Just Don't Lose
Bob was watching a documentary on the Military Channel about the US Civil War. The documentary focused on the Battle of Gettysburg which is often said to be the turning point of that war. More specifically it focused on what history calls Pickett's Charge. For two days the Confederate Army of Virginia led by General Robert E. Lee attacked the left and right flanks of the Union Army without success. Finally on the 3rd day General Lee ordered his remaining troops to assault the center of the Union Army's line. Perhaps Lee reasoned that troops had been moved to the flanks where he had attacked the previous 2 days, which would have left the center less well defended. The result of Pickett's Charge was the loss of about 6,000 casualties counting killed and wounded, plus another thousand men captured. Pickett's Charge is often said to be the truing point of the whole war.
Historians have debated the wisdom of Pickett's Charge for almost 150 years. Was Lee overconfident in the ability of his troops to take the hill? Did Confederate planning fail to account for the sturdy fences and road they would have to cross under fire? Were Lee's subordinate Generals, Longstreet and Pickett less than capable leading the charge? Did Lee over estimate the ability of Confederate artillery to silence Union artillery? Was Pickett's Charge just a big mistake?
As Bob watched the documentary that counted the dead, recreated troops crossing fences against a stop watch, and asked all those questions, Bob couldn't help but wonder if the biggest mistake was having the battle of Gettysburg at all. Bob remembered General George Washington's leadership during the winter at Vally Forge. General Washington believed that he did not have to “win” the war. All he had to do was NOT LOSE the war. There is a huge strategic difference between winning a war, and not losing a war. In the American Revolution in the 1770s, Washington lost many battles, but he never lost the war. In the end, the English Parliament got tired of spending the money and men, and agreed to leave. By not losing, Washington had won.
Again in Viet Nam we see an example of not losing a war. In Viet Nam the US military won every battle. But the NVA never lost. At the end of the decade the US Army was called home by politicians tired of paying for a war that never ended. The NVA was the last army standing on the battlefield.
When General Lee took his Army of Virginia to invade the north he had over reached his power. He had abandoned the strategy of “Just don't lose” and was moving out on a campaign for victory. Before Gettysburg, Lee had won all the battles. He was over confident in his army. There is a huge gap between not losing at home, and winning on their territory. The defending army can occupy the high ground. The defending army can dig in fortifications. The defending army does not have long supply lines, and confusion of the unknown territory.
General Lee did not lose at Gettysburg because he was overconfident about Pickett's Charge. He lost at Gettysburg because he forgot the prime directive of a revolutionary army. You aren't trying to win, you just can't lose. At Gettysburg, Lee got overconfident. He tried to win the war, and in doing so, he lost the war. It takes many more troops, many more arms, many more cannon, many more cavalry, and a lot more money to win, but winning is not needed. All you have to do is not lose. General Lee got over confident and tried to win. Big mistake. It was the turning point of the US Civil War. Lee should never have invaded Pennsylvania. He should never have fought at Gettysburg.
Any revolutionary Generals should learn from George Washington. You don't have to win. You just have to not lose. This is one of the great lessons of history. Any General planning any revolution should study and remember the eventual success of George Washington and the failure of Robert E. Lee, just don't lose.
Historians have debated the wisdom of Pickett's Charge for almost 150 years. Was Lee overconfident in the ability of his troops to take the hill? Did Confederate planning fail to account for the sturdy fences and road they would have to cross under fire? Were Lee's subordinate Generals, Longstreet and Pickett less than capable leading the charge? Did Lee over estimate the ability of Confederate artillery to silence Union artillery? Was Pickett's Charge just a big mistake?
As Bob watched the documentary that counted the dead, recreated troops crossing fences against a stop watch, and asked all those questions, Bob couldn't help but wonder if the biggest mistake was having the battle of Gettysburg at all. Bob remembered General George Washington's leadership during the winter at Vally Forge. General Washington believed that he did not have to “win” the war. All he had to do was NOT LOSE the war. There is a huge strategic difference between winning a war, and not losing a war. In the American Revolution in the 1770s, Washington lost many battles, but he never lost the war. In the end, the English Parliament got tired of spending the money and men, and agreed to leave. By not losing, Washington had won.
Again in Viet Nam we see an example of not losing a war. In Viet Nam the US military won every battle. But the NVA never lost. At the end of the decade the US Army was called home by politicians tired of paying for a war that never ended. The NVA was the last army standing on the battlefield.
When General Lee took his Army of Virginia to invade the north he had over reached his power. He had abandoned the strategy of “Just don't lose” and was moving out on a campaign for victory. Before Gettysburg, Lee had won all the battles. He was over confident in his army. There is a huge gap between not losing at home, and winning on their territory. The defending army can occupy the high ground. The defending army can dig in fortifications. The defending army does not have long supply lines, and confusion of the unknown territory.
General Lee did not lose at Gettysburg because he was overconfident about Pickett's Charge. He lost at Gettysburg because he forgot the prime directive of a revolutionary army. You aren't trying to win, you just can't lose. At Gettysburg, Lee got overconfident. He tried to win the war, and in doing so, he lost the war. It takes many more troops, many more arms, many more cannon, many more cavalry, and a lot more money to win, but winning is not needed. All you have to do is not lose. General Lee got over confident and tried to win. Big mistake. It was the turning point of the US Civil War. Lee should never have invaded Pennsylvania. He should never have fought at Gettysburg.
Any revolutionary Generals should learn from George Washington. You don't have to win. You just have to not lose. This is one of the great lessons of history. Any General planning any revolution should study and remember the eventual success of George Washington and the failure of Robert E. Lee, just don't lose.
posted by Bob | Wednesday, April 14, 2010
60 Comments:
Wow! Bob, you have had other postings over the years that I liked, but this one is one of the best ever. Thanks!
Anonymous age 68.
Lincoln died 145 years ago today in a boarding house across from the theater.
This is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are winning most of the military campaigns in both countries, but we are not winning the war.
I was watching a different documentary, Eyes on the Prize, about the Civil Rights Movement. It's a long one. As I watched I was struck by how many of their spokesmen were women. Many, many women in the forefront of the movement. And among Whites who supported the movement and marched with them, many, many women. Women were, of course, at the forefront of the women's rights movement. And even though gay men outnumber lesbians by at least 2:1, there are many women, both lesbian and straight, at the forefront. The social justice movement in Latin America? Spearheaded by nuns. I guess the priests are too busy with the altar boys. Women don't seem to want anyone to have a second-class existence, neither women nor anyone else. They put their organizational power behind rights movements worldwide, and back it up with their time and effort. And they're in it to win. LBJ signed civil rights legislation into law, despite the screaming White men who opposed it with their entire hearts. Women's rights became law. I read today that an Arkansas law banning gay couples from adopting or fostering what struck down, and gay marriage is law in 7 states. They're in it to win. The angry White men at Tea Party events look like the ones in the documentary, angry, yelling, but ineffectual. The women, and those they ally with, are there to win, not to not lose. They want to win, and they are. Maybe aiming to win isn't such a bad strategy, although the women and the blacks and the gays and the indigenous peoples have had to wait centuries, but they seem to be winning now.
I am a black man and I am appalled by the ignorance of the last commenter. Feminism is destroying black America, I suggest she check out the blog The death of Black America. or Blackgenocide.org.
I have also noted many women at tea party events.
Maybe if black men took some responsibility for their illegitimate offspring, and I think the out-of-wedlock percentage of births is around 70%, black women wouldn't need to have so many abortions.
Also, what business is it of yours of women choose to terminate unwanted pregnancies? Their body, up to them if they want to be mothers. Especially if men choose to walk away.
Women are winning and will, in this society, always win.
Men hate eachother. Women, atleast in the face of maleviolence and malepower, stick together. There is nothing men want more then to butcher (chop off limbs, torture, etc) and kill eachother. Women do not wish to butcher or kill eachother.
Once any society gives women power women have power untill the end of that society hundreads and hundreads of years later. Men just go with the flow, they take any bread crumb they are given.
The fact is also that no society is really ever friendly to men (because men are don't even like eachother, even as allies), all societies try to make things good for women from the get go: they make sure there are stringent rape laws, that women get alimony after divorce, that women are always protected from men (or atleast the 80 percent of the men that they don't like) and are always provided for by men, and that they can't be forced into marrage by random men (abduction marraige or whatever you people call it).
Societies always loves women and always hates men: this is because both men and women love women and men hate men and women have no real opinion about 80 percent of men who do not choose to achive alpha-dog status (one must be physically fit and not kiss ass, takes some work for most men so many don't bother). Feminism is just another layer of laws that are good for women, laws that make sence in the modern time.
Things will NEVER change, and if you think Islam will save you: Muslims are the original codifiers of chilvary. Every muslim woman is seen as almost the virgin mary and the men are seen as scum for the most part. Muslims LOVE to slowly cut off the hands and feet of other men, to torture men, to cripple men. It is enjoyment to them. Islam will kill you for rape or sex with a woman, including if she is unmarried (unlike the bible crap where the women are forced to be the unwilling servants of the evil rapist ancient israli men). It's her body her fucking choice (this is part of Islam: a valid marraige requires the woman to concent to the marraige, and she can divorce her husband aswell).
You lose.
I can only describe that last poster as an illiterate idiot and a glittering example of colossal ignorance.
Anonymous April 18, 2010 8:35 AM is a racist and sexist pig.
Note to anonymous:
Your assessments are accurate. The descriptive term you may be looking for is "feminist."
Maybe if black men took some responsibility for their illegitimate offspring, and I think the out-of-wedlock percentage of births is around 70%, black women wouldn't need to have so many abortions.
What comes out of a slut's body is not a man's responsibility. Making men responsible for bastards, is like blaming men for bastards that are born by a woman who uses a sperm bank to get pregnant.
In other words, unless the man has agreed to support the child before birth, then the woman should take responsibility for what she consumes, (sperm) and what comes out of her body. (baby)
In some other words....fuck off.
"What comes out of a slut's body is not a man's responsibility. "
Thanks for putting your finger on exactly what's destroying the Black community. It isn't feminism. It's you and all the Black men who agree with you. Why should Black women put up with you when they can use education to get out and make a better life for themselves and their children? Why put up with being treated like dirt when she can leave and find a better life? Why should any woman, not just Black ones?
Very succinct, Anonymous at 12:58. That's why the women are getting away from us. Who can blame them?
Note to anonymous:
A whore's bastard is nobody's problem but her own. I good woman arranges for a husband to support her BEFORE she opens her legs. The same truth applies to whores, wives, and husbands of all colors.
Your feeble attempt to use racial slurs to push some feminist dogma don't fly. The problems men face today are the same for men of ALL races. Pound sand!
Does a man arrange for a woman to care for his children before he drops his pants? Sounds like a "no." All fun is for men, all duty is for women. All freedom is for men, all responsibility is for women. No wonder they're leaving us in droves. Who can blame them?
"[A] good woman arranges for a husband to support her BEFORE she opens her legs. The same truth applies to whores, wives, and husbands of all colors."
Nope. A calculating woman does that.
You give us two options:
*A cold calculating woman ("good woman").
*A woman that wants to give a man what she thinks he wants ("a slut").
You are saying that a good woman makes the man pay more and worship her more before he gets to enjoy company with her. As if that is a good thing for him.
In truth, you can have both. When females are married off to whomever had first relations with them the man can have both a female who has not been around and a non-calculating woman.
There is NOTHING wrong with a non-calculating female. It is, infact, a good non-masculine thing. They should not be hated for the fact that they didn't set hooks into the man deep enough first ("slut"). Only those with entitlement attitudes (those with the attitudes of calculating shrews) should have scorn cast upon them.
The problem is that our society doesn't allow men to marry girls/young-women/whatever your name for females of the age of 12 to 14 is... so men cannot get BOTH girls who haven't been around ASWELL as a non-calculating female (in the same person).
The solution is not to continue supporting the worthless American way of thinking (which has been worthless and corrupt from the start). The solution is to enslave females to men (using an older form of marraige) when they are young: certainly once they are able to have children (usually at age 12, 13, 14).
Death To women's Rights.
Viva Men's Liberties.
--MikeeUSA--
What man wants a shrewd shrew?
"The solution is to enslave females to men (using an older form of marraige) when they are young"
Hahahahahahahahahahahh!!!
Thanks for the laugh, --MikeeUSA--! I needed it.
I see Mike is here. Also sounds like the Canadian feminist.
Mark Twain, was it, or Will Rogers, not that it matters, said, "There are lies; damned lies; and statistics."
The comment that black men are responsible for the problems in the black ghettos clearly transcends a damned lie, so I assume it is a "statistic."
This is just more hatred for men. It is almost universally a decision made by women to have kids without a husband.
Any man who attempts to see his kids when the whore doesn't want him to will either end up in jail, or the SWAT team will put a bullet in his brain.
So, how many here know the SWAT team was originally developed to shoot men who insisted on seeing their kids when the whore doesn't want him to see them? Not for terrorists; for men who refuse to go away when he is told to by a whore. That is a historical fact.
But, the dearies get away with it, because as stated by another commenter, everyone hates men, including other men.
In the Anglosphere, not in other nations.
Everyone but Mike listen up. Here in Mexico men are treated with respect, and men take care of men.
My wife has lived in the US for nearly 40 years. A while back she was on her ear about something as AW do. Her cousin, a man, found out she had been on her ear at me, and had a talk with her. He told her he understood she had lived in the US, and there women don't treat their husbands with respect.
But, she is back in Mexico, and as she knows I am a good husband, and it is time for her to act like a Mexican woman and start treating me with respect that I deserve.
This hatred for men is not universal for the entire world. Only the parts that speak English, and Europe.
Anonymous age 68.
Not all black women agree with the Canadian feminist. Maybe 15 years ago, a black intellectual woman, Shahrazad Ali, came out with a book on the treatment of black men by black women.
Something like: The Blackman’s Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman. She said the black woman conspires to destroy the black man; conspires to teach his children to hate him; and teaches her son's to hate themselves. Then, they lie and blame the black man for not being some kind of chivalrous dude and kissing her usually fat butt.
I did not agree with her on everything. She was certainly right when she said no community can prosper when the women have declared war on the men.
The part where I disagree is when she says the white women don't to that. OH, YES THEY DO!!!!
In the USA. Here in Mexico, if a woman trashes her husband in front of other women, they cuss her out good. My wife of 35 years ran afoul of that one day, whining to her sister about some trivial thing I did, and her sister cussed her out so they didn't talk for nearly a week.
Anonymous age 68
I just came back from a velorio (Mexican wake) at the ranch over the mountain. I sometimes walk over there. The first 0.8 miles climbs 400 feet, around 10%, but it is loose rocks. Then, a mile or so, then go up a much steeper 250 feet. Nice walk.
I was studying the history of the family on that ranch, because my wife is descended from them. So, I got to know the current owner of the hacienda itself.
Today, I went to visit a neighbor in regards to data I got from the LDS data base. Turns out the owner died this morning of TB. I asked my doctor friend if there were any danger and he said no. So, I went to the wake tonight.
I asked someone where Clara was. She is the 16 year old grand-daughter of the owner. Seems she is 'married', and pregnant. At 16, and no one had to abduct her and rape her.
Anonymous age 68
Thanks for putting your finger on exactly what's destroying the Black community. It isn't feminism. It's you and all the Black men who agree with you. Why should Black women put up with you when they can use education to get out and make a better life for themselves and their children? Why put up with being treated like dirt when she can leave and find a better life? Why should any woman, not just Black ones?
Thanks for not addressing my point, moron.
"My wife has lived in the US for nearly 40 years. A while back she was on her ear about something as AW do. "
We're expected to run down to mexico to get this?
You know what you are, one smug mother fucker (because you are fucking a single mother, type I, who bitches as you). You fuck mothers. You mother fucker. Smug mother fucker.
You think we're interested in this crumb?
No, you smug mother fucker, if we're going to go for something, we want to win big (you mother fucking smug mother fucker). Nice young obedient pretty female, maybe of the age 12, 13, 14. Virgin and such.
(You smug mother fucking beta with the wife that bitches at you. You fucking chained "good husband" even in Mexico where you could be a baaad pedro with the young females and such, you a good mother fucker)
"My wife of 35 years ran afoul of that one day, whining to her sister about some trivial thing I did, and her sister cussed her out so they didn't talk for nearly a week."
Same shit, diffrent country. Women are women. This single mother you've been talking about, I think it would be better if you smug mother fucker maybe didn't get her, maybe her bad ass prison gang buster kept her instead and fuck the ever loving holy hell out of her since she was 13. I'm just saying.
You love crumbs don't you.
You aint never got nor are ever going to get a nice young wife. You just got crumbs. Maybe stupid gringo, stupid nice good man, deserves only crumbs. He doesn't want other men to have the young ones or nice ones or both at all!
I pray that your daughter or granddaughter gets raped by a bad man, and then he enslaves your daugher to be a good wife of his. I hope he's like all biblical and shit. I hope your daughter or granddaughter is young when this happens.. like 12, 13, 14. Little slave wife of pedro. Yeah.
""""""
"The solution is to enslave females to men (using an older form of marraige) when they are young"
Hahahahahahahahahahahh!!!
Thanks for the laugh, --MikeeUSA--! I needed it.
""""""
Why laugh? Look at the "solutions" the others are giving. They are hating on women for NOT being shrewed and coniving, how does that make sence. My solution gives you both a "non slut" and a "non bitch" (not shrewed), just a naieve girl that's your wife: all good.
--MikeeUSA--
Anointer of Smug Mother Fuckers
>>>Thanks for putting your finger on exactly what's destroying the Black community. It isn't feminism. It's you and all the Black men who agree with you. Why should Black women put up with you when they can use education to get out and make a better life for themselves and their children? Why put up with being treated like dirt when she can leave and find a better life? Why should any woman, not just Black ones?
So, you think there is one black community? I am not black, but even I know better than that.
If we wish to think in terms of community, we can identify at least two such communities.
Around half of the blacks in the US are educated people. They go to college and get degrees, including Master's and Ph.D. I know some of them.
They live mainstream middle-class lives in neighborhoods of mixed ethnicity. And, many of them are two parent families. That is why they are able to live middle-class lives.
They and their children work as college professors; medical doctors; osteopathic physicians; cable tv installers; accountants; Supreme Court Justices, heh, heh, and much more. The husbands still walk three steps behind Mama, but he is often allowed to live in the house he is paying for.
Since it makes a basic pretense at being a patriarchy, the yards are mowed; the cars are washed; and any broken windows are replaced, not boarded up. They make good neighbors.
Although let me add that since marriage is drying up due to feminist misandrist laws, a lot of high quality educated black men are marrying SOFT-SPOKEN white women. Even the at times very attractive, slender, middle-class black women can't seem to control their big mouths very well.
In every case where a black man I know has married a white woman, his mother and sisters can be heard shouting blocks away, and his wife speaks so softly one has to strain to hear her. Hee, hee.
The other community is the ghetto whores. Think East Saint Louis and inner Detroit and Harlem. Louisville. Memphis. Watts. Etc.
I use the word whores, but 'fat brood sows' is the more correct term, breeding with any boar hog who wanders by, and shelling out babies in large numbers. The only thing they have in common with the educated, middle class black women, except for the big mouths, is their skin color. To make any other comparison is pure racism.
Different culture. Different language. "Goombah."
They live in the ghetto because they chose to get a government check rather than an education and a husband. At age 12 or even younger in a few cases. These are the ones Ali says deliberately conspire to destroy their husbands and their sons.
Their sons are horrid creatures, because they have no dedicated father to teach them how to be men. They have no one to teach them how to study and get a job. They have no one to teach them how to be a father. Their whole world is pure matriarchy, and it is women who teach them how to be whoremasters. Then, having raised them to be nothing but drug dealers and whoremasters and killers, the mommies blame Whitey for their agony and despair.
I am not saying they are wrong. It was white Democrats, the party of the KKK, which first paid them to not have husbands. The only reason black women are way ahead of white women in matriarchy is because black men could not get jobs that paid as much as welfare in the 60's, so out they went to the streets so the whores could be whores.
I remember a black woman called a right wing talk show, and said she believed the Democrats want black people to fail, so they pay the women to be whores.
Anonymous age 68
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/20/obit.height/?hpt=Sbin
A truly magnificent life, dedicated to improving the lives of millions of others.
FS, it looks like your point is: men who have sex out of marriage are just being men men and should have no responsibilities. Women who have sex outside of marriage are sluts and whores who deserve contempt for the exact same behavior as men, but have all the responsibilities and no respect. Why should women put up with that? Why is anyone surprised when they decide not to and get as far away from us as they can? Who can blame them?
MikeeUSA, I don't think the poster was laughing at your "solution." I think he was laughing at the idea that women should be enslaved. At any rate, that's what I would laugh at, and did.
Note to anonymous:(April 21, 2010 10:49 AM)
A SEXIST (National Council of Negro Women) racist is not what I would call a good story. Dedicated to pushing feminist bigotry while pretending to support equality. People like her are why black men today have such difficult lives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric
This cleric agrees that women's wanton behaviour is to be condemned as a deeply destructive force.
"
The other community is the ghetto whores. Think East Saint Louis and inner Detroit and Harlem. Louisville. Memphis. Watts. Etc.
"
YEA NIGGA WHAT!
LOUIVILLE
WHAT WHAT.
Yo, a shout out to all those in Louiville.
Anyone from there to here?
Thank's for mentioning the big L.
"MikeeUSA, I don't think the poster was laughing at your "solution." I think he was laughing at the idea that women should be enslaved. At any rate, that's what I would laugh at, and did."
Women and girls should be enslaved. Young females should be pressed into bondage as domestic servants of men: slaves/wife-version-0.1
"Why is anyone surprised when they decide not to and get as far away from us as they can? Who can blame them?"
Why can't we take over the society and make it good for men?
ROTFLMAO!!!! Women's uncovered hair causes earthquakes? No wonder we can't reason with these idiots. They're certifiably insane. What kind of fool makes this kind of connection?
Oh, yeah. Pat Robertson.
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/04/21/i-watched-a-mans-life-end-on-the-train-today/
Bob what do you think of this?
(Women effectivly can end/destroy a man's life by saying he groped her on a train)
Why can't we do anything about this? Why can't we have wars about this and execute all the feminists and their white-knights? It would be better to completely destroy society than to allow women to continue to reign supreme (and they have, to some extent, reigned supreme for ALL of history: all it EVER took was her word and the man was destroyed.)
Rather than do the impossible, making things good for men, should we instead work to destroy the world, to wreck our societies and others societies, to end everything?
Please tell your opinion, because it has always been that women hold the ultimate power. All it has ever taken is an accusation from a woman and any man's life is over.
Unless we can remove ALL power from women, which we can't because most men are good people and support women's power, shouldn't we work to destroy everything instead?
I was raised in a racist family. In 1957, I read a book, BLACK LIKE ME, which changed my life. Most of my adult life I have lived in a multi-ethnic life. Now, here in Mexico, I haven't seen another Anglo since October.
I hate racism. Over the years, I watched as the whites I knew for the overwhelming majority, gave up on true racism. They worked with competent and educated blacks, including management.
Then, as blacks became better educated and prosperous, blacks became the ones who are racist.
We are told that we don't get a job as an electronic technician by studying electronics. No, we get it by white privilege.
And, though the only place in the world that slavery is practiced openly today (excluding child support and alimony slaves in the USA today) is Africa. we are told we owe trillions of dollars to people who were never slaves, to be paid by people who never owned slaves, BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF OUR SKINS.
And, then, we have to listen to stupid racist things like, "Only whites can be racist."
I am not avoiding blacks because I am racist. I am avoiding blacks because they are racist.
Anonymous age 68
Note to anonymous: (April 21, 2010 3:17 PM)
The Japanese man/men should have decked the whiny misandrist bitch to teach her a lesson. KAPOW! Then gotten off the train.
Note to anonymous age 68: (April 21, 2010 5:22 PM)
Few Americans are ever taught about the huge African slave trade. Over several centuries African slave raiders captured European coastal villages and sold an estimated one million white slaves into Africa. The fabled city of Timbuktu grew wealth on the slave trade. President Jefferson sent the US Navy to stop African pirates from capturing American sailors to sell as slaves into the African heartland.
Few Americans are taught that slavery in the US was never divided along racist lines. An estimated 10,000 black men and mostly females owned slaves in 1860.
The anti-white hate spewing forth from American dis-educational institutions and dinosaur media prevents most sheeple from knowing the truth about slavery.
Today we have "child support" which is a form of indentured servitude, slavery. It is unconstitutional and criminal in the US, but that doesn't stop our criminal government from sending half a million American MEN to debtor's prisons.
>>YEA NIGGA WHAT!
LOUIVILLE
WHAT WHAT.
>>Yo, a shout out to all those in Louiville.
Anyone from there to here?
Thank's for mentioning the big L.
Louisville is the place where we stayed in a motel, and asked about going for a walk which we like to do after driving a long ways, The desk clerk said, "Walk a block south and you WILL be robbed."
About two o'clock in the morning, a black hooker came knocking on our door, obviously got the wrong room number.
None of this has to do with them being black, except for the increased acceptance of the whoredom by black women because their man are too fecked up by their mommies so they can't support a family.
Anonymous age 68
>>Few Americans are taught that slavery in the US was never divided along racist lines. An estimated 10,000 black men and mostly females owned slaves in 1860.
Thanks for the information, Bob. I know most of it except for this paragraph.
Anonymous age 68
Note to anonymous:
Almost 40 years ago I went to St. Louis on a business trip. Not knowing one part of the city from another I booked a Holiday Inn. It turned out to be a "wrong" part of town.
And now we have Mexican gangs in some parts of California executing any black family who happens to live in their "Mexican" turf.
The liberal government, of course, does not interfere in racial gang violence.
"Blogger Bob said...
Note to anonymous: (April 21, 2010 3:17 PM)
The Japanese man/men should have decked the whiny misandrist bitch to teach her a lesson. KAPOW! Then gotten off the train."
Japan is a police state and has been for a LLLLLOOOOONNNGGG time. That's why it's so "peaceful". The man's life would be double over. The police and justice system keep the men in check there. What do you think of that. PS: Jap men can't have any weapons, place should be nuked: it's a woman's country.
Women's best friend, her pimp, is the police.
In EVERY country.
Destroy the police, and their prisons, and anything like the, and you destroy women's liberty.
FS, it looks like your point is: men who have sex out of marriage are just being men men and should have no responsibilities. Women who have sex outside of marriage are sluts and whores who deserve contempt for the exact same behavior as men, but have all the responsibilities and no respect. Why should women put up with that? Why is anyone surprised when they decide not to and get as far away from us as they can? Who can blame them?
Again, why should a woman's body be a man's responsibility? Stop going off the point.
""
TDOM April 20, 2010 at 14:13
civilization = feminization
The more civlized a society becomes, the less desireable male behavior becomes and the less it will be tolerated.
-TDOM
""
I agree with this.
The only way to destroy feminism/chilvary (feminism is chilvary applied to modern times) is to radically increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This started out discussing just don't lose. That is the mode men are in with the attack on everything male by the dearies, who yet whine and claim they are just trying to get equal pay for equal work -- which they have had for decades. (What they mean is equal pay for less work.)
The US and the UK are very similar on the war against men. UK is just a ways ahead in the race.
A year or two ago, UK had fewer marriages then in 1895, with a much bigger population. Also, the census folks said they are missing one million men; they don't know where they are.
Someone told me that last year a million people left the US. No info on sex. I can guess.
Here is another bit of data on the refusal by the men to lose though the dearies have won every battle.
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
Anonymous age 68
Note to anonymous:
That is interesting about a million missing men. I wonder if the US census will report their data. Expatriation is ongoing a an increasing rate.
Note to age 68:
Do you have a URL to a news report about the missing million men in the UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3601493.stm is not the one I read originally, but it will do for basic evidence. Note the problem has been going on for a long time.
Notice the photo of the forlorn dearie with the short skirt, and no one to file false sex harassment charges against. How sad.
I assume if you Google, there will be plenty of other articles.
Anonymous age 68
Bob, some time ago, you did a piece entitled. "Women have won the Gender War, but it is a Napoleonic Victory". That piece was brilliant and surmises everything that is being debated in the comments now. Napoleon won the battle, but lost when the Russians left and he had no one to do the work required to keep the city up and running. The same thing is happening in America now, the men are leaving.
Note to age 68:
I see that the missing UK men are from the 2001 census. When they feminist government gets around to doing their 2011 census, they will not report "missing" men because now they "expect" fewer men.
It also shows more clearly how the femiNazi are able to vote their government lackeys. MEN are a smaller minority that expected.
Of course the coming economic collapse will be sooner with every pair of men's hands that are no longer doing the work that allows the cows to survive.
I'm not sure that URL is complete lets try this one
http://tinyurl.com/missingmen
http://tinyurl.com/missingmen
Yeah, that is the one. And, I agree they will just be erased from the system in 2011 and they will pretend those men never existed. All is well. Continue to build the extermination camps.
Let me induce an infarction in that Canadian feminist by saying something I haven't said in a while.
My favorite part in the history books is when the Huns come in and kill all the wimpy, spineless men, and rape all the domineering, nasty, ornery women. That is so cool! I get all goose-bumpy just thinking about it!
Anonymous age 68
>>there are many women, both lesbian and straight, at the forefront.
I assume this was by the Canadian feminist, though it really doesn't matter.
The reason women are always at the forefront is because the SWAT teams never put bullets in their brains when they protest. Oh, wait a minute, the Muslims are different, aren't they?
Anonymous age 68
Bob, I'm surprised that you haven't commented on the problems the Catholic Church is currently having. There are angry mobs screaming for the blood of not only priests, but bishops and cardinals as well. I'd expected to see at least a passing reference, if not an entire post.
Note to anonymous:
There is a lot of media coverage of faggots in the Catholic Church. Many anti-Christian attackers and lieyers are using the problems to attack the church. I'm sure you have been reading about it as much as Bob has read.
I just saw a sarcastic comment on another blog where a Catholic hater said Catholics go for little boys. This is pure garbage and a lie. A few priests are pedophiles, true pedophiles, and those who are looking for an excuse to attack the church are lying and saying it is a Catholic thing. It is not.
As is often the case, it comes down to what did the clergy know and when did they know it. They have paid out large amounts of money in damages, with a lot more to go and they will eventually come up with a fix, as other organizations have done when they ignored something they didn't seem to realize was important.
Anonymous age 68
Note to BOB:
Yes i know i have
about the tinyurl serves the cunt bitches right fucking sluts!
I don't get messed up with Australian women they're fucking crazy i'm an Australian member all the men here are looking OFFSHORE for a bride, Seriously!!!
And bob only faggots at the "catholic church" beleive in MGM Male Genital Mutilation called Circumcision yeah they CHOP HALF YOUR DICK OFF WHEN YOU ARE BORN!!
I'm one of the sorry gen Yers that got it done I'm Now 26 going on 27 it's a total PISSER I can't even PISS Properly My PISS GOES EVERYWHERE SERIOUSLY FUCK MY PARENTS FOR GETTING IT DONE hey BOB YOUR PROBABLY one of those gen Double YEWWERS THAT HAD IT FUCKING DONE AS WELL GEN Z THE LUCKY CUNTS WON'T HAVE IT DONE BECAUSE IT'S NOW BANNED (THANK FUCK) IN AUSTRALIA I WANNA KILL THE SICK FUCK WHO DID MINE
"In Viet Nam the US military won every battle"
I remember someone said this once to General Giap, and he strongly disagreed that the Viets never won any battles. It does sound like a rather self indulgent attempt to excuse the failure.
Man beats to death his young daughter:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23244315/detail.html
Note to anonymous:
1. In general, mothers do 2x as much child abuse, including murder and sexual abuse, as do fathers. In general, fathers are prosecuted much more aggressively when a child dies. This child's mother was let off before because the prosecutors couldn't attack the father. This time the child was alive when the mother turned it over to the father, and then the child died of heart damage during the night. Misandrist courts blame the nearest man.
2. Anecdotal stories do not "prove" anything. We don't expect silly feminist cows to understand the difference between anecdotes and data.
3. Does anyone care if another female checked out? Another femiNazi voter won't be supporting "women's rights." Boo F'ing Hoo. Shame on the pigs, lieyers, and agents of Satan in black robes of hell for destroying a good man over a dead little sow.
A "good man" beats to death his own baby.
I, too, rejoice when a baby girl gets killed. I honor even the father who did it. But (like Bob Allen), I will take extreme measures to ensure that my real name and address are never revealed.
What's all this about murdering people? Here's a thought: let grown MEN control their emotions and not pummel to death their own infants.
Post a Comment
<< Home