Apparently we’re on the take, being paid off the radical feminists whose agenda is to keep innocent American men who can’t pass a criminal background check from buying wives on the Internet.
At least that’s the theory of newest Red Alerts commenter “Jim Peterson” whose websites is dedicated to stopping the passage of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act which would make “Marriage Brokers” do criminal background checks on American men looking to buy, opps I mean marry, women from third world countries.
I’ll let Jim explain his position in his own words. It’s a response to one of my “hit pieces” on Ron Paul:
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 Iranâ€. 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 securityâ€.
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?
Uh. No, IMBRA is about cutting out the heart of an industry that’s little more than a front for sex tourism and in some cases sex slavery. It was spurred by the murder of a young woman named Anastasia King, a mail order bride fleeing the former Soviet Union who was murdered by a middle aged man with a history of failed marriage who was only able to marry the woman through the help of an on-line marriage broker.
To be sure, the measures are likely to put the fly-by-night on-line business that offer men the opportunity to connect with women who are willing to marry a man they no nothing about out of business. It assumes that men looking for sex, I mean love, on-line are predators unless they can prove differently. It is harsh, but so what.
The men buying, I mean meeting, women on-line are predators. They’re preying upon the desperation of third world women to escape to a better life. Notice there are no mail order wives from other parts of America, no Canadian or Swedish sites where women are begging to meet American men who are mysteriously unable to find women in America even though there are more women than men here.
They’re mostly from countries where the women would want to escape a difficult life. This is sex tourism of the worse type, where middle aged men find twenty year olds so desperate to get out of poverty they’ll marry some P.O.S. who isn’t rich enough to pick up some gold digger here.
But don’t tell that to Jim Peterson:
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 Tahirih Justice Center is not a NOW plot to appeal to Republicans and frankly if Jim hasn’t lost an argument it’s because he’s not run into a person willing to argue such an asinine point. Women and children are being exploited by on-line mail order bride websites providing a quasi legal way for pimps, wife beaters and assorted criminals to get their hands on vulnerable women. The law demands that the companies provide the women with back round info on the men who are wooing them. This seems a good thing to me, and one that protects the family values we Republicans love so much.
One value I hold dear is marriage between two people who love each other, not between a woman that needs some dude and the guy willing to take advantage of a young girls desperation. But I guess that makes me a Clintonista. As are all the Republicans who won’t toe his woman buying line:
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 impression 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).
Oy. Need I respond to this?
Another dreg added to the rouge’s gallery of Paul supporters.
Those Peterson’s are a bad brood though, huh? A very bad brood.
You’re a damn liar. There is no such thing as the “mail order bride” industry and you know it. What government is censoring is the Personals Ads, plain and simple. And yes, there are “mail order brides” from all over America, Canada and every other country who marry people through local and national personals ads every day. Even your local city Gazette carries these ads, some from women who are desperate to leave a bad situation and hook up with men they hardly know. The potential for abuse exists as much in your local city paper as it does in the so-called “marriage brokers”.
Can you honestly say that you want government dictating your social life? Do you really believe someone should answer to a Government Nanny about his reason for wanting to be with someone romantically? Do you really think Government should require someone to obtain signed consent from every single advertiser in a personals column before he is allowed to say “hi”? If your answer is “yes” to any of these questions then you need to go back and read the Constitution and study American history. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Spouse abuse is a serious crime, and people who commit these heinous acts of brutality need to be brought to swift and severe justice. But the same feminists who want to handcuff and chain the rest of us are lenient with these hard-core criminals!
Punish the bad guy, and let the rest of us enjoy our freedoms!
[quote=Rob Taylor]
They’re mostly from countries where the women would want to escape a difficult life. This is sex tourism of the worse type, where middle aged men find twenty year olds so desperate to get out of poverty they’ll marry some P.O.S. who isn’t rich enough to pick up some gold digger here.
[/quote]
You are a very ignorant person. If you want examples of middle-aged men pairing up with twenty-year olds “so desperate” that they’ll marry some P.O.S., then go to {Site deleted} and read some of the posts there. No, those people didn’t meet through “marriage brokers” and they didn’t come from Third World countries. The last time I checked, someone over 21 is an adult capable of making his/her own choices and cannot be “preyed on” by some “pedophile” as you suggest.
I’m sorry, Rob, but the “inappropriate age gap” is a weak argument for a government Nanny State that medals in people’s social lives. Go back and read the five roles of government defined by the drafters of the Constitution, and tell me if being my babysitter is one of them!
I can tell your Jim Peterson. But anyways, I didn’t say nailing a twenty one year old was pedophilia, just immaturea dn unseemly. The constitution doesn’t allow for people to skirt immigration law by marrying losers.
If the government is being a babysitter by making you disclose if you’re a pedophile of rapist to people you are seeking to import here for sex, then I assume you think background checks for child care workers is a Stalinist plot and sex offender registries are just one more step toward the NWO.
You’re claiming having to disclose whether or not you’re a rapist is hurting your freedom, what about the women’s freedom? You’re making the erronious “right to privacy” arguement (ironically first introduced into the public discourse by Roe vs Wade) which not only is not at all guaranteed by the Constitution but would interfere with the real rights allof us have to be nosey. I have an absolute right to stick my nose in people’s business, to ask people what they do for a living, form a neighborhood watch, become a private investigator and “spy” on you and quite frankly I have a right to know if someone I’m doing business with is a scumbag.
Now, as I have said before, I don’t care if the law is or is not passed, but if I ran a company I’d offer the background checks to the women as a way of staying competitive. And look “bob” if you don’t want to get a background check and this law passes, then like the “Indiana Jones” type Jim Peterson claims you are buy a plane ticket and charm these women out of their pants in person. Why do you need the internet to do it for you.
Call me old fashioned, but if I want to pick up a woman (if I wasn’t happily maried) I’d go to a bar, not a third world country. But I guess that’s just what great catches you guys are, being in demand internationally.
Since you are using my comments for you spammy affiliate site, you’re banned. When you people can comment here without directing traffic to sleazy ad filled sites, you’ll be unbanned.
That commenter wasn’t me Rob, but I was alerted to it by the happily married man who wrote it. Now please tell me in what city can we plan the debate between you and Iraq War veterans?
Let’s see this public debate happen in November 2007.
My skype is veteransabroad. Let’s talk.
You should also be aware that the main legal issue is that the foreign women have the right to decide their own level of security. The US Government cannot force these women to always be on the Internet, which is the only way to approve of each individual who wants to call on the phone. On Craigs List, foreign prostitutes are blaring their telephone numbers and there was a major MSNBC segment yesterday defending that on the grounds that the US government cannot rule over the international operations of any website. There is no reason to treat the non-prostitute women like little children. If you do, you are agreeing with the NOW that whores are “enlightened” and can do what they want, but innocent traditional women are like children and need to be subject to “forced informed consent”.
If Republicans like you and me do not talk, we will vote for opposite candidates and Hillary will win.
So, for instance, if John McCain was for Internet Regulation and made similar comments about having the right to stick the government nose into the dating process, millions of Republicans would vote 3rd Party and give Hillary the White House.
So there is no reason to show such disdain for those who want the Nanny State to stay the hell out of dating.
It is just your prejudice that men who go to Paris, Tokyo and Moscow are somehow “losers” and they are not marrying them 99% of the time after simply saying hello. The comment that “losers” are being used by those who want to “skirt immigration” would mean that the scammers should be the ones who are regulated.
About 8% of foreign women marrying American men are scammers looking for a green card (and/or looking to use VAWA to make false abuse claims to win this status earlier than usual). For argument sake, I might agree with you that the 8% of men in these cases are “losers”…but since when is a Republican male supposed to hate losers? A real male doesn’t join feminists in hating “losers.” And this is just 8%.
On the topic that the women are being “imported for sex”, actually, if you go to the strip clubs at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, you will find tons of foreign college students who came on student visas to strip for $600 per night. The USA is the sex tourism capital of the world.
Seriously, no other country (especially Russia) has a lapdance industry like the USA. The USA is where foreign men prefer to travel if they want to buy sex. I would fly home to the states if I wanted to buy good sex.
Now you just said “I don’t care or not if the law is passed”.
That means you are not an enemy, just someone who thinks his marriage will last forever and who thinks the local beer joint is a better place to find his next wife than, God forbid, a cafe beside the Sorbonne in Paris.
And child care workers are checked before contact with CHILDREN who have no choice in what happens with them. That is a big difference from what happens with ADULTs who choose to date online.
You have a problem with the Internet and you think that someone who might defend its use, necessarily uses it himself.
And Russia is not a third world country. To say that diminishes the valor of all US servicepeople who fought the Cold War. Russia was the core of a major superpower that got to space first and almost took over the world.
Do not insult Russians.
Mr. Taylor,
How do you know what the men are like who pursue “mail-order brides”? How do you know what the motivations of the “mail-order brides” are?
The law (IMBRA) forces an American only (man or woman) to submit to a mandatory background check and to reveal personal details of their lives to any person who belongs to a dating site that charges fees and has a membership of more than 50% non-Americans. This must be done before they can talk to them. The non-American is not under the same commensurate obligation. Does that seem fair to you?
Jim – I thought I banned you.
A) I don’t use Skype, contact me through the contact form.
B) I’m gald to debate anyone or make appearences at any event. If however your “debate” is a thinnly veiled threat, we can do that too.
C) Since you’ve run from Ron paul forum to Ron Paul forum making up lies about me, like I’m a Rudy or Clinton supporter even though my blog links out the Thompson site, or that I “hate men” or that I’m “supposedly” male why should I either engage you as an adult or assume you’re not a loser? Your behavior so far has been immature, outrageous, and deceptive. Now it’s up to you to prove you deal with the women differently, but so far you have lied over and over again on the web to defame me, I assume you lie to everyone.
D) My marriage will last forever. In fact my relatinship with my old lady has already lasted 18 years and I just turned 36. I’m willing to put money on my marriage with all IMBRA supporters. The secret to my marriage’s lobgevity: I’m not a dick who runs around defaming people on Ron Paul forums.
E) 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You throw out a lot of numbers, let’s see the references.
F) Only people who haven’t been to either strip clubs or other countries think it’s easier to buy sex in America than somewhere else. Germany and most of Europe have brothels open to the public and in Asia almost all stripclubs are whore houses. In those cases the women are young and often not willing. I’ve been to many a strip club, and since I hail from the motherland (New Jersey) I knew many a stripper socially, they ain’t hookers.
There was an influx of women brought in illegally by the Russain mob who were FORCED into prostitution, and gangs like the Pagans and Hell’s Angels traffic girls through the sleazier clubs, but surely a “James Bond” type like yourself would have rescued those women, not violated them.
G) The non-Americans on craig’s list and in the back of the village voice are women forced to pay off their debt to smugglers. Go to the American Anti-Slavery site and you’ll see that when these places get busted, the girls tell horror stories being forced into prostitution. I assume the fear among politicians is that mail order brides are lured into traps the same way. The behavior of yourself and others only confirms their convictions.
Lastly, the women aren’t children by any means, but neither are the parents who can check a sex offender list. As I said before people have a right to be nosey. I have a right to find out, by hook or by crook, if my nieghbors are rapists, terrorists or dicks who go from Ron Paul forum to Ron Paul forum making up things about me. If you attacked this law as a waste of time and resources, I’d feel differently, but you sound just like a sex offender so you’ll get no sympathy from me.
Now don’t you have a better use of your time than this? Maybe you’d meet a woman if you weren’t surfing from Ron Paul forum to Ron Paul forum, well you get the idea.
Willoughby- I know what kind of person goes to mail order bride sites the in much the same way I know what kind of 20 year olds have sex with Hugh Heffner. We humans are blessed with a specail sense that notifiies us when something is unseemly.
Are you saying an American law is unfair if it doesn’t apply to the entire world? Really?
Why, you don’t sound like a Ron Paul supporting kook at all! Pax Americana!
It sounds like you don’t want to debate an Iraq War veteran. Name the city or college and you will get a public debate. No threat involved. In real life, you would be expected to immediately recognize that you have no reason to condemn innocent dating sites and people who date internationally. You would lose in a public debate when you realize that you cannot call the woman in front of you some kind of innocent victim, who was forced to sell herself to the 6’2″ Marine or doctor in front of you because her rich native country of Russia, where jobs are plentiful, was some kind of “third world country”. Russia is not a third world country.
You would just shake hands before the debate and go to dinner with the couple, realizing that you are a Republican like they are. Russian immigrant women are almost always Republicans where 2 out of 3 American single women are Democrats. This is not a made up statistic. It is also a very good reason why Republican men marry Russian women.
Nobody went to different Ron Paul forums. I posted once with “this guy really despises people he knows nothing about”.
You have made it clear that a major part of the upcoming IMBRA challenge should prove that the USA really is the sex tourism capital of the world. Maybe the subset of strippers in New Jersey are among those who would tell you that they would not go further, but I recommend you try the coast of South Carolina, Seattle and San Francisco. It is also true that American strippers choose which customers they would like to take things “offline with” while telling other guys what you heard. Generally, it starts when a regular invites her to dinner at a fancy restaurant and she says yes. A 20 year old American-born college coed doesn’t want to believe she is engaging in prostitution this way. She just thinks it is cool that she likes a particular customer who is also generous.
It is logical: They don’t want to lapdance for strangers when they can relax by the pool and take in $2000 per week from guys they know and like. This is the United States culture in 2007. It is also why many good men look for a traditional wife from other cultures that are less money oriented.
There are plenty of links to major news stories about how “sex trafficking” occurs less than the hype says it does. If you know of a Hell’s Angel case of trafficking in the USA, good for you if you saw it and reported it. I once reported what I thought was something strange in New York City (a foreign woman told me that she worked some place where they kept her passport).
But there is no connection between an illicit sex trafficking operation that often gets quickly closed down by men like me and you, and a perfectly innocent and laudable international dating site like A Foreign Affair, which is owned by the way be an extremely respectable married guy whom you can call on the phone and speak with.
Bottom line is that an American man who wants to buy sex, doesn’t have to waste his time going to other countries. There is no serious sex industry in Europe. I do not know Asia, but I do know that the upper middle class Catholic Filipinas on international dating sites are the opposite of the “bar girls”. It is horrendous to link the two together.
If you are 36, financially successful, reasonably good looking and have any kind of game, you can easily establish a sugar daddy relationship with a college coed in your area if you wanted.
Mr. Taylor,
The law (IMBRA) regulates how Americans may communicate with foreigners via “marriage brokers†to a certain extent. It doesn’t offer any protections to Americans. If the government has the ability to regulate something (which it does with IMBRA), it should do so in fair and balanced manner. IMBRA fails in this regard in my opinion.
The United States does not have the right to make rules for other countries. It can make rules for how foreign individuals deal with Americans and American companies. We regulate immigration after all. We also have laws regulating how we trade with other nations and peoples.
Taylor,
I, for one, do not want a U.S. law based on some kind of bigoted stereotype about middle-aged “cradle robbers” and “loser” who date women from other countries. Do you actually re-read your remarks? Anyone who bases political arguments on hate speech — and yours is definitely hate speech — is immediately discredited in my opinion.
A law should address a legitimate need for protection from real danger, physical harm or malicious intent. Any Freedom loving American who loves the Constitution does not want laws based on someone shoving their social opinions and personal mores down everyone’s throat. And that is what you are doing!
Also, you claim only sex offenders are hurt by the law? What about the two strikes and you’re out fiancé visa limit? That means an honest, law-abiding citizen can sponsor a foreign fiancé and, if she skips town on him, he’s on a watch list. If it happens again, he’s banned from ever proposing marriage to a foreigner again. His “crime” is that he got scammed. Is that fair? And he is not a sex offender. Oh, that’s right, darn it! He’s a “loser”…. I forgot! We don’t want these people marrying and reproducing. We need to purify the gene pool and create the Master Race!
Yawn. What if you’re a moron who burns his fingers twice and sticks his hand in the fire for a third time?
Your hysterical screaming about gene pool purification adn hate speech, to a Bi-racial man, show the kind of personality flaws that lead you to going to such legths to find a woman. Let me ask you people something: There are Russian and Asian immigrants and visitors here already. Why not meet them instead of dating on-line? What’s the difference between the women who were able to get her ithout your help and these women? Hmmm.
The law by the way is reaction (perhaps an over reaction) to real life murders. They I assume meet your Malicious Harm threshhold.
And if pointing out the obvious, that people my age and above should have so little in common with 20 year olds as to make a loving and equal relationship impossible, is hate speech I hesitate to ask what you would say about my posts where I call White Supremacists traitors. I guess that’s inciting genocide?
You are very hateful toward certain types of men, admit it please. You have a distain for men who date younger women, and if you had your way these men would be separated from women for the rest of their lives. What do you call that? Is it not hate?
Just so you know, there is no “age difference” law, and as such, it is not a crime to seek a woman through the internet or personals ads just because she is younger or comes from a foreign country. This does not make a man a dangerous criminal or pose a threat to anyone’s safety.
You are entitled to your opinions about dating, as am I. However, these opinions of social acceptability have no place in the law. As I said before, and please read, the government’s role is to maintain law and order and provide for our safety. If there is no harm or danger in a man dating/marrying a young woman from the Philippines, then there should be no law just because someone like you thinks it’s “weird” or “sicko”.
I don’t personally agree with homosexual relationships, but I don’t go around promoting laws against them, or blog web sites demeaning and degrading them. They are entitled to their happiness as long as they’re not hurting anyone or breaking the law. Why don’t you offer the same courtesy to those whose lifestyles you personally disagree with?
We used to have laws against blacks dating whites because of social opinions like yours.
By the way, most of the Asian and Russian immigrants who live here are either married or grew up here. If they grew up here, they are not influenced by the cultures of their home countries as much as the women who grew up there and still live there. Maybe some of us are attracted to the attitudes and values those cultures instill. Your argument is flawed.
I’m not sure you know what “flawed” “argument” or “hate” means.
If you love these women so much (and not being in a relationship where the woman is has no options to leave you except beg you for a divorce and a plane ticket) why would you be against ensuring one of them doesn’t unkowingly hook up with a rapist/pedophile/murderer? These women should be able to make a choice based on all available info, no?
And are you saying that me pointing out that it’s immature at best for someone our age to claim to be “in love” with some girl young enough to be our daughters is the same as racism? Not only is that asinine and offnesive, but that kind of “critical thinking” probably explains your inability to have adult relationships.
Or am I wrong?
And I will admit to a strong dislike to certain types of “men”, mainly the ones who cry like little bitches every time someone is critical of them. You and your friends are really pieces of work having hissy fits with me because I won’t tell you what you want to hear.
I never heard of this stupid law until one of you fat, bald bastards who can’t get laid in America came here, tears welling up in his eyes as he typed away while sitting in his parnets attic, accusing me of all kinds of things. Guess what? Now I will support the law just to spite you.
I already had twenty of my friends and family write letters to their reps in support of IMBRA. And I’ll do everything I can to get it passed until you and your Ron Paul supporting flunkies stop telling people on the various on-line forums that I’m a “Clinton/Guilliani supporter” or a “radical feminist”
Hows about you be a man, a real man, and stop bad mouthing me all over the net like a 12 year old girl. Then maybe you’d get rational people to hear you out.
Moron.
Ahhh, you have to resort to name calling and cussing. What an adult! You call us 12 year old girls, but you act like the 12-year old delinquent who gets called to the principle’s office every other day. Why don’t YOU grow up?
You obviously can’t have an adult conversation about law and government. You are a complete waste of time.
Delphi: This guy thinks that others are talking about him on other blogs which is not true. No need to argue any more because this is not true.
But if you did, you would point out that men who can afford to fly overseas are usually successful enough financially that they can do very well dating in the USA as well. The average guy is 35 and the opposite of fat and bald. Married men often feel the need to stop other men from dating. This is especially true when the married man doesn’t want admit to being envious.
[why would you be against ensuring one of them doesn’t unkowingly hook up with a rapist/pedophile/murderer? These women should be able to make a choice based on all available info, no?]
Because, apart from the Right to Assemble loss of rights to the American (who could be a woman wanting to meet a French man), IMBRA forces the foreigner to waste time doing paperwork that causes communication to never happen. Americans, with jobs back in the US, often do not have more than 3 days over a weekend to spend in a foreign country. If the foreigner does not check email in those three days, she or he will not know there is someone in her country who wants to meet her. There would have been communication if the American had been able to phone her like she originally had wanted Americans to do. Considering that Americans often only visit a particular foreign country once in a lifetime, IMBRA, thus, completely and totally destroys all possibilities of people meeting each other.
What Delphi is saying, is that only a feeling of hatred can cause someone to want to stop meetings from ever happening at all.
There needs to be at least a waiver for foreigners to sign that says “I do not want the US government meddling in my supposed security. I want anyone and everyone to be able to phone me”.
The women lose their rights to broadcast even their own email address if that is what they want. It takes 20 seconds to create an email address. No need for the US government to step in and say “You cannot give just anybody that email address.” It is a woman’s right to determine her own level of security. The US government has no authority to step in and tell a foreigner on her own soil how to behave and how not to behave.
Read the book “1984”. In the book, the government breaks up a relationship between a man and a woman by disclosing to the woman something the man said under torture. You can say the woman could have used the information that her boyfriend sais “Do this to her” (torture her instead of me), but the entire theme of the book was that the government had no right to either torture him to get him to say it NOR tell her that he had said that.
George Orwell, who wrote the book, was a conservative. In fact, Orwell died of cancer while being stressed out that left wingers were using his words to condemn the Vietnam War which he approved of (and which I believe was a necessary war).
Where do you get these statistics? Your ass?
Why do you think that me saying I don’t give a shit about IMBRA being passed means I’m envious of a man who dates on-line. Dig it you date on-line it’s nothing to be proud of. Are you saying I envy your inability to find happiness with a woman without going to extremes or your delusional vision of yourself as a “Indian Jones or James Bond” type?
I have a stats package that tells me where my traffic comes from and I can visit them. On two forums at least, one Ron Paul forum and one of your dating “rights” forums you’v told people to come here because I’m a supporter of IMBRA (not true) I’m a Clinton or Guiliani supporter (not true) and I hate men. Why you feel the need to lie about this is proof that your relationships fail because of your dishonesty and asinine behavior.
I can also see the i.p addresses of those commenting.
If you really think only hatred would cause people to support IMBRA, then again you’re revealing a paranoia that is likely the root cause of your inability to date women in a country that’s 51% women (look a real statistic) and where sex is easy to be had. I don’t care about IMBRA either way, but I do support sex offender registration and public databases available to parents/homebuyers/businesses so that they can decide if an area is good place to live, or so that a person can check out a potential paramour. Notice I say people, because there are plenty of female sex offenders that men should be aware of.
Am I driven by hatred? Is my desire to know prior to moving to an area how many sex offenders are in an area, or what the crime stats there in general, driven by hatred? Or are you just an over reacting prissy?
And didn’t you claim that the woman who got murdered who is used to promote this law (Anastaisia King) was a “jerk” who got what was coming to her? Why isn’t that evidence of hatred?
The only torturing going on here is you, in common with many leftists, stretching the Orwell metaphor thin indeed. Yes or no, a rapist or pedophile, who has broken contract with America, deserves to have his access to certain rights curtailed so that Americans, and future Americaans in this case, can enjoy their rights to lif, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
After you answer that, get lost Jim. I have a business to run, I’m not so lonely that I need to be involved in a two week conversation about something that I don’t care about.
And either/or neither/nor.
Rob,
Orwell’s “1984” described the forces that would create the IMBRA law. It is not a law that punishes known sex offenders but, rather, all people who would want to communicate with other people without the US government stepping in and forcing a background check for either party before the first hello.
IMBRA is a gateway law that the liberals (feminists) want to establish in order to regulate males on big corporate dating sites like Match.com.
After that, maybe in another 10 years, American men will be told that they cannot talk to any American woman in bars and other public places unless she first approves (his background can be checked via his national ID bracelet or whatever).
However, since you just said several times that you do not support IMBRA and really don’t care about it, there is no use in continuing the discussion.
However, when one refers to your “hating others”, I can point to your continued repetition of the non sequitur that a man who dates in other countries somehow cannot get a date in the USA.
I don’t see the logic in making the assumption that a man cannot do both.
And I don’t see why you are OK with the many feminists that make certain cities of the US (Boston, San Francisco) into no-go zones for heterosexual males who want a decent partner.
Heck, you wannabe a Republican but you have no opinion on feminists and their “Domestic Violence Industry”. Any heterosexual Republican male should be reading Mens News Daily to see what the feminists are up to these days.
But you have helped cement a key concept for the upcoming court challenge: It must be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no mutual exclusivity between dating one woman abroad while dating an American woman at the same time.
You have shown that it is paramount to make sure that guys are not pegged as a separate subset of the American population just because they have passports and travel now and then.
You really don’t see the logic? I don’t buy it.
And reading “Men’s News Daily” is kinda gay no? It’s like the Taliban and their Mens only this and that, then as I’ve reported earlier turns out most of them were nailing each other.
Until you admit the attraction to dating abroad you seem like you’re blowing smoke up my and everyone elses ass. Even on the websites you shil for it claims that these women are easier to get along with which is a code aimed at men who can’t get along in a normal relationship. You know this.
I lived in NYC and CT (a college town) and am from NJ. None of these areas, with the exception of Women’s studies programs and Lesbian bars were “no-go” zones for straight guys. Scratch that, I went to a Lesbian bar with my friend from High school (a lesbian) and was treated just as well as at the local bar.
I also met my wife in NYC and have been with her since 1990. There’s no way a normal man, one who has dignity, self confidence and is comfortable being himself, can not score in NYC. I ran around in a real tree hat and a GOP t-shirt and still got plenty of women flirting with me. I’m happily married so I had to decline, but if i wasn’t NYC wouldn’t be a no-go zone.
Guy, you’re basically recycling conspiracy theories. You’re worried that women will have to “approve” of you before you could hit on them? Do you even know how retarded that sounds?
If you traveled and picked up women in other countries it would be different. Don’t you realize how degrading it is to men to date on-line? Don’t you think that the truth is people raise their eyebrows at you having a hissy fit about having to prove you’re not a rapist is because clearly you have a record? Do you really think we’re all so stupid as to be fooled by your human rights violation nonsense?
Just be a man and say “Hey, we guys that”ve been in the joint deserve russian braods too” and I might agree with you. Claim it’s a feminist conspiracy and it just proves you should be alone.
Have fun dying alone.
Pingback: hon ron paul of texas
Pingback: honorable ron paul
Pingback: Scumbag Caught Dealing Pot Out of Ice Cream Truck : Greenville Dragnet