You said " the feminization of the american male is complete" then deny it in your response....
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Gay couple adopts 14 kids
- Thread starter asjssl
- Start date
You said " the feminization of the american male is complete" then deny it in your response....
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
You have know way of knowing by that article if its about the money. I'm sure foster care was free for the state. Again I have experienced a large family time was never a problem nor was state aid ever used.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
big "dislike"
moose
Veteran Expediter
yet you can safely assumed that from the O.P article. while not enough info is provided for us to learn about the finance of this households, it makes clear that the couple looks all over for rezones to add more kids, and are in direct contact with the FCS. it's also stated that :"In 2006, Steven became a stay-at-home dad", so @ bets there is one provider.,,,,,,, then there's the closing{by foster care services personal}: "They will fight all day to get what they need for their kids.” there's also the fact that most of the kids came from the CFS{that's the corrupted California branch}. a place known to be all about the money. why would they go across state line? hmmm... with more then 35,000 kids in the L.A county foster care system alone, and a system that reward bureaucrats for kids they hand over- it's a simple assumption that it is indeed all about the money. then there's this:1,000 California Foster Care Homes Match Sex Offender Addresses: Report | Fight Corrupted Family Courts and CPS this: The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services | Nancy Schaefer - Kidjacked and this: Half of US Foster Care Children are Drugged - henrymakow.com just to start with... the foster care service is such a huge business, it will be ridiculous to think it's not about the money.
moose
Veteran Expediter
Half of US Foster Care Children are Drugged - henrymakow.com you got 50%...@ best.
I think you have a miserable outlook....sorry....
They look for any reason to adopt kids? You must have read a different article than the one linked. If it was all about the money they could have simply remained foster parents.
At one time in this country large families were common place now people think its evil. Just more diminished values we continue to have in our country IMHO.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
Exactly....some real buzz kills......
Like another member that tries to off track nearly every good thread with....."wait till Obummer gets a hold of it"......DOH....
moose
Veteran Expediter
{& I think you either do not understand how things works inside the CFS, or choose to ignore the facts. see, karma sucks. lets keep the personal attacks for someplace else, and stick to the subject on hand.} here's a hint: how come so many kids on the CFS are on behavioral drug?, how come CFS agents get paid for making certain kids are actually forced to take those drugs ?, and are been taken away from foster care's homes if they won't. here's another hint: it's a BIG business. any informative argument you'd like to share?
moose
Veteran Expediter
again, you ignoring the facts. in social child support system it's pay to have more.
moose
Veteran Expediter
Maybe- Maybe not, we don't know. what we do know is they mastered the foster care service system. they know better then we will ever will. maybe...just maybe...there's a limit of how many foster kids a family can have @ a time, so they had no choice but to adopts the ones they already fostered. we won't know.
if you base happiness on money....
5 years ago we had a happy moose...now we have a grumpy old bull moose...LOL
moose
Veteran Expediter
again, you are resorting to name calling and personal attacks, instead of making an argument. here is a long read that will shade some lights on the monitory magnitude of child protection services, and why family's are a 14 a pop. it's because a lot of peoples makes a lot of money out of job security, and bonuses. an inside look : The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services | How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
moose
Veteran Expediter
O'h and BTW, Bou't that name calling...IF you'd have made it to the last 3 EO Expo's, THE social event of our Li'l community, which YOU CHOOSE to skip, you'd have seen for your own eye's that not only am i NOT a grumpy o'l Moose, but that i am, in fact, the center of attention where ever i go! and ALL EO's that have been there will vow for that statement. see you in the next one.
hey, hey, hey...we all know OLD moose get grumpy...fact of life....now I am calling you old....so take that.....LOL BTW..is there a line on the log book for "grumpy"....???? There should be....LOL
moose
Veteran Expediter
You got me on that one. i just took the smurf personality test and this what came up:You have a Grouchy Smurf Personality! - BlueBuddies.com . "You are Grouchy Smurf. You are set in your ways and don't like change. You are very vocal with your thoughts and aren't afraid to tell it like it is! People might say you are a negative person, but deep down you really are loving and caring." now you take it:Smurf Personality Test - Which Character are You? - BlueBuddies.com
LOL....I am the same..."Grouchy Smurf".......Guess I buy the beer at next Expo!
Lets call it what it is. It is a promotional piece for gays that have a less than positive public perception with raising kids. Doesn't mean it is true, but it is there nonetheless.
It is good that they stepped up and probably more are needed, but I wouldn't be blinded to the fact there is a income incentive and a lifestyle agenda at work.
No different really than say Michelle Bachmann having 23 foster kids, plus five of her own and benefiting financially from it. She absolutley did.
But..................she can't promote a gay agenda.
It is good that they stepped up and probably more are needed, but I wouldn't be blinded to the fact there is a income incentive and a lifestyle agenda at work.
No different really than say Michelle Bachmann having 23 foster kids, plus five of her own and benefiting financially from it. She absolutley did.
But..................she can't promote a gay agenda.
Last edited:
I absolutely did not deny saying that in my response. What I denied was making a statement about the things NightDriver accused me of saying. How he reached those conclusions based on a single sentence is miraculous, and, as I pointed out, wrong. I also denied that my statement was casual or cavalier, because it wasn't.You said " the feminization of the american male is complete" then deny it in your response....
My statement stands on its own and I do not deny making it. I'll even make it again, just so you are clear on the matter: The feminization of the American male is complete.
I suppose that gay lovers the world over is wondering how that statement applies to the propaganda which Dave accurately describes as a "promotional piece for gays that have a less than positive public perception with raising kids."
It's really quite simple. Ever since the Women's Movement of the 60s there has been an ongoing concerted effort to turn little boys and men into little girls and women, at least insofar as how little boys and men act and think. It starts in school where the things little boys do naturally are now outlawed, if they offend the sensibilities of girls. A third grade boy innocently kisses a third grade girl in recess and it's sexual assault. He pulls a pig-tail and it's assault and battery. Why? Because little girls don't do that sort of thing.
It is a self-evident, but largely forgotten truth, that the good of America (and of most societies) depends upon the moral strength of its men. I specifically use the term deliberately rather than the politically correct, mansy pansy androgynous "people" and "persons." The current crises this nation faces are in large part the result of a crisis in manhood and caused by the failure of too many men too much of the time to do the right thing. Books and articles with titles such as The Decline of Males, “The End of Men,” Men to Boys, The War Against Boys, and Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys (written, incidentally, by cultural critics on both the political Right and the Left) signal what every employer, every voter, every young woman in college today knows all too well: It is increasingly hard to find good men.
That alarming fact should not surprise anyone since the entire culture seeks to undermine traditional manhood. We only have to compare the males of this generation in their late teens and early twenties to their grandfathers’ generation to realize how far and how fast we have fallen. This is not a religious right argument, either, I'm the last person here who is gonna make on of those, it's a plain-as-day, in-your-face argument of reality.
The larger undertaking of national renewal, stability and self-reliance - something desperately needed in this country - depends upon the restoration of traditional manhood, of solid principles of what is right and wrong. That restoration must not be content with trying to teach a few lessons in manners or manliness to the twenty-year-old wimp or barbarian as we find him. Instead we must return the entire regime of making men to the principles of old. You will never find a knight in shining armor (or amour for our Canadian and British friends) amongst men who don't even know what it means to be a knight.
In the vein of the knight in shining armor, chivalry is dead. And ironically it was women who killed it. Chivalry is the standards of manners and respect of genteel honor which women now refuse to hold men necessary to. There are probably very few women alive today who, in some part of her heart, would not want to be carried off on horseback by a knight in shining armor, but women are largely not allowed to admit that anymore. Women are taught to declare themselves equal to men in all respects and in no need of superior treatment. The only way to accomplish that is to discourage those standards and manners in men, and the only way to do that is to turn men into something else, into something that is equal to women in all respects with no superior treatment, namely, into women. As a result, men don't even respect women any more. If only women would realize that chivalry was a way of showing respect and devotion, not condescension, do we have any hope of ever regaining this lost system of virtue, and of men.
So now we have a story of two very non-traditional men, married, and sharing a last name no less, raising 14 adopted children. That's a story that women are strongly attracted to because, whether they like it or not, women are hard-wired to stories about the loving and caring and nurturing and raising of children. It's a woman thing. Steven became a stay-at-home dad. Isn't that just dreamy? "In the groove of fatherhood, he was ready to raise a baby." No, that's the groove of motherhood, not fatherhood. Motherhood raises babies, fatherhood provides the safety and security of babies. But women have made fatherhood the same as motherhood, have turned fathers into mothers, have turned the masculine into the feminine. They have feminized the American male.
And they have done it in the context that a gay family is a normal family. The term 'gay' is mentioned only once in the article, briefly in passing, in the context of being a victim, of being discriminated against because of his gayness. The rest of the article shows this to be a perfectly normal and accepted thing. It's neither. Two gay men raising a family is not normal, much less raising a family of 14 kids. That's a couple of gay guys making a statement, an over-the-top attempt to show they are just like everybody else and should therefore be accepted as normal. I have no doubt they love those children, but I also have no doubt that they got into this in defiance to show they could do it, because the feminization of the American male allowed them to.
In order to renew the nation, to make it a strong nation, to put back in place the concepts of stability and self-reliance, and of respect to one another, the following steps are needed:
- Returning to time-tested methods of bringing up boys; let boys be boys, let them play rambunctious games, let them pull pig-tails once in a while, let them point their finger and say, "Bang!", let them play Dodgeball.
- Restore schools to the teaching of traditional subjects by traditional methods, instead of teaching political agendas and how to thunk and act like a little girl, teach with the consequences of getting the answers wrong.
- Revivifying true liberal education (not liberal political agenda) in the nation’s high schools and colleges, liberal education being understood as the making of free, self-reliant, and principled men (and women).
- Reestablishing a culture of gentlemanly competition among boys in sports and in school and among men in business, where it's not only permissible to lose, it's important that losing be experienced.
- Reversing the course of and eventually ending the welfare state, which has deprived the vigor and the will and sense of responsibility in men to provide for themselves and their families.
- Revamping our commitment to live according to the cardinal and American virtues of courage, temperance, justice, prudence, perseverance, self-reliance, industry, frankness, and fidelity - all directed by a sense of honor.
- Reclaiming men's sense of respect and devotion (chivalry) and gentlemanliness in relation to women.
- Renewing a generous and informed love of family and of country, with the aim of serving and protecting these higher ends.
None of these things are possible as long as men are expected, and trained, to think and act like women.
I hope that sufficiently explains my one-line comment on the story.
