Here’s a video of a Seattle “meetup” of Paul supporters explaining why they support the littlest truther. At around 2:48 or so one retard actually claims “we” (meaning Americans) are living in a prison without bars!
[youtube]N2Ua6nInZ8g[/youtube]
We aren’t free like the Cubans, Venezuelans, Iranians, Egyptians, Brits and Chinese.
Americans have more freedom than any other people on the face of this earth and rather than fighting the Islamists and communists who seek to destroy it, or God forbid helping our fellow humans in other countries gain some freedom for themselves, Paul supporters pretend we live in a dictatorship. These people are little more than the political version of LARPGers but without the ability to differentiate between their in game characters and themselves.
Like these cretin:
[youtube]1k95If_lGkM[/youtube]
I’ll bet you they’ll be voting for Paul too.
Guess who else has some kind word for Ron Paul?
Like I said, Dregs.
They do have some valid points.
Those politicians in Washington are supposed to be abiding by the Constitution, and I seriously doubt they even know what it says. They only abide by it when it is convenient for them to do so.
While we have the greatest country in the world, and nobody else is close, we need to be ever vigilant that our freedoms are not eroded, and again, those guys in DC don’t seem to have that high on their list of concerns.
What is high is the national debt. It’s approaching 9 trillion dollars right now. That’s obscene.
This “prison” that this guy says we’re living in… he should try the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Here is my answer to that:
Please google IMBRA
If you check out what IMBRA is and you do not care, then you belong in one of those dictatorships you say Ron Paul people should be sent to.
I support Operation Iraqi Freedom but like a lot of veterans and active duty servicemen, we are not at all happy with the way the gender feminists have taken the Republican Party away from us. Men are not represented anymore in Congress…except by this medical doctor Congressman from Texas.
Back in 2003, I once thought of the Deaniacs exactly the way you think now. I said “these lefties belong in Iran”. But back in 2003, the wave of feminist laws had not yet been passed taking away my rights.
A lot of RP supporters have noticed some very real drawbacks in some of these new laws that hurt them.
Now you might say “IMBRA is no more burdensome than the Patriot Act and only loons don’t like the minor privacy losses there because there is such a benefit in national security”.
But the Patriot Act is about everybody trading a little freedom for a lot of security for everyone against terrorists. IMBRA is about trading a lot of freedom to “protect women” from men.
See the difference?
Are you saying these dregs are right to conclude that America is less free than a communist dictatorship?
And instead of tellingme what I said, why not read the post? I don’t think anyone should live in Iran or another dictatorship, including Iranians! I, like the founding fathers, believe that all people everywhere are endowed by their creator with the same rights.
It is absolute nonsense to claim we live in a dictatorship, and it’s in fact a fantasy. If we did, then all these Paul supporters with 9-11 truth bumber stickers would be rounded up and killed. But they’re not.
America is the one country that allows absolute freedom, and if you don’t agree ask the people in England who go to jail for being racists.
I respect peoples opinions and if you have a problem with the Patriot act or whatever than arguee against it. But to claim we live in a dictator ship is beyond paranoid crap, it borders on satire.
Which is why I assume you think the International Marriage Broker Act is in some way draconian because it tries to protect desperate women from being targeted by criminals. That’s a joke right? You think that giving a woman the information about whether or not the stranger she wants to marry so she can get into this country is a serial rapist or a child molestor is proof we have no freedom?
Precisely.
American men are not terrorists. We Republican veterans and active duty servicemen did not agree to the Department of Homeland Security being created to include regulating American males “who might beat their wives” along the same lines as “potential terrorists”. You now may as well call it the Department of Feminist Security.
Just about 0% of Americans who travel are serial rapists or child molestors. So there is no justification to require background checks for us to say hello to foreign women. We are not willing to trade our freedom to protect feminists at home whose real agenda is to stop the competition. You can go to http://www.mensnewsdaily.com and http://www.online-dating-rights.com to find the proof that this is the real agenda.
Now regarding the facts and the language, you are using misleading language first in slandering foreign women as “desperate” and then in saying “the stranger she wants to marry”.
These are just dating websites for Heaven’s sake. They are like Match.com which will get regulated next if our challenge fails.
IMBRA stops people from even saying hello not only with the background checks but with the worse requirement that foreigners be hooked up to the Internet in order to allow contact that they have already given blanket approval for (a woman has a human right to be allowed to broadcast her contact info if she wants to). 97% of people who say hello to each other online never actually meet each other, either because their chemistry doesn’t work online or because they live too far apart and there are financial and time restraints to ever meeting. After that, a really small number of people ever marry and even less then immigrate to the USA because a lot of Americans live overseas as expats.
The second part of IMBRA, that requires the American to be background checked but not the foreigner, in order for immigration to occur…is proof that the Department of Homeland Security is less worried about terrorists so much as feminist concerns that American men are bad.
Now, regarding the freedom of American men who don’t have passports and are not sophisticated enough to consider dating in Europe or Japan:
The actual court rulings on IMBRA so far have been:
“There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”: Judge Thomas Rose just before Memorial Day 2006
“Meeting someone online is like buying a gun. Both should require backgruond checks”: Judge Clarence Cooper on March 26th, 2007
And this is just discussion of one soon-to-be-overturned law.
There are a bunch of new laws out there that are objectionable and unacceptable.
I haven’t read your blog to see if you are a Hillary Clinton fan or not, but your response sounds like this is the case.
IMBRA, for instance, was proposed by the NOW many years ago but they could not get it passed until they created a sister organization that might appeal to Republicans called Tahirih Justice Center, a faith-based organization. It also could not get passed until they dishonestly renamed the Matchmaker Regulation Act to Marriage Broker Regulation Act. There is no such thing as a marriage broker, except for the ironically exempted Muslim marriage brokers. There is also no such thing as a mail order bride. That phrase is racist and an upcoming challenge will force the government and government-funded feminist institutions to forever stop using it.
Meanwhile, despite the famous Duke Non-Rape Case and other atrocities against men, the entire Office on Violence Against Women gets $430 Million per year while the Constitution doesn’t even mention this as an enumerated power of Congress at all. Democrat Congressman Jim Moran, now under investigation by the FBI for taking bribes and someone who beat his own wife in 1999, is the man behind getting the earmarks for IMBRA and getting it squeezed into the new VAWA which also has new wording that allows a woman to steal a man’s house by making a false claim of abuse against him.
This is why Ron Paul gets such support: the corruption, the hidden earmarks inside of big bills, the hidden little laws that were never debated, and the bloated vicious circle of lobbying groups getting funding and then spending a portion of that to lobby for more funding.
It is best that you take a serious look at all this. I have never lost an argument on this, because it cannot be defended. Everyone agrees at the end that the Supreme Court needs to clamp down on some overzealous legislation.
The question is: Will Giuliani’s administration provide the impetus to do that?
If you are Republican and you are not getting the message that the party needs to take the first step in Alcoholics Anonymous in recognizing “We have gotten to be big spenders with progressive law-making agendas”, then there is going to be another Ross Perot style revolution that puts Clinton into office out of spite.
Freedom lovers will take back the Republican Party either in 2008 or 2009.
My question to you if you are Republican: will it be 2008 or 2009?
I just learned that you are not a liberal. That is good news, because it means that you probably just missed a few facts amid the liberal media propagandizing of the past 15 years. Please start reading http://www.mensnewsdaily.com which is a must for Republican males.
I think the latest story there is the sad one about how a man saw a baby girl coming out of her house in England and thought of stopping to lead her back to safety inside the house…but decided to drive on because he could be accused of trying to abduct the child and this would totally destroy his life.
The child drowned a few minutes later in the pond across the street.
That story alone, and there are many like that, should tell Republican males to start working to protect males and society from radical feminist paranoia that men are all sex offenders and criminals a priori. The term “a priori” means “before the fact”.
We can end up both voting for Giuliani next November if he only wakes up to the idea that NOW type feminists are 1) a problem and 2) very good at pretending to be Republicans in order to get jobs as legislative aides and federal court clerks.
Otherwise it is curtains for the entire Republican Party in 2008. Father’s Rights and Men’s rights proponents removed Conrad Burns and Jim Talent as senators in 2006. In 2008, we can give early retirement to Coleman, Sununu and Gordon Smith (Oregon).
Regarding your immediate first impressoin of IMBRA, I guess the media has taken away any imagery you might have had of Americans overseas as James Bond or Indiana Jones or simply as honorable veterans whom foreigners should want to date and maybe marry (after getting to know them of course, which is what usually happens).
Here is a law school paper written by a feminist who disagrees with IMBRA seriously:
Here is another feminist who is alarmed by the law:
Here are two so-called desperate foreign women commenting on the law that was supposed to “protect them”:
And here they are learning that the reason for IMBRA is supposedly because the men they date were supposedly unable to get American women to date them:
The money quote after learning the US Congress felt that way: “It is nice to learn that we are second best”.
Are you serious? I’m not sure why you have a wild hair up your ass about this but I’ll assume that it’s because
A) You want to marry a a woman with limited options
B) You can’t pass a criminal backround check.
I worked with children for years and I had to pass a backround check for each job I had, and every adult I hired had to do the same. I supose that’s an outrageous invasion of privacy in your mind but the YMCA’s and FIA programs I worked in an ran had a 0% rate of child molestation incidents.
Notice not the “just about” 0% you think is o.k.
I won’t go into the outrageousness of your implications that the women on these dating websites are anythig but desperate to get out of poverty, or a country like the Philipines where both Marxist and Islamist insurgencies are killing dozens, if not hundreds of people a year. But I will say that Match.com and ALL dating sites is also full of desperate, lonely women and sexual predators who take advantage of them. Maybe instead of reading Men’s News Daily (which sounds a little gay to me) maybe you should check out the true crime blogs and see the number of crimes where victims were lured to their deaths by stupidly responding to personal ad on-line.
Americans overseas aren’t Indian Jones site or James Bonds when their traveling the third world looking for “girlfriends.” This is sex tourism and there’s no difference between you and the Commies who run to Cuba and “experience the nightlife” which is a euphemism for child sex slavery.
And it’s a little impolite to put a bunch of links in my comments. You have a site, stick your video s there.
You just insulted a number of active duty Iraq War servicemen. Would you say what you just said to their faces? Two of them happen to like Filipinas, because they find the Asian race attractive. Would you tell them to their faces that you have a problem with that?
Somebody should give you free tickets to Manila or Moscow where you can arrogantly profer your Marxist/rRacist theories on exploitation while the women ignore you. But you wouldn’t talk to the women anyway, because you would consider them prostitutes if they talked to you. After all, you just called it “sex tourism” if a foreign woman speaks with an American man. Of course, James Bond wasn’t into “sex tourism” was he?
It is interesting that you say the US is the most free country on Earth but when someone brings up just one small example of a law that no other country on Earth would ever think of passing, you complain that the other person is having a “wild hair” about it.
In other words, we are supposed to just take it lying down when the government regulates us like never before…because we need to get with the program of feminist progressivism that is apparently part of the neo-conservative agenda?…we need to get with the program that only “sex offenders” would complain about being background checked in order to say hello to women?
Don’t think for a second that a law like this is going to be upheld or that real men are going to tolerate anyone who thinks like you in the new Republican Party makeup in the near future. If you think that the Internet needs to be regulated by regulating American men on Match.com or any other website, you would be disgrace to anyone who ever wore the uniform of the US military….which might explain why the military likes Ron Paul. Federally mandated background checks for dating sites is non-negotiablly unacceptable.
You just said above that the US is more free than any other country. Do you know that only North Korea has a harsher policy towards its male citizens in terms of their right to say hello to foreigners online?
Even communist China does not have an IMBRA type law. The closest they come is that the government of China helps the largest dating site verify how old everyone is who is online and whether they graduated from the schools they said they did.
That is outrageous as well…but they are a communist country after all. Communism goes on the idea that individual rights don’t matter and it is the common good that counts.
I guess that socialism reflects how you feel. The common good is served by really insulting what you apparently feel are American men who “don’t count” and whom you apparently feel an immense disdain for although you don’t know anything about them except what the NOW and feminist Lifetime Television told you.
Speaking of socialism, did you know that feminist Sweden almost passed an IMBRA-like law 5 years ago but the Swedish supreme court immediately wacked the law down as completely unconstitutional?
Regarding the American men who travel overseas to fight in foreign wars to free people or the American men who travel on business to put food on YOUR table, your insults cannot change the fact that they are mostly better educated and more successful than bloggers.
And, despite the propaganda photos, probably in better shape and better looking on top of the ability to speak other languages and do business in various other cultures (which are not inferior to American culture).
I don’t own that forum you talk of either. I provided the link because I expected you to quickly learn that you were mistaken about your prejudices. You don’t need to be insulting the Iraq War active duty soldiers who are part of Veterans Abroad.
Leave the Marxist and racist theory of Filipinas attraction to the old colonial oppressors out of the equation here. IMBRA stops Americans from meeting white upper middle class women in Eastern Europe and it takes the rights of these women away when they want to broadcast their contact information in order to not have to logon to websites all the time to see if they have any messages. There should be at least a waiver where
Desperate women use Match.com in the US and logon several times per day to see if they have any messages. Smart East European women just expect the smartest guys to call them on one of their $5 cell phone numbers (if once in a feminist theorist’s dreams some guy “stalks” them on one phone number, it costs $5 to get a new one).
My friends are Moscow State University students who, frankly, wouldn’t date a common blogger type who cannot speak Russian and a few other European languages. Moscow is the most expensive city in the world and these college students have part-time jobs that pay $2000 per month. So can the nonsense about these women being desperate for you. I don’t think you earn $2000 per month yourself necessarily.
Let me get this straight: You are for general Internet regulation because, like the feminists, you feel that all other men besides yourself are suspect?
You feel that, whereas in real life men could never be asked to show background checks in order to say hello to women on the street, you would gladly go along with the NOW to regulate men on th Internet because it is possible with new technology?
I just explained to you that IMBRA makes it mostly impossible to meet in any other way but for the foreigner to logon to the Internet. The US government is forcing foreign women to do what they have specifically requested they do not WANT to do.
Everything you just said was radical feminism that was once only heard in the offices of weird lesbian professors.
Do you really consider yourself a conservative?
May I ask what exactly are your views on the NOW? How do you define feminism?
Very classy buddy, the way I cannot defend civil rights on that other thread you started with the slander of putting words into my mouth that were not stated. You know there is no such thing a “marriage broker”. The law calls all social referall sites this if American women number less than 50% on them.
And you cannot call foreign women prostitutes like that. Russians are not desperate. They are proud and intellectual and I am not just trying to hurt your feelings when I promise you that you would have a hard time dating them if you do not have the capacity to learn the language and read some Russian literature.
Notice how you say “young girls” after using an example of a 20 year old woman. Do you think that subtle use of propagandizing is going to hold up in court when a real plaintiff challenges?
Notice how you make “middle aged male” out to sound like a monster. So a 35 year old and a 20 year old is too much of an age difference? Your attitude about that is “Sure its harsh to regulate them like that, but so what?” And that is a Republican family value?`
You are saying that an American-American marriage is more of a real marriage than an American-Russian marriage? Do you know that the odds of survival is only 40% for the A-A marriage but 80% for the A-R marriage?
So much for family values right?
Would you say that to a real A-R couple in public?
Shockingly, you seemed to have done a little research and you still maintain the attitude that foreign women are prostitutes if an American dates them.
Are you or are you not willing to debate this publicly with Iraq War vets?
You can win in a public debate can’t you?
What Republican candidate are you cheering for by the way?
Are you crazy? These two tirades sound kinda’ crazy. Listen I don’t mind you vomiting out your nonsense here, but let’s keep it short and to the point. As for your dozens of insults, I’ll respond to them all with a “why would I give a shit what some guy who has to go on-line to pick up chicks thinks?” but I will respond in particular to a couple of your more outrageous inaccuracies:
1) Yes. I’d tell anyone who “found the Asian race attractive” that they were racists, and I may even be insulting about it. I find women of all races attractive, but then again I don’t indulge in race fetishs. I’m normal.
2) While I’m in Manila I guess I’ll be able to catch you with the bar girls huh? Sorry, I’m just calling it like it is. If someone told you they only dated homeless women, would it be Marxist to claim that’s exploitive? By your logic throwing American money around the third world to buy affection is in some way morally decent, while saying that taking advantage of people who want to get out of a severly impoverished country (including the former Soviet Union) is “skeevy” for lack of a better word makes me a man hater.
But since you spend so much time yelping about this plot by American women against you why isn’t it appropriate to question if you actually like these women, or if you’re attraction is based on the submissivemenss of women not only in those cultures, but in that situation?
3) James Bond wasn’t into sex tourism or anything else. He’s not real. If he was he wouldn’t use on-line dating.
4) No one fights wars to put food on my table, I work for it. Something you may not be familiar with.
5) “In real life” men get background checks all the time, as I pointed out I did to work with children, which was my point. Are these background checks also plots by NOW to keep children from being molested?
6) I’m not for general Internet regulation, I just don’t care if the mobbed up “businesses” that sell Russian women on-line to degenrates go under because they can’t be bothered to ensure that the men using their services are who they say they are. I agree with laws requiring porn companies to keep records of the ages of the actors, yet I support the free flow of porn to adults. I feel the same here. Let women have the chance to see the real face of the guy their trusting to not kill them (like a lemon law) and make the company keep detailed records. That way when the girl is found dead in a dumpster like AnastasianKing, we know who to find to give them their lethal injection.
7) A 35 year is indeed too old for a 20 year old. I’m 36 myself, and outside of a strip club or Mardi Gras I can’t see a time when it’d be O.K. for me to see a 20 year old’s breasts. Only the most immature cretin could convince themselves they have enough in common with a person 15 years their jr to have a real relationship, but it’s more likely the older man’s just after sex and taking advantage of the inexperience of the 20 year old.
8) As with everything else I said, you’re mischaracterizing my criticism of these marriages. I never said the women were prostitutes, but that they’re willing to do anything to get here. Your taking advantage of that. It’s you who are the target of my criticism, not them.
9) I’m willing to publically debate anyone in any venue veteren or not.
Now unless you want to get banned, keep the response short.
OK. Public debate. What part of the US? Can you arrange for media?
If you can swing it, please contact Fox News and say you support regulation and want to publicly shame middle aged males who apparently misrepresent the USA overseas. Start with Neil Cavuto who produces the Marc Rudov vs Lis Wiehl debates every Friday. If you get Fox News, we will put Marc Rudov on with you. You can replace Lis Wiehl.
I will even tell you what Marc will say in advance. Here is his take on IMBRA:
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/13/unhook-that-bra/
But we can get active duty servicemen to debate you politely in any townhall in America as well if you want. Obviously, that depends on their leave schedules…but we can get man/wife teams who would love to discuss the issue with you.
Keep in mind that Tyra Banks assumed she was going to convince the public that such people were “losers” and it didn’t work as you can see here:
Basically, any publicity about IMBRA wins opponents of the law.
Lack of debate on bad laws and corrupt earmarks is what makes the US somewhere in the middle-tier of what you would call “free” countries.
It seems that you have a fundamental misperception of political trends. Did you see the Rasmussen Report that said that 25% of Republican women were planning on voting for Hillary? Why would that be?
Answer: These women were never conservatives in the first place. In 2000 they were just ticked off that Bill cheated on their beloved Hillary. They were angry that liberal men didn’t care so they temporarily switched to gain leverage with both parties. The mistake lots of Republican men made at the time was that they just thought it was dirty politics as usual in order to get a liberal out of office. They wouldn’t have thought in a million years that these formerly Democrat women would shape Republican policy to the extent that now some people like you think the party can win on an anti-middle-aged-male-dating-younger-women platform.
But now the Republican Party has an infusion of the 25% of men who voted Democrat in 2004. So the preoccupation with stopping “sex offenders” and regulating the Internet is gonig to have to end.
[1) Yes. I’d tell anyone who “found the Asian race attractive†that they were racists, and I may even be insulting about it.]
Good. We have an officer in the US Army whom you can say that to.
[2) While I’m in Manila I guess I’ll be able to catch you with the bar girls huh? Sorry, I’m just calling it like it is.]
I am partial to Russians. Plus, if you think that men who use marriage-oriented dating sites also use prostitutes, then you are calling it like it isn’t.
[If someone told you they only dated homeless women, would it be Marxist to claim that’s exploitive?]
Most of the Russian women online are upper middle class. Should I get you a free tour of Russia so you can know what you are talking about?
[By your logic throwing American money around the third world to buy affection is in some way morally decent]
Who said anything about “buying”? Oh yes, the National Organization of Women which has close ties with Tahirih. Russia is the 2nd world, which is better than the 1st world. Moscow is the most expensive city on Earth. You haven’t understood the changes there over the past 7 years.
[while saying that taking advantage of people who want to get out of a severly impoverished country (including the former Soviet Union) is “skeevy†for lack of a better word makes me a man hater.]
But you are a male right?. Russia is not an impoverished country. The best women often do not want to leave.
[based on the submissivemenss of women not only in those cultures, but in that situation?]
Again, Womyns Studies 101. Republican males never believed this stuff until after the post Monica Lewinsky power shift I described above. Gorgeous women have the right to seek out successful and interesting men.
[3) James Bond wasn’t into sex tourism or anything else. He’s not real. If he was he wouldn’t use on-line dating.]
So your derision extends to the entire concept of online dating. This is 2007. On a rainy day, anyone might use the Internet to communicate with the outside world. I don’t use these dating sites much by the way.
I am mainly concerned about this because of the principle.
[4) No one fights wars to put food on my table, I work for it. Something you may not be familiar with.]
I help the balance of trade and directly feed 5 American families by making sure foreigners buy American products.
This is typical of an American who dates foreign women.
By the way, I date Swedish women as well. I meet them offline. But they meet Americans online just like Russian women do. Unfortunately a lot of western European women prefer sights like Sexsearch and Adultfriendfinder, which is not something a good Russian woman considers.
[Are these background checks also plots by NOW to keep children from being molested?]
Adult women are not children and should be allowed to at least sign a waiver saying they do not want IMBRA forcing them to sign forms every time a different man wants to just say hello.
Children in schools cannot be compared with adult women online.
[6) I’m not for general Internet regulation,]
Then why are you not upset by the judges’ comments? They can and will apply to Match.com and Craigslist. You know a woman was just killed this past week answering a Craigslist ad.
IMBRA is the gateway law to general regulation. It is designed to overturn the CDA. I just hope to God that John Roberts and Sam Alito were not chosen specifically for this kind of move.
Remember the line “No fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.
[ I just don’t care if the mobbed up “businessesâ€]
No mob involvement in American owned dating sites. There is no money in this business anyway. So there is no mob involvement anywhere.
[that sell Russian women on-line to degenrates]
Provide contact between successful businessmen who should be looked up to for representing America abroad, and great women who are more marriage-minded than the Swedish women who join Adultfriendfinder.
[yet I support the free flow of porn to adults.]
So the porn producers can talk to foreign 17 year olds without presenting background checks? This happens and no law deals with it.
I guess that means that, if a Russian woman joins Adultfriendfinder which is exempt from IMBRA on a technicality, the sex obsessed men who communicate with her shouldn’t be background checked?
[Let women have the chance to see the real face of the guy their trusting]
Who is to say they are women? The Internet is anonymous. Anyone can fake their gender anytime. IMBRA forces Americans to give detailed info to people who could be male criminals. IMBRA forces Americans not to be anonymous although the foreigner can be anonymous. Major violation of the Constitution and the CDA ruling.
On top of that, why do you persist in thinking that everyone is always on the Internet? The foreigners never see the IMBRA background checks because it is too slow and expensive to send them by snail mail. Before IMBRA, men could send telegrams to the snail mail address. There weren’t any problems. Anastasia King was killed only after marrying an ugly jerk and then she moved in with another man and the jerk responded by killing her. That happens thousands of times per year between Americans and Americans.
This is a classic case of a superpower trying to force its paranoid values on another country. In this case the watchword is “personal contact information”. IMBRA says a woman is not allowed to broadcast her personal contact information to everyone and anyone.
[7) A 35 year is indeed too old for a 20 year old. I’m 36 myself, and outside of a strip club or Mardi Gras I can’t see a time when it’d be O.K. for me to see a 20 year old’s breasts.]
Great. Send them my way.
So you go to strip clubs but would never partake of someone that young.
What would you be getting out of the visit? What are you thinking when you view porn, which is predominantly of women in that age group?
[8) As with everything else I said, you’re mischaracterizing my criticism of these marriages. I never said the women were prostitutes, but that they’re willing to do anything to get here.]
Which explains the 80% success rate of such marriages. The NOW fervently wishes the women all dumped the men once they got the green card and have unleashed a wave of laws to actually encourage this…but it does not happen much despite this.
Boy, would these women love to debate you publicly on that score. I hope you can match the stature of their husbands. If you agree to a debate, which you already have, you could be before 6’2′ CEOs telling them that their dream wife would have married someone else if she hadn’t been so oppressed and downtrodden.
Rob,
Thank you. Because of this debate, a feminist website just agreed that there is something wrong happening here and this federal law must be challenged in court by an American woman:
So a fellow Republican might stab one million of his brothers in the back based on mean-spirited rumors, but there are cool American women to fill in the breach.
The US was never as free as many other countries. The 1907 Expatriation Act was designed to stop American women from marrying foreign men. It removed the citizenship of the offending woman. It was mean-spirited because American men were jealous at the time that Austria, Russia and England were the 3 superpowers. Yes, American women wanted to marry Russian nobility back then and the insecure American men wanted to stop them. That law was a major impetus for women demanding the vote.
Don’t vote Giuliani or Thompson if you have a problem with age-difference marriages, by the way. Don’t vote McCain if you do not want general Internet regulation. Don’t vote Romney if you want porn to stay legal.
Thank you, Jim, for sticking to your guns AND for your service to your country. Ron, you appear to be an angry young man, blinded by your own hatred for the “crazy” Ron Paul supporters. If you want to live your life in fear with the government as your Nanny, go ahead. We want our country back. If you think this nation is free when you are forced at gunpoint to surrender your property or face prison time (IRS), then you are as deluded as the rest of your angry, scared comrades.
“…may your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen.”
Why am I repsonsible to contact the media, you make the arraingements and I’ll send you my rider. You may also want to read what I rwrite, and maybe a book about Russia.
Does that 80% success rate include Anastasia King?
And Scott, like most paulbots your reading skill are limited. My names Rob, but you didn’t read that or anything else I wrote, just showed up here to recycle tax protester nonsense and decide that America’s more of a nanny state than Canada, Britain, China…
This post by the way is three months old, I’ve bad mouth “pork barrel” Paul many times since then, why not go to those posts?
Rob,
You are right. This thread was ages old when I made the comment.
Why would someone who practivally lives in Russia and speaks Russian need to read a book on Russia for you?
Did you check my IP address?
About Anastasia: Do you realy think that federal judges are so reactionary as to decide on whether we should be regulated or not as citizens because of one murder?
Is that how your mind works? Because it would be so easy for the government to say “There was a murder of a woman in NY yesterday by her boyfriend and…Oh my God there was a muder of a woman by her boyfriend in Dallas yesterday and, and another murder this morning in Pittsburgh”. Time to call Congress to get all men regulated!!
Sure, you can say that a forced check on Idle King would have revealed an abuse arrest and she might have refused to read his first email (which was a form email that he sent to 7 other women at the same time).
But you can also say that taping a mouth shut permanently will prevent a child from eating something bad.
You cannot put a draconian law on dating sites that prevents communication between people. Women often do not have email (Anastasia actually did have email) so, for them, you cannot send background checks of each man who wants to speak with her. To this day, no court has heard the description of how this law totally stops communication and not just hinders it.
IMBRA is like burning down a house because of a leaky faucet. It could have been a shorter law or, better, just a DHS Directive for embassies and consulates to follow.
The lower class Anastasia, who was not from Russia, could have been spared a bad marriage if the background check had been made at the visa application stage….but even then it should not be the US government doing the background check but a private firm.
You know as well as anyone that an anecdote of a murder should not be allowed to force laws on people. There were 4 murders of dating agency brides in the past 15 years in the USA. There were 16,000 murders per year in the USA over the same time period. The murder rate of American brides is astronomical. The figures for abuse come to 7% for domestic marriages and only 1% for marriages to foreigners that resulted from meeting at a dating site.
There was a Match.com murder of a foreign bride this year…but Match.com bought itself into being exempt..temporarily, so that doesn’t count. Things like this happen between people. You cannot start shutting down legitimate dating sites simply because they fit the definition of “marriage broker” which is a site that specifically introduces Americans with foreigners.
You don’t really care about Anastasia nor do you know anything about the story. Both of them were scamming the other. He was a jerk and so was she. Two bad people got together and the badder is now in jail while the less bad died.
Your disdain of your fellow man does not come from the Anastasia story and you know it.
The question is: Where does it really come from? This is what surprises me every time. How did the feminists succeed in instilling an automatic gut-level disgust of upper middle class businessmen who are largely CEOs or other top executives?
How did they get you to believe they were fat losers living in their mother’s basement or something like that?
I thought the story was famous about how Texaco had to stop sending married execs to the former Soviet States, because they always fell in love with someone who was better than their wives.
You have to have a lot of money to date internationally. Are you saying that wealthy white men tend to be violent?
Remember that even Ted Bundy was constantly broke financially and many believe he killed because he was such a financial loser (the feminists market him as a good looking successful lawyer, which was not true).
I never would have thought in a million years that anyone would have believed the crap I was hearing from feminists like Maria Cantwell, who pushed the Anastasia story in order to paint all American men, including you, in a bad light.
Maybe you are married and having cognitive dissonance, but if you are not married, you really should lighten up and fly to Russia and recognize that a 36 year old should be dating whom he wants.
What is a rider? Where in the US would you like to debate if you really think you know about this subject?
Are you ready for a debate…because you seem to be running out of arguments here. The “did the 80% success rate include Anastasia” line would not have gotten a raised eyebrow from a judge or an audience as a valid reply.
Statistics are what counts. Not anecdotes. You cannot make a law based on one or two or 4 incidents compared to 16,000 similar incidents per year.
If 80% of Russian-American marriages last and only 40% of American-American marriages last…then it should tell any judge and any single male that the international marriages are less risky.
You realize that a failed marriage can cost a man his house, his car and all his assets don’t you? Better to go with the less risky marriage.
Everything you said was outrageously insane. Bundy killed because he was poor? Wow.
A rider is a contract, it’s a list of the things you would do in preperation for my gracing of your venue with my wisdom. In short, if you or any organization want to have me for something they pay airfare and ensure I have a decent hotel room.
Now, I will debate you at the venue your organization chooses, send the info my way and we’ll make it happen. Otherwise let it go. I’ll never agree, you insulting me and making up facts (rich guys “date internationally”, why?) won’t change it.
Maybe you should go back to the forum where you hatched your attention getting scheme of using technorati to find sites that mention Ron Paul and regroup. I, unlike you, have a business to run and unless you can magically produce the debate you’re blabbing about, you’re pretty much at the limit of your interestingness.
This whole crusade you’re on is like a bad deli sandwich, a lot of old ham and some really weak cheese.
Can’t say I disagree with Rob about the length of Jim’s posts as I don’t have time to read them all.
But the logic of Jim’s position does not escape me. I don’t understand why the government would make such a foolish law and I don’t understand why someone would defend it.
And one thing for Rob. I am in my 50s, have held many professional jobs in my life but have never been background checked. I am aware that this is more common today, but it still never happened to me.
One more thing. A decade ago my brother moved to a new city and volunteered for Big Brothers because he likes children but has none of his own and was single. He had no criminal record, but was required to submit to a criminal background search. He declined to submit the application as the search request made him realize how vulnerable he would be to some boy claiming falsely that he had touched the boy.
So, some boy who really needed a father figure didn’t get one. I wonder how many other boys like this don’t get the help they need because society sends messages to men that they are suspects.
Actually Susan the criminal background check is a protection for both the workers and the organization. The Big Brothers (and Big Sisters) I worked with all had checks and the programs I’m familiar with never had a false complaint.
The checks though are to protect the children, I’ve workeed with children for years and have come into contact with many men and women who were acting inappropriately with children, only once directly in a program I ran (a 22 yr old girl who seemed too close to a 13 year old boy) mostly in industries where unions protected the workers from screening and scruitiny. School bus driver, teachers, janitors I’ve been made aware of incidents involving all of them.
In NYC the problem was worse with my teen programs, one was run in a geriatric home and the hospital workers were sexually harrassing girls as young as 12. 1199 and other unions blocked not only hospital investigations of the incidents (as well as an incident where a nurse beat a 90 year old patient) but kept the Volunteer Services program from being able to check the records of people requesting teen helpers.
When I hired a staff for a Brooklyn summer camp tow perverts attempted to be hired by me. One claimed he couldn’t afford to pay for a check (we pay, he was bullshitting) and one told me that he had gotten a couple of “false accusations” before.
The one with no money had been spotted hanging around our kids during outside activities by staff for a couple of week prior. He was in his mid 20s and was the “boyfriend” of a 13 year old girl there.
As for the other, if he’d been burned twice by supposedly fake reports, why come back for more? I suppose you’ll say he’s extra dedicated, I say it’s suspicious and I won’t take a chance with my program or my kids.
Women coming from another country, English speaking or not Educated of not, are remarkably vulnerable. They have little recourse to escape a bad situation except to go back where they came from, and Jim Peterson’s theory of the American men being “James bond and Indiana Jones” types aside, my thinking is that like any on-line dating scenerio this is an act of desperation.
In Siberia it is common for Russian women to mary Chines migrant workers coming accross the border. There reasoning is that Chinese men don’t drink, work harder and turn their money over to their wives, while Russian men are heavy drinkers who are steriotyped as abusive. American men represent the same dream of a better life to Russian women who aren’t on the Chinese border.
Just as afterschool programs attract a bad element, thus why we have to check peoples backgrounds, I don’t see the outrageousness of on-line dating services checking info against a sex offender registry or requiring actual information.
Now that doesn’t mean I support the law, and I never said this isn’t a waste of time. But I did say that I don’t cry for the companies that broker these deals. If Jim Peterson thinks women form other countries love American men so much why not set up a free Blogger blog where American men post theire e-mails and these women can find them. If it’s not a business, if it’s a non-profit forum, it will slip by unnoticed.
Is it because Jim’s a shill? And if he is doesn’t his statement that Anastasia King, the murder Russian immigrant whose the poster child of this law, was a “jerk” who got what she had coming (in one of the comments above) in fact bolster the governments case for why they need to step in?
Rob,
Don’t know about Jim or King. You are correct that criminal checks keep offenders from working with children. But my point is what is the cost in terms of good men and women who choose not to get involved. We really don’t know. But there is a cost.
And about that dating law, I did read about it and don’t see that the companies do any actual brokering. Seems like a red herring to make the international dating market look sleazy as they mostly post ads. Nor am I defending them because some of them look sleazy the way they advertise. But I am guessing not all are sleazy, and in any event even though one can argue the restrictions are imposed on the companies, in actual fact they impact on the couples if they want to meet and the government imposes barriers to meeting.
I agree that if a foreign woman has a bad situation her only option may be to go home and so…? I mean, the fiance visa gives the couple 90 days to marry or the foreigner must return and the foreigner knows this before coming. So regardless of whether she goes home on day 5, day 89 or day 150, I don’t see what that means the government can require Americans to divulge all sorts of info. If anything you would think the US government would require the foreigner to disclose, but instead they require it of the American.
Last question (for you or anyone). Why does the law require the release of this info before the American can contact the woman and not before they get married. I buy into Jim’s argument that most people who send emails via dating websites probably don’t get married.
The “cost” of good people unwilling to divulge their lack of a criminal past is the red herring. Look, read Jim’s statements above (if you can) where he attacks me for going to strip clubs and NOT expecting sex, or for not buying into his fantasy that women from other countries are just swooning at American men who use these sites who are crosses between Brad Pitt and Alan Quartermain and you’ll get the real picture of what Jim, and all these folks, are upset about.
No man can just walk into a strip club in America, as Jim seems to claim, and have sex. In the Philippines however, like Cuba and Eastern Europe, there are clubs that are basically brothels, and many of the women there aren’t there willingly by the way. The clubs cater to men who are in essence preying upon women with little choice.
Many of these sites are the same way, they “introduce” people, for a fee which is where the Brokering comes in, then they organize tours etc. The idea that these women are just soaking wet, excuse the language, at the thought of this American they’ve never seen taking them home and bending them over a sink is a fantasy. What these women want is to skip the years long wait to get in this country and marry someone they assume is rich. You and I and Jim all know this, but Jim wants us to think Americans generate a pheromone that drops Asian womens panties.
These companies make money, and now they will get regulated like many other businesses. So what? I have some more risque sites and if I put a nude model on the ‘net it’s my responsibility to make sure she’s at least 18. Is that too intrusive as well?
Now let me tell you the real truth her darlin’, Jim’s scamming you running from site to site changing his story (or another site he’s some sort of Feminist hero, on this one he’s claiming Feminism is evil) to get you to go to his site and click his ads. That’s why he’s been banned and later today I’ll be removing his links.
I don’t care if this law is passed or not, and I never heard of it until Jim Peterson came here and started crying like a little girl about how he’d have to reveal to women his supposedly non-criminal background. Though he has nothing to hide of course. You shouldn’t care either. By the gods woman there are thousands of examples of rapes, murders and missing persons which could have been prevented by people checking the sex offender registry, on my front page I’ve got a kid whose missing right now. Isn’t that more important?
My guns are registered, Americans cars are registered, our insurance is registered, and this is the issue you people are upset about? Are you really saying that the women Jim and everyone else shouldn’t be given the opportunity to know if someone is a child molester before she marries him and brings her children here? Or before she starts sending him e-mails? Are you really saying that the cost of making sure people who work with children aren’t child molesters is too high?
You expect me to believe that rational people with nothing to hide are so scared of background checks that they flee programs in terror? Even though I’ve worked in those programs and can tell you that’s not true?
There are literally hundreds of missing children whose families are begging for help from people like yourself to help get the word out on the ‘net about their plight, and you come here defending people who refuse to tell the women they’re looking to marry if they have criminal records or not?
Outrageous! Why don’t you help the family of Kara Kopetsky instead of shilling for Jim Peterson?
Rob: Nobody is shilling for anyone. Your call to regulate the Internet clearly attracts anyone who does a Technorati search for Ron Paul and that means it attracts many libertarian Republicans.
Now you admit to being the webmaster of adult websites? And all I am is a businessman and veteran who has never said a kind word about the National Organization of Womyn.
Please look at the Congressional Record for 2003 when the entire Republican Party voted agains the International Matchmaker Regulation Act. You have to realize that they only got IMBRA passed by renaming it to something that sounded horrible, so they added the word “broker” for maximum effect.
But, still, 90 out of 100 senators do not remember voting for it because, this time, it was buried deep inside the VAWA which was buried behind the must-pass FBI Budget voted on 5 minutes before Christmas vacation in 2005.
How about actually having Senate hearings not just on this but on the fact that thousands of new laws are now getting passed inside giant bills that none of our Congresspeople even read.
At least Ron Paul votes NO on as much as possible, because he knows that nobody has the time to read all these new laws.
Children do not have a say in their destiny so background checks for child care workers are OK if the local school board agrees, but then we get into the subject of whether it is fair that skinny dipping with one’s girlfriend or streaking at a baseball game is a sex offender offense in some states.
Would you let one of the Duke lacrosse players babysit your children?
If you say no, then you join the NOW in condemning innocent men.
According to IMBRA, these innocent men must tell foreign adult women that they were arrested for rape, before they can otherwise say “hello” and present their personality, photo and an explanation for what really happened.
[there are clubs that are basically brothels, and many of the women there aren’t there willingly by the way. The clubs cater to men who are in essence preying upon women with little choice.]
I have never been to Asia, but I know that American strip clubs are the Sex Tourism capital of the world (sex is available). In Eastern Europe, there are basically zero such clubs, with maybe 2 exceptions in Moscow where professional whores operate. Name a specific place Rob, if you can, where innocent women operate who are not professional whores but there against their will or because of “financial desperation”.
In the USA, a man visits a lapdance club twice and chooses the same dancer bóth times and shells out $200 each time. That makes him her friend and, if he appears safe and attractive, she will often then ask him if he would like to take her out to dinner, etc. In this way, an American college student can make $3000 per week by garnering 5 or 6 married or older men.
So a “loser” or “sex fiend” in America doesn’t really have to go further than 5 miles to exploit “innocent” college coeds.
And the American strip clubs are filled with foreign women who got into the USA on student visas.
Now the sex fiends who want to sex in foreign countries, for some reason, are wasting their money because they could have bought all the sex at home.
But they can still go to Craigs List which lists prostitutes for each foreign city in the world.
The kind of guy who would go to a brothel (or Craigs List) for sex is the opposite of the kind of guy who wants to get married.
You cannot compare that to finding someone who really wants to get married and have children.
Ha, I don’t agree with it all but nice none-the-less