. He was bald because of his cancer. Looking back he must not have had very many friends because he was different. One day we were in the gym and we were instructed to get a partner and dance around the gym. I was paired with him. All I can remember thinking is “great, I get to dance with the bald guy” Now I can’t imagine how I could have been so heartless, so callous. He died before the year was over. All through the funeral I couldn’t stop thinking about how cruel I had been even though I never said or did anything. I realised I thought poorly of him because he was bald and it was wrong. I promised myself that I would never judge a person’s value based on how they looked, their gender, religion or on anything else so superficial. He made me who I am today, a person I can look in the mirror and be proud of. His name was John. I don’t think we ever actually spoke to each other and, yet, he may be the most important person in my life.

"Canadian anonymous person" ;)

August 24, 2009 10:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous Canadian:
Longevity of any population is a measure of the overall treatment and quality of life that the society provides for that population. Prior to the feminist century men lived as long as women. Feminism and the industrial revolution pampered women while mistreating men. The result was significantly longer lives for women.

There is nothing in "nature" that kills men younger than women. It is the sum or all the ways that women are pampered by the society while men work harder, endure more risks, get only 1/3 as much medical care, etc.

Even though you say you don't judge people by their gender, you recite the same misandrist bigotry which results in killing men younger than the old age females now enjoy. Reciting the same old sexist lies does not help to provide fair and equal treatment for all people.

August 25, 2009 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women live longer than men today because of men, not in spite of men.For example long ago child birth used to have a much higher mortality rate for women. But today due to modern medical advances pioneered overwhelmingly by men, this is no longer true. The child birth procedure is much safer today.Over all women have alot more to be grateful to men than not. Unfortunately due to feminist brain washing many think the opposite.

August 25, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is true that men have pioneered many advances in medicine and technology, which benefit all of us. But the fact still remains that men generated much cruelty which hurt all of us: wars, slavery, torture, terrorism, violence. Plus old forms of cruelty that resulted in women being burned alive just for receiving analgesics during childbirth, or being accused by "grown men" of casting spells.

August 25, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you mean, childbirth had a high mortality rate years ago?

I thought childbirth was a simple natural occurrence, like animals. With only minor discomfort.

Women just like to bitch about "pain", but there's no real suffering and definitely not death involved.

August 25, 2009 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women have generated the biggest cruelty and mass murder of all time. That being abortion.

August 25, 2009 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most men, when interviewed, say they support abortion rights. Anonymous (9:11 8/25/09) appears to be pro-life, so that is praiseworthy in my opinion.

August 26, 2009 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The alcoholic drink, "Bloody Mary" is named after Mary Queen of Scots, A WOman who had thousands of protestants tortured, and beheaded during the Protestant Reformation in England and Scotland. This "grown woman" was not a very nice gal at all.

August 26, 2009 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction: "Bloody Mary" refers to Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII.

Mary was determined to return England to Catholicism, and ordered executions of Protestants. Thankfully Mary died in 1558, and Elizabeth I then ruled England as one of its greatest, wisest rulers. Elizabeth paved the way for England's true Protestant heritage that shaped America and our special freedoms.

Mary Queen of Scots was a different queen. Mary Stuart was a Catholic zealot, executed in 1587 for plotting against her cousin Elizabeth I.

Perhaps Mary Queen of Scots is thought of as "bloody" because she was beheaded... gory indeed.

August 26, 2009 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most African Americans suport abortion rights also. Which is rather puzzling when you consider the fact that black women make up 12 per cent of the female population of America yet account for 35 per cent of the abortions.The black population in America is controlled by abortion.I am a white male and if I were a racist this would be music to my ears. See

August 27, 2009 10:02 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Your racist view is noted.

Nobody is forcing black women to have abortions. They support abortions because it allows them the freedom to choose abortions instead of bearing children that they don't want. They also don't allow black men to have any say in the life or death decision about his child. Black or white, its all about "a WOMAN's right to choose" death for a man's child.

August 27, 2009 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Rash said...

"But the fact still remains that men generated much cruelty which hurt all of us: wars, slavery, torture, terrorism, violence. Plus old forms of cruelty that resulted in women being burned alive just for receiving analgesics during childbirth, or being accused by "grown men" of casting spells."

There have been women leaders who have gone to war, women who took part in slavery, women who tortured, women terrorists and there continue to be many violent women. And in the old days of public executions women would stand by and cheer when the person was despatched. You could say mostly it was men who did these things, but that is only because men are usually dominant in society. Men have done bad as well as good. There are plenty of men who have acted to stop bad things from happening. Consider what the world would be like if men had never existed. Does it look like heaven or hell?

August 27, 2009 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The human race has been guilty of cruelty at times. Men had more prominent roles in rulership, military exploits, aggressive business ventures, etc. When men were evil it was more widely noticed. For ex., we know details of Nazi war criminals. But there were also some German women hanged for atrocities to camp inmates. Those women are generally not well known by name.

God help the human race.

August 28, 2009 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was women who voted Hitler into power in Nazi Germany.

August 29, 2009 2:57 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
That is true. The rise to power of the German National Socialist Labor Party was the first great victory of female suffrage.
Female suffrage will eventually destroy any nation that allows it.

August 29, 2009 6:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No men voted for Hitler?

August 29, 2009 2:54 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
The new female voters swooned for the emotional rhetoric of the charismatic leader of the National Socialist Labor Party and voted Nazi in large numbers. The men of Germany predominantly had much better sense and mostly voted for other political parties. Female voters today still mostly vote based on emotions.

August 29, 2009 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many German veterans of the first world war spoke out against electing Hitler. They new he was crazy and what he "might" do.Women on the other hand felt he was charming and charismatic and voted for him in droves.

August 29, 2009 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The stereotype that women operate on emotions only is untrue.

September 01, 2009 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Anon. If you mean that schools are letting women in based purely on the fact that they are women and not on marks then you have a right to be angry and I support you. If you mean you just don’t want women going to school that’s very presumptuous of you. If you are only concerned by the lack of doctors then I understand your concern but it is irrational of you to stop people with the desire and ability to attend their desired schooling.

Can I conclude Canadian feminists are not real smart? Um, yes, I think so.

And, I suspect I just found out who filed my user name in the above thread.

I do not care if doctors in practice are men or women. In fact, I think women have a desire to have competent women doctors examining them, and that is a valid reason to have women doctors.

I do not care if women go to medical school.

I do care if due to feminist b.s. we admit large numbers of women to med school and half of them do not practice full-time after five years and this means we can't get a doctor when we need one.

That is what we are dealing with.

The amazing thing is I already explained this in what I believe is a very clear manner. So, what is the problem?

>>The stereotype that women operate on emotions only is untrue.

Canadian feminist does not prove this statement true.

Anonymous age 67

September 03, 2009 8:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home