The Goat Pen

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Is there a comparable scene to this in Gone With the Wind? Oh maybe that scene where Scarlet dances with Rhett. Or where she falls down the stairs?

How about where the confederate soldier gets his leg sawed off and all you see is a shadow? Or the very next scene where you see about 1000 extras laying on the ground dead or wounded?

It is difficult for me to imagine how anyone who disparages GWTW as ham-fisted and maudlin would be able to enjoy The Shawshank Redemption, but I suspect that the case, and indeed, I suspect that some who dislike GWTW probably think The Shawshank Redemption is a truly great movie. Oh well...

HEAT is very under the radar as far as movies go.

Also Super Troopers has to be on the list somewhere.

GWTW was shot entirely in southern California on a pair of large soundstages. Outdoor scenes were shot on the backlot of Selznick International studios, and shots of Tara were either in miniature or the back of Selznicks office mansion. Grand as it was, it has the same set-piece-with-staged-characters feel inherent in all of the golden age/classic Hollywood films of that era.

Films in the mold of Bonnie & Clyde and Easy Rider served notice that the "old Hollywood" was on the way out. The French Connection arguably killed it once and for all.

I believe the scene in GWTW where Atlanta was burning was actually a big set from Selznick's previous movie that they set on fire. That its dramatic collapse was caught on camera was a fortuitous accident.

they just don't go down on bended knee anymore

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-0 ... ation.html

this is what happens to marriage when men have no further incentives to be part of it.

innocentbystander wrote:
this is what happens to marriage when men have no further incentives to be part of it.

There's just not enough guys like you to go 'round, Ozzie.

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:
this is what happens to marriage when men have no further incentives to be part of it.

There's just not enough guys like you to go 'round, Ozzie.

There were 800 comments to that post at Bloomberg. The men there were basically saying of course we are not going to marry you because you divorce us, take our money, take our houses, take our children, and lock us in prison if we look at you the wrong way. And at best you force us to make you financially whole on the student loans you accumulated getting your bullshit women's studies degrees that you didn't need to get your bullshit HR generalist job and supporting all your bastard children you bred before you met me. And you are now fat. Instead of being encouraged to change the laws, get rid of VAWA, stop eating, and change their ways, the women posting complained to men telling them to man-up and marry them. That is basically where we are at today.

At the rate we're going, ten years from now 55% of the adult population (adult = 18+) will be single. Marriage will increasingly become only a cultural luxury for the elite. And why? Largely its because men are simply responding to disincentives. There is simply nothing in it for men to get married (especially if they are not Chrisitian.) Instead, marriage brings a myriad of legal and social detriments that the majority of men see no reason to overcome. So, if they eat enough red pills, eventually the become MGTOW.

Google that tick.

I think the lack of marriage is not so much any disincentives to getting married but the incentives to staying unmarried. In the old days, before contraceptives and legalized abortion, the majority of women withheld sex until marriage. So men got married to have regular access to sex.

Now, most women are quite willing to provide sex without marriage. So men are getting what they really want without the commitment and responsibility of marriage. Guys get the dessert without the Brussels sprouts. If the woman providing the sex wants marriage, guys learn to stall and delay. If the woman ever makes an ultimatum, the man calls her bluff, leaves, and finds another woman who provides sex without immediate expectation of long-term commitment. And so the cycle is repeated.

RIP James A. Traficant Jr. A great oHIoan.

10ac wrote:RIP James A. Traficant Jr. A great oHIoan.

Was just about to post that. Flags should be at half mast all over the country in honor of this real American. Beam him up!!!!!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... nt-on-farm

Must be from Cleveland. No one cares.

I think he was from The Talents hometown or close by.

Trafficant and Trump have/had really bad barbers.

10ac wrote:I think he was from The Talents hometown or close by.

Same thing.

Professor Tiger wrote:I think the lack of marriage is not so much any disincentives to getting married but the incentives to staying unmarried. In the old days, before contraceptives and legalized abortion, the majority of women withheld sex until marriage. So men got married to have regular access to sex.

Now, most women are quite willing to provide sex without marriage. So men are getting what they really want without the commitment and responsibility of marriage. Guys get the dessert without the Brussels sprouts. If the woman providing the sex wants marriage, guys learn to stall and delay. If the woman ever makes an ultimatum, the man calls her bluff, leaves, and finds another woman who provides sex without immediate expectation of long-term commitment. And so the cycle is repeated.

Then blame feminsim. It was feminism that said women could have as much pre-marital sex as they want, with whomever they want, society was not to judge that behavior as inappropriate, and men simply... went with it. Women control the churches now so their feminist antics are not being called out in church for fear that the pastor will lose his job so... no corrective action has been taken there.

If you truly think it is the incentives to staying unmarried then women (who most desperately want to be married for a variety of reasons) then unmarried women have to have a sex strike if you will. There needs to be a cultural change on their part to motivate men to want to marry them to get laid. And on top of that there has to be enough unmarried women who buy-all-in on this sex strike. But even then... even then men still wont get married because there a numbskulls like you who actually believe it is possible for a man to rape his wife. Marriage used to be the man could command the wife for sex-on-demand and because she was married to him, she had to submit and obey. And the law protected him in that manner. Not anymore. The laws are all wrong, you and people like you are not willing to change them, so this sex strike wont change the untenible risks men face which means less and less marriage.

So the way to increase marriage is to legalize wife rape?

IB, you never cease to amaze and entertain.

Oh, and your church may be controlled by women, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches are controlled by old men.

Professor Tiger wrote:So the way to increase marriage is to legalize wife rape?

We've been over this. You refuse to answer any of my questions so I will not be answering any of your smart @ss questions.

Professor Tiger wrote:Oh, and your church may be controlled by women, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches are controlled by old men.

The Catholic Churrch is very much controlled by women, particularly in the United States. If you are a woman and you want an annulment, you get an annulment. End of story. These things don't even go back to the Vatican anymore. The prime directive is for the Catholic Church to do whatever feminism tells them they must do or else women wont be in the pews and there will be no more money coming into the church. Women pick the church. If the man puts his foot down and tells his wife we are going to another church that is more Biblical, she goes and gets a lawyer and gets divorced and gets the house, the alimony, and child support. Threatpoint.

How difficult is it for a woman to welch on her marriage in the Orthodox Church? What I mean is, if she divorces her husband is she ex-communicated? Oh forget it, you wont answer the question anyway.

See the beauty of my response to your theory that men aren't getting married anymore because they can get laid without marriage is that I didn't even disagree with you. I went with your theory. I defended it. I don't think that is all it is, but it is certainly part of it. I think you are right. I just took your theory and ran with it and it appears you REFUSE to even acknowledge the direction I took your theory. You just had to be a smart @ss when I calmly explained why a single woman's sex strike would make no difference because there are people like you who would refuse to change our feminized laws. And these feminized laws offer a natural disincentive for men to marry.

this is reality...

[youtube]Nmzk-aZb-0c[/youtube]

this is fantasy, how feminists try to "justify" the drop in the marriage rate by refusing to acknowledge that there's a problem. This way they don't have to do anything to "fix it" (fix it = enable men.) You will note, comments were refused for this youtube. I wonder why that is???

[youtube]8djXpoTl200[/youtube]

That linear graph showing more and more people opting out of marriage is growing. And (for women) that is frightening. It is frightening because women need resources from men. Our whole superstructure of society depends on that (that and the threatpoint of divorce to keep him "in line.") The courts and government were on women's side creating laws to enable them in marriage so men are just choosing not to marry. So now (instead of changing laws) people are trying to discredit MGTOW (as if it was some centralized movement which it most certainly isn't.)

ABC wanted to dismantle the entire MGTOW movement by interviewing Paul Elam. They assumed (incorrectly) that Paul Elam was a raving lunatic and they could edit the interview (in someway) to make him look like a lunatic. They couldn't. His tone remained clam and even for the entire hour. As a result, 20/20 has refused to even air the segment (in a if you can't hurt them, don't help them kind of way.) Here is a portion of it. Look at the interviewer's expresion as she keeps asking "why?" Its almost as if she is totally disgusted to even be sharing air with this man, knowing all the while that he is absolutely right about everything he is saying.

[youtube]xbyMiiDXETQ[/youtube]

We are in trouble deep. A civilized world can not stand in the absence of marriage. It is the bedrock institution for functioning families and our future. Rip away that bedrock (the way we are now) and you have nothing to form a society on! Without marriage (a Sacrament from God), our form of government makes no difference.

Good Lord

Maybe some thorozene would help him.

THREAT POINT!