Re: Look at all the American men who want to import Mexican females

On Sep 26, 4:50 pm, gringogirl <sumarli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://mexicocity.craigslist.org/m4w/

Whitemen who import "exotic" females are probably defective.

ted

On Sep 26, 8:36 pm, Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Whitemen who import "exotic" females are probably defective.
>
> ted



I'm sure they are. The funny thing is, they hardly ever get a
gorgeous girl, either. It's often some biological-clock-ticking gold-
digger with kids already. I've looked into this like two years ago,
this mail-order bride stuff, and it's really the same thing the world
over: if you have money, you get the best honey. Guys banking on
favorable exchange rates don't realize that those exchange rates only
work over there....

On Sep 27, 9:53 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:36 pm, Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Whitemen who import "exotic" females are probably defective.
>
> > ted
>
> I'm sure they are. The funny thing is, they hardly ever get a
> gorgeous girl, either. It's often some biological-clock-ticking gold-
> digger with kids already. I've looked into this like two years ago,
> this mail-order bride stuff, and it's really the same thing the world
> over: if you have money, you get the best honey. Guys banking on
> favorable exchange rates don't realize that those exchange rates only
> work over there....

The divorce rate with mail order brides is half of what it is with
native feminist gals. I suspect for the poor guys who do this it
would be ten times as much if they were able to "hook up" in the first
place, which many of them can't due to low finances.

You used to be able to get better looking and cultured gals from the
East, but the feminists shut that down ("IMBRA"). There's two major
threats to feminism...free speech and overseas competition. They still
have the media in their back pocket and also the feds immigration laws
except for that cheap labor thing from Mexico that they love so well
and that the feminists run interference for. There's a crack in the
Dyke!

Tom

"Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote

> You used to be able to get better looking and cultured gals from the
> East, but the feminists shut that down ("IMBRA"). There's two major
> threats to feminism...free speech and overseas competition. They still
> have the media in their back pocket... (snip)

You know, when you think about it, it's utterly *amazing* how many different
groups "have the media in their back pockets".

The conservatives are sure the liberals do, the liberals claim the
conservatives do, the anti-Semites know for a fact that American Jews -who
are mostly liberals- run the entire media circus; while at the same time
they think that Israel -which is staunchly conservative- pulls the strings
of same; and then there are all the various twits who think that it's the
feminists, the illegal immigrants, the blacks, the Christians, or the naked
skydiving gay devil-worshippers who "have the media in their back pockets".

If I were a suspicious man, I'd wonder how so many different -and often
totally opposed- groups can all "have the media in their back pockets" at
the same time.

On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
> or the naked
> skydiving gay devil-worshippers who "have the media in their back pockets".

The naked skydiving gay devil worshippers keep it in their front
pockets. :-)

On Sep 27, 11:28 am, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
> "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > You used to be able to get better looking and cultured gals from the
> > East, but the feminists shut that down ("IMBRA"). There's two major
> > threats to feminism...free speech and overseas competition. They still
> > have the media in their back pocket... (snip)
>
> You know, when you think about it, it's utterly *amazing* how many different
> groups "have the media in their back pockets".
>
> The conservatives are sure the liberals do, the liberals claim the
> conservatives do, the anti-Semites know for a fact that American Jews -who
> are mostly liberals- run the entire media circus; while at the same time
> they think that Israel -which is staunchly conservative- pulls the strings
> of same; and then there are all the various twits who think that it's the
> feminists,

Smitty waving his hand with a smile, "I one of the "twits"!

It's a matter of definition and how you see who has the power. We
here are soc.men think it's the feminists who have the lion share of
power. I personally think liberalism went the way of the dodo bird in
'72 when the feminists took over the Left. Conservative target
Liberals for economic policy reasons while they themselves are
extremely dependent on the feminists though they try make it look
otherwise. When was the last time you saw a conservative attack
feminism or women in the Civil Rights Act of '64 which mandated the
Second Wavers and gave them the power base they needed? Only one,
Santorum and they were running him in one of the most feminist States
in Amerika, Pennsylvania.

You can be a wise guy about all this, it's true we need laughs around
here, but please let's get real. Somebody has to.

Smitty

> the illegal immigrants, the blacks, the Christians, or the naked
> skydiving gay devil-worshippers who "have the media in their back pockets".
>
> If I were a suspicious man, I'd wonder how so many different -and often
> totally opposed- groups can all "have the media in their back pockets" at
> the same time.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:28:02 -0700, "P. Roehling"
<nowayjose@uh-uh.edu> wrote:


>You know, when you think about it, it's utterly *amazing* how many different
>groups "have the media in their back pockets".

Yeah. The only daily paper in my home town, (one of the 8 largest
cities in the country,) has to run disclaimers in their op-ed page to
say how their editorial group does not influence their reporting
group. Mostly, I hear complaints about the "left-wing" media, but this
paper hasn't supported a major Democrat candidate in 50 years. Heck,
Nixon made its editor his press secretary.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
>
>
> You know, when you think about it, it's utterly *amazing* how many different
> groups "have the media in their back pockets".

It's called "advertising." No, seriously! Moreover, check out
Chomsky's "The Manufacture of Consent."

> The conservatives are sure the liberals do, the liberals claim the
> conservatives do, the anti-Semites know for a fact that American Jews -who
> are mostly liberals- run the entire media circus; while at the same time
> they think that Israel -which is staunchly conservative- pulls the strings
> of same; and then there are all the various twits who think that it's the
> feminists, the illegal immigrants, the blacks, the Christians, or the naked
> skydiving gay devil-worshippers who "have the media in their back pockets".

Again, advertising. No, really. Each media outlet has its audience;
in the aggregate, "the media" in general has all these groups as its
sponsors.

> If I were a suspicious man, I'd wonder how so many different -and often
> totally opposed- groups can all "have the media in their back pockets" at
> the same time.

That's because the media is after the largest group of diverse
demographics possible -- in order to attract advertisers. It's like
why Campbell's Chunky Soups are pretty bland; they want to attract all
consumers, and when you please everybody, well, you please nobody in
particular.

Hence, everybody has a problem with the media.

On Sep 27, 8:36 am, Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whitemen who import "exotic" females are probably defective.


Nope ...

White men who import foreign women, are sick of feminist lies and
American bitchy women.

"P. Roehling" <nowayjose@uh-uh.edu> wrote in message
news:13fnthoffk7qs86@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> You used to be able to get better looking and cultured gals from the
>> East, but the feminists shut that down ("IMBRA"). There's two major
>> threats to feminism...free speech and overseas competition. They still
>> have the media in their back pocket... (snip)
>
> You know, when you think about it, it's utterly *amazing* how many
> different groups "have the media in their back pockets".
>
> The conservatives are sure the liberals do, the liberals claim the
> conservatives do, the anti-Semites know for a fact that American Jews -who
> are mostly liberals- run the entire media circus; while at the same time
> opposite
> they think that Israel -which is staunchly conservative- pulls the strings
> of same; and then there are all the various twits who think that it's the
> feminists, the illegal immigrants, the blacks, the Christians, or the
> naked 's .> skydiving gay devil-worshippers who "have the media in their
> back pockets".
>
> If I were a suspicious man, I'd wonder how so many different -and often
> totally opposed- groups can all "have the media in their back pockets" at
> the same time.

But they are not at all so different and are all anti American. They all
have agendas opposite of what is good for men and that's
all I care about. Men and men's interests come first and we will choose who
else we wish to tolerate.
>
>

>> > Whitemen who import "exotic" females are probably defective.
>>
>> > ted
>>
>> I'm sure they are. The funny thing is, they hardly ever get a
>> gorgeous girl, either. It's often some biological-clock-ticking gold-
>> digger with kids already. I've looked into this like two years ago,
>> this mail-order bride stuff, and it's really the same thing the world
>> over: if you have money, you get the best honey. Guys banking on
>> favorable exchange rates don't realize that those exchange rates only
>> work over there....
>
> The divorce rate with mail order brides is half of what it is with
> native feminist gals. I suspect for the poor guys who do this it
> would be ten times as much if they were able to "hook up" in the first
> place, which many of them can't due to low finances.
>
> You used to be able to get better looking and cultured gals from the
> East, but the feminists shut that down ("IMBRA").

But that only applies to agencies. You can still invite a "friend" to visit
on a fiancee visa. You don't marry within a certain period, she goes home.
Why would any man need an agency anyway? You can just get on a plane and go
to where you want to find a female.



There's two major
> threats to feminism...free speech and overseas competition. They still
> have the media in their back pocket and also the feds immigration laws
> except for that cheap labor thing from Mexico that they love so well
> and that the feminists run interference for. There's a crack in the
> Dyke!
>
> Tom
>

"Moishe Lippschitz" <lipps@kissingthefuckingwall.il> wrote

> Men and men's interests come first and we will choose who else we wish to
> tolerate.

Sure you will. And let us know how those snowballs hold up in Hell, okay?