Google Groups : soc.men

Google Groups : soc.men: "Tom Smith QIM Dec 5, 2:37 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: MASCUL...@gmail.com (Tom Smith QIM)
Date: 5 Dec 2004 02:37:07 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 5 2004 2:37 am

Tom Smith QIM Dec 5, 2:37 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: MASCUL...@gmail.com (Tom Smith QIM)
Date: 5 Dec 2004 02:37:07 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 5 2004 2:37 am
Subject: Re: The 'Loyalty' of a Footballers Wife...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse

OK, time out. Group hug for Turin. I feel bad about bitch slapping
him in my last post. After reading this post of his to Phil I
realized he's a cookie cutter old Leftist like my brother who I love
dearly.


How many fingers did you lose Turin? I used to be a teamster in
Buffalo, NY and worked most of the factories and trucking docks around
there with CH Heist, a high pressure water industrial cleaning outfit.
They even flew us to Jolliet to clean the condensors in an oil
refinery there. I didn't lose any fingers, but am grateful I didn't
get cancer cleaning out those chemical vats with high pressure water
at Hooker and Dupont chemical plants in Niagara Falls.


How about a Teamster high five...brother?


Tom



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

turin_tu...@yahoo.com (Turin) wrote in message ...
> "Philip Lewis" wrote in message ...
> > "Turin" wrote in message ...
> > > Philip Lewis wrote:

> > > > Turin wrote:
> > > > > S.Taylor wrote in message
> ...
> > > > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:50:10 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
> wrote:

> > > > > > http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/post/tm_objectid=1491860...> _page.html

> > > > > > >She now lives with their daughter Mia, aged three.

> > > > > > This is a classic case of a woman marrying a man because he is an
> alpha male, luring him

> > > > > > into a child, and divorcing him while his income is high.

> > > > > > She should be in jail!

> > > > > Yep. I hope it happens to more of you spineless,
> market-tit-sucking

> > > > > wimps who shake your fists at government.

> > > > I see you've still got your 'scorpion' impersonation down pat.
> > > > Booooorrrrrrinnnnngggg!

> > > For those who aren't familiar with nice guy Phil (or other tooty-fruity
> > > moderates who whine about "radical feminism", instead of getting their
> > > own acts together) here's a bio that makes everything crystal.

> > > Have a laugh. Identify these guys by their pet peeves. Learn not to
> > > be like them.


> > > Also, start finding out why most of the guys who call themselves
> > > "sexists", are in reality big chickenshits. Surrender is the number
> > > one problem that undermines the Men with the guts to stand their
> > > ground.


> > It may suit your odd psychological impulses to paint me thus - but in
> > reality I have something of a reputation for being outspoken and walking
> > where 'angels fear to tread'. IOW how I 'talk' on here is mirrored by how I
> > talk in real life.


> hahahahaha ...."how I talk here". lmao ...thanks for making my point
> for me, Phil.


> That "where angels fear to tread" bit kills me, too. Where might that
> be? Outdoors without an extra sweater? hahaha


> > As for 'psychotic familly crusader' - is it really psychotic to believe that
> > it would be beneficial for society as a whole that ideally every child
> > should be raised by it's father and mother,


> Spare us the propaganda trip, Phool. What a group says about itself,
> and what it really is, are two different things.


> Especially with conservatives who always tell us that they are about
> values, but who live dysfunctional lives, and who seek to change the
> subject from their white picket fence facade by protesting that their
> lives are private and that the government should stay out of them.


> All of the so-called morals of the bourgeois are subsidiary to its
> materialistic considerations, and not the other way around. Saying,
> "you shouldn't be able to question me, because that falls in line with
> Marxism" doesn't answer the question.


> You don't have a moral agenda. You have a political agenda.


> And, Are we just talking about bottom of the barrel scum like Tom
> Smith or Ken Pangborn?


> No, we're also talking about the top "leaders" of your so-called
> family movement:


> The Cheneys, with lesbian kids, and lesbian books.


> The Bushes, with alcoholism all over the fucking place, public
> indecency, and manslaughter.


> All of that bullshit we heard thumped about "character counting" when
> it came to Bill Clinton, and Chappaquiddick? A bunch of politically
> concocted crap and cynical moralizing.


> EVERY member of the Bush family - and some of the Cheneys - are
> involved in scandals of crime involving character - and, boy, do the
> Bushes sometimes seem to like doing it publically, like a bunch of
> proud college rich kids.


> The Clinton family had only Bill's affairs as scandals, and the
> Republicans had to dig those up by working over time, the entire eight
> years he was in office. Did the Gores have any? Not that I remember.


> Conservatives' big answer to this is either to not answer, to change
> the subject, or else to put a distinction between their sins and the
> sins of liberals.


> But the Bible says that "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
> yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."


> "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now
> if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a
> transgressor of the law."


> "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
> for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
> whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."


> "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
> for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
> whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


> "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
> perfect."


> So, if you hypocritical lying assholes suddenly want to put on
> religion in order to drown out the other side, because they support
> homosexuality (ignoring the fact that so do your own top leaders, of
> course), then you've got grounds, but at the same time you shoot
> yourself in the feet.


> Pretending that "government" is the big cause of all of your "family"
> troubles and that you can do the same things you condemn in other
> simply on the basis of who's paying for what is about as immoral as it
> gets.


> There's a VERY disingenuous statement which gets floated around from
> time to time by the conservative Christian apostates, like John Hagee.
> It's that "Jesus talked more about money than anything else".


> But, what Jesus said about money were statements like these:


> "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
> rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I
> say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
> needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."


> "And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How
> hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"


> "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the
> lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
> unfruitful."


> "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
> doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up
> for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth
> corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:"


> "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
> love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
> other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."


> "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
> shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
> shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
> raiment?"


> "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap,
> nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye
> not much better than they?"


> And, that's just for starters.


> He also made statements about "family", like these:


> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
> peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
> his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in
> law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his
> own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
> worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
> worthy of me."


> There is NO WAY you can build a so-called "family movement" using
> Christianity - let alone by transparently using it as a hollow symbol
> while the real foundation is that of money, and materialism.


> On top of that, a dysfunctional pragmatism is at the root of this
> entire cynical ploy to restore righteousness by fighting over money:
> Roles that don't serve real or necessary functions, coupled with an
> insistence that this is all what makes society "work". Getting back
> to your socialism vs. capitalism dichotomy, the flat out truth is that
> there is no socialism fox in your henhouse. You've guarded that all
> too well (through restricting democracy, and allowing only counterfeit
> forms of Marxism inside - socialism, itself, is one). Technology,
> that makes roles redundant, is the problem. Or, employing your
> standard logic of assigning credit - capitalism has done your old
> "family" system in. You either have to stop progress, or move on to
> socialism with new social structures.


> If you liars had a shred of honesty in you, you could figure this out
> for yourselves, instead of trying to pour more money into the problem.


> Say what you want about Marxism or just old industrial union based
> socialism, but all of the scapegoating in the world isn't going to
> change the fact that your families fall apart of their own accord, and
> that the social influences that contribute to it are purely
> capitalistic.


> CAPITALISM brought you sitcoms and other venues for feminism, gays,
> and all of the other eeeee-vil elements of your crackpot commercial
> theories. Socialism never got off the ground in the U.S. If it had,
> then it wouldn't have been effectively restricted simply to minorities
> and women.


> All that being said about you "family" freaks, I still think that you
> qualify as a little more psychotic, all on your own, Phil.


> > certainly we can see the
> > negative results of a society where the nuclear familly has been breaking
> > down (in 'favour' of single motherhood) over the last three decades or so.


> We've seen the results of the destruction of unions and the empowering
> of corporations. Your "nuclear family" stopped being that when the
> industrial age began, and the Men became cogs in machines who had
> their individuality crushed.


> You learned this little pet theory which you're spewing now when you
> first started listening to talk radio, which target marketed you.
> Before that happened, none of it ever occurred to you, and you
> doubtless passionately sided with all kinds of things which you now
> reject as part of your mantra.


> > What really makes me laugh about this TWIT Turin is that he ONLY sees what
> > he wants to see and IGNORES anything that does not suit his preconceived
> > predujices -


> Ah, the bleats of "unfair", coming from sheltered, spoiled little
> conservatwerps - when they're getting their asses mercilessly pummeled
> in a debate ...music to my fucking ears......


> > in fact I have probably done more to raise awareness of groups
> > like Fathers For Justice (F4J)


> Hahahahaha .....Fathers 4 Justice. Spare me, please.


> > and what they are trying to achieve than any
> > other poster here.


> Big whoop.


> > I have also posted articles warning men NOT to get
> > married until and unless MAJOR and radical reforms to divorce law and the
> > familly courts are carried out.


> The crap you post is all politically concocted - as per my brilliance,
> above - and you know it: bullshit obsessing about metrosexuals and
> gays, or metrosexuals as gays, in favor of the prescribed definition
> of what "men" are supposed to be. You're just another middle class
> asshole who recreates the image of men in your own favor so that your
> own shortcomings don't figure in ....I'm being a "tiger", you whine.


> Yeah. This is where all of that bull about "capitalism versus
> socialism" actually does become relevant, because "guys" like you use
> that as your excuse to be lazy bourgeois males who work with their
> heads instead of their hands.


> You think that women buy that bullshit, but you don't buy it from them
> when they lose their figures. You're all assholes with a fucked up,
> convoluted way of life .


> > I suppose I could use up another hour or so of my precious time demolishing
> > one by one every myth that Turin is trying to portray me as representing,
> > but then I would be making the same mistake as he is - letting petty
> > personality issues get in the way of IDEAS.


> Phil, you don't have any "ideas". That's the REAL big lie of
> conservatism.


> Conservatives don't have ideas. They have mantras. They have
> slogans.


> THAT is why you don't continue for another hour of saying nothing.
> You can't. You've reached your limit. Now, like a cocktease who's
> been boring the guys for four hours, you're gonna split without ever
> showing a damn thing.


> All that you imbeciles ever have are sketchy outlines. Never any
> details to put into your anecdotal pictures. I have never seen you or
> your idiot fellow conservatives, here, engage in anything other than
> to parakeet talk radio phrases.


> ...And, that's all that you ever will do.


> - - -


> Few can dispute him. Even fewer dare...


> Turin


> I have such sites to show you...


> ------------------------
> http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/

> ------------------------
> "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
> maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
> burn in hell forever and ever...."



> -----
> > Phool


> > > Phuck the Phils of the world. Let's run right over them and then hand
> > > them over to the femdoms.


> > > PHILIP LEWIS


> > > ------------
> > > Blattella Germanica


> > > Philip Lewis is a psychotic "family" crusader - and a useful idiot for
> > > the women's rights agenda (if not a male feminist) - who spams the hell
> > > out of soc.men, usually on a daily basis, with his unwanted "Forwards".

> > > Dedicated to preserving Life in Hell for men everywhere (because we
> > > just want it so bad), they are actually calculated to bog down dialogue
> > > on the real Men's issues.


> > > He's been told to stop spamming our group, and to post his irrelevant
> > > crap to others, instead, which are legitimately dedicated to his
> > > psychoses about playing with children as they grow, the study of one's
> > > tax deductions, and the submerging of the man's identity to the wife's,


> > > but he (she -?) has refused.

> > > - - - - -
> > > Yes. We understand the tenuous logic behind posting the spam here:


> > > Momma's boy issues are really "men's" issues.



> > > One dimensional man must hand over paycheck to part-time (or no-time)
> > > working housewife, and spend rest of his time demurring to her, and
> > > ducking his head whenever she yells ...while wearing perpetual chagrin
> > > about his role.


> > > No pride. No sense of self, or self-respect. Just a lot of perverted
> > > one-sided morality about "sacrifice" and "doing a job" which works
> > > completely against him in a historically unprecedented way. And, which
> > > MOST women take complete, unscrupulous advantage of.


> > > - - - - -
> > > This perverted mentality is one of the main problems that Men's issues
> > > are about correcting, to begin with.


> > > This type of man developed in the early 20th century, due to


> > > mass-production techniques developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor. On a
> > > mass scale, working class Western men were broken down into

> > > task-managed single-track thinkers and feelers who could no longer
> > > switch gears or relate very well to most people.


> > > They were force-fed a sense of pride and "virility" about this
> > > conditioning so that they would viciously resist efforts to round them

> > > out - except by women, of course; which, is why they're still so easily
> > > spoken for, and controlled, by everyone today.

> > > They had their spirituality (and their ability to think for themselves)
> > > almost totally squashed out of them. Meanwhile the same
> > > corporate/industrial interests added their voices to the women's


> > > movement, yelling for them to strike out for themselves - as "working
> > > girls", or as housewives.

> > > I'm sorry, but the (albeit, true) "socialism" angle to the women's


> > > movement of back then - and since - just doesn't cut it. It had it's
> > > role, but that role has always been relatively small. The welfare
> > > women of today are a drop in the bucket next to the wholesale harsh
> > > conditioning of men and their values, for getting them to shortchange
> > > and cheat themselves by automatically handing over all of their choices
> > > to any woman, without even thinking about it.


> > > - - - - -
> > > Then came the next generations of boys from the sheltered upbringings.
> > > These jerks are the ones responsible for hypocritical, rationalizing


> > > phrases; such as:
> > > "If you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, then you have no heart.


> > > "If you're not a conservative by the time you're 30, then you have no
> > > brain."


> > > This is the Phil type.


> > > Or the "Angry Harry" type.


> > > Or the Glenn Sacks type.


> > > ...Or many others who have no real life experience outside of their
> > > upbringings.



> > > These guys are simply acting out a time-delayed conditioning which is
> > > set to take effect later on in their lives. Spoiling the kids helps
> > > Momma to turn the boys against Daddy in her war against him, and it is

> > > done in a very ideologically-pro
> > > women's-rights-who-gives-a-shit-about-men's, also. So, all they really
> > > ever do is support women having equal rights, and neglect their own.

> > > The method is that they're taught to pay no attention to actually
> > > changing the world while they're young and busy celebrating the idea,
> > > through materialism. Except, to stand up for women's rights. Their


> > > mothers always tell them that's "manly". (Their big push-button phrase
> > > for controlling their sons).

> > > Once their hair starts to thin, that's when they get hit on to "start
> > > acting their age" and to submerge themselves. Suddenly they acquire
> > > "wisdom" by doing what's convenient, anyway.



> > > - - - - -
> > > ...We could continue with this idea along other perspectives, and
> > > that's the sort of thing that soc.men is supposed to be about.



> > > Unfortunately, cult-middle-classer, Phil, doesn't intend to let any
> > > dialog take place.

> > > Why? Because the nineties are over, and he's irrelevant.



> > > The problem is that these nasty little neo-right wingers can't get any
> > > meaningful dialogue going in any of their own groups, anymore, because
> > > they don't really have any ideas that they stand for. Also, no one

> > > wants to listen to any more of their thoroughly-exhausted catch-phrase
> > > sermons.

> > > So, they've backed themselves into a corner. After having kicked out
> > > everyone who disagreed with them in order to create the illusion of
> > > being seiged, they began using attention getting games, like, spamming


> > > - instead of writing with their own words - and looking down their
> > > noses at everyone - rather than debating.

> > > ...Picture the cock-teaser, with all of the phony make-up and
> > > clothes, whose game is to dish out rejection before the guys find out
> > > how little she's really worth, and you've got a good idea of their
> > > game, too.....


> > > > > - - -

> > > > > This has been an enlightening moment, with:

> > > > Replace 'enlightening' with 'knee jerk' and you have a more accurate
> > > > appraisal.
> > > > You are capable of better.

> > > > Phil
> > > Replace "Phil" with "Groveling Worm and Scumsucking Reactionary" and
> > > you DO have an accurate appraisal.



> > > Study the Philip Lewis/Society/Mark Sobelewski anti-scorpion technique
> > > in further detail, here:


> > > http://www.femdom-facesitting-art.com/strapon-femdom.htm

> > > "'just trollin' guv!' - Riiiiiiight!" -- Daedalus

> > > - - -
> > > Tough love and compassion, with:


> > > Turin


> > > I have such sites to show you...


> > > ------------------------
> > > http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/

> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
> > > ------------------------
> > > "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
> > > maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
> > > burn in hell forever and ever...."



> > > -----

> > > > > Turin

> > > > > I have such sites to show you...
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
> > > > > ------------------------

> > > > > "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth,
> or

> > > > > maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known
> shall

> > > > > burn in hell forever and ever...."

> > > > > -----


Reply

Details: Show quoted text | View source | Unwrap Lines | Forward




Tom Smith QIM Dec 5, 3:19 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: MASCUL...@gmail.com (Tom Smith QIM)
Date: 5 Dec 2004 03:19:21 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 5 2004 3:19 am
Subject: Re: The 'Loyalty' of a Footballers Wife...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse



turin_tu...@yahoo.com (Turin) wrote in message ...
> "Philip Lewis" wrote in message ...
> > "Turin" wrote in message ...
> > It may suit your odd psychological impulses to paint me thus - but in
> > reality I have something of a reputation for being outspoken and walking
> > where 'angels fear to tread'. IOW how I 'talk' on here is mirrored by how I
> > talk in real life.


> hahahahaha ...."how I talk here". lmao ...thanks for making my point
> for me, Phil.


> That "where angels fear to tread" bit kills me, too. Where might that
> be? Outdoors without an extra sweater? hahaha



I have a designer down jacket I got at Ross Dress For Less for $50.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > As for 'psychotic familly crusader' - is it really psychotic to believe that
> > it would be beneficial for society as a whole that ideally every child
> > should be raised by it's father and mother,

> Spare us the propaganda trip, Phool. What a group says about itself,
> and what it really is, are two different things.


> Especially with conservatives who always tell us that they are about
> values, but who live dysfunctional lives, and who seek to change the
> subject from their white picket fence facade by protesting that their
> lives are private and that the government should stay out of them.


> All of the so-called morals of the bourgeois are subsidiary to its
> materialistic considerations, and not the other way around. Saying,
> "you shouldn't be able to question me, because that falls in line with
> Marxism" doesn't answer the question.


> You don't have a moral agenda. You have a political agenda.



Gee Turin, I read what Phil said and it didn't have to do with all
that.


> And, Are we just talking about bottom of the barrel scum like Tom
> Smith or Ken Pangborn?


...And you.


> No, we're also talking about the top "leaders" of your so-called
> family movement:

> The Cheneys, with lesbian kids, and lesbian books.


> The Bushes, with alcoholism all over the fucking place, public
> indecency, and manslaughter.



When did they become "leaders of the family movement"? I thought they
were just mouthing that stuff as male feminists hoping to get a few
votes. I knows some "family leaders", but they don't have any power.


> All of that bullshit we heard thumped about "character counting" when
> it came to Bill Clinton, and Chappaquiddick? A bunch of politically
> concocted crap and cynical moralizing.


It worked pretty good thanks to the Marxists on the Left supporting
feminism.


> EVERY member of the Bush family - and some of the Cheneys - are
> involved in scandals of crime involving character - and, boy, do the
> Bushes sometimes seem to like doing it publically, like a bunch of
> proud college rich kids.

> The Clinton family had only Bill's affairs as scandals, and the
> Republicans had to dig those up by working over time, the entire eight
> years he was in office. Did the Gores have any? Not that I remember.


> Conservatives' big answer to this is either to not answer, to change
> the subject, or else to put a distinction between their sins and the
> sins of liberals.



Dig this folks, Turin is about to start quoting the Bible. Now we
know the marxist's are desparate.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> But the Bible says that "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
> yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

> "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now
> if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a
> transgressor of the law."


> "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
> for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
> whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."


> "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
> for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
> whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


> "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
> perfect."


> So, if you hypocritical lying assholes



Did you actually read the New Testament or was it just a pain in the
ass looking up those quotes?


> suddenly want to put on
> religion in order to drown out the other side, because they support
> homosexuality (ignoring the fact that so do your own top leaders, of
> course), then you've got grounds, but at the same time you shoot
> yourself in the feet.


Phil and the rest of us can't do didley Turin. We're just a bunch of
schmucks like you.


> Pretending that "government" is the big cause of all of your "family"
> troubles and that you can do the same things you condemn in other
> simply on the basis of who's paying for what is about as immoral as it
> gets.

> There's a VERY disingenuous statement which gets floated around from
> time to time by the conservative Christian apostates, like John Hagee.
> It's that "Jesus talked more about money than anything else".


> But, what Jesus said about money were statements like these:



Oh boy, here goes Turin with another round of Bible quotes. It's the
best stuff ever in his posts.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
> rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I
> say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
> needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

> "And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How
> hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"


> "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the
> lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
> unfruitful."


> "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
> doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up
> for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth
> corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:"


> "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
> love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
> other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."


> "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
> shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
> shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
> raiment?"


> "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap,
> nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye
> not much better than they?"


> And, that's just for starters.


> He also made statements about "family", like these:


> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
> peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
> his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in
> law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his
> own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
> worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
> worthy of me."


> There is NO WAY you can build a so-called "family movement" using
> Christianity



You don't get the Bible eh Turin? You have to be in the mood. Time
is running out if your 73.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> - let alone by transparently using it as a hollow symbol
> while the real foundation is that of money, and materialism.

> On top of that, a dysfunctional pragmatism is at the root of this
> entire cynical ploy to restore righteousness by fighting over money:
> Roles that don't serve real or necessary functions, coupled with an
> insistence that this is all what makes society "work". Getting back
> to your socialism vs. capitalism dichotomy, the flat out truth is that
> there is no socialism fox in your henhouse. You've guarded that all
> too well (through restricting democracy, and allowing only counterfeit
> forms of Marxism inside - socialism, itself, is one). Technology,
> that makes roles redundant, is the problem. Or, employing your
> standard logic of assigning credit - capitalism has done your old
> "family" system in. You either have to stop progress, or move on to
> socialism with new social structures.



What I say is tax women more and give men stipends at the lower
economic levels (Masculist Trinity). Right on eh Turin.


> If you liars had a shred of honesty in you, you could figure this out
> for yourselves, instead of trying to pour more money into the problem.

> Say what you want about Marxism or just old industrial union based
> socialism, but all of the scapegoating in the world isn't going to
> change the fact that your families fall apart of their own accord, and
> that the social influences that contribute to it are purely
> capitalistic.



I do believe they (feminists) rode to glory on the backs of the
marxists.


> CAPITALISM brought you sitcoms and other venues for feminism, gays,
> and all of the other eeeee-vil elements of your crackpot commercial
> theories. Socialism never got off the ground in the U.S. If it had,
> then it wouldn't have been effectively restricted simply to minorities
> and women.


I don't know if you got the news yet, but capitalism won hands down.
Time to deal.


> All that being said about you "family" freaks, I still think that you
> qualify as a little more psychotic, all on your own, Phil.


He's not the one who is delusional.


> > certainly we can see the
> > negative results of a society where the nuclear familly has been breaking
> > down (in 'favour' of single motherhood) over the last three decades or so.

> We've seen the results of the destruction of unions and the empowering
> of corporations. Your "nuclear family" stopped being that when the
> industrial age began, and the Men became cogs in machines who had
> their individuality crushed.



Bohoho...Those poor factory workers. Common Turin, the marxist glory
days are gone, gone, gone, just like you in not too many years.


> You learned this little pet theory which you're spewing now when you
> first started listening to talk radio, which target marketed you.


You mean Rush knew I was going to be homeless in '92 and have just the
radio for entertainment? Gee, that makes me feel special. Ditto's
Rush.


> Before that happened, none of it ever occurred to you, and you
> doubtless passionately sided with all kinds of things which you now
> reject as part of your mantra.


Oh yeah Turin, thanks for calling us all mindless Dittoheads. I'm
sorry we aren't as smart as you and the marxists.


> > What really makes me laugh about this TWIT Turin is that he ONLY sees what
> > he wants to see and IGNORES anything that does not suit his preconceived
> > predujices -

> Ah, the bleats of "unfair", coming from sheltered, spoiled little
> conservatwerps - when they're getting their asses mercilessly pummeled
> in a debate ...music to my fucking ears......



Which tune are you listening to? Those little ditty's you make up in
your mind?



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > in fact I have probably done more to raise awareness of groups
> > like Fathers For Justice (F4J)

> Hahahahaha .....Fathers 4 Justice. Spare me, please.


> > and what they are trying to achieve than any
> > other poster here.


> Big whoop.


> > I have also posted articles warning men NOT to get
> > married until and unless MAJOR and radical reforms to divorce law and the
> > familly courts are carried out.


> The crap you post is all politically concocted - as per my brilliance,
> above - and you know it: bullshit obsessing about metrosexuals and
> gays, or metrosexuals as gays, in favor of the prescribed definition
> of what "men" are supposed to be. You're just another middle class
> asshole who recreates the image of men in your own favor so that your
> own shortcomings don't figure in ....I'm being a "tiger", you whine.



Go get em tiger.


> Yeah. This is where all of that bull about "capitalism versus
> socialism" actually does become relevant, because "guys" like you use
> that as your excuse to be lazy bourgeois males who work with their
> heads instead of their hands.


Damn yuppies. You tell em Turin.


> You think that women buy that bullshit, but you don't buy it from them
> when they lose their figures.


Here I read this as you losing your fingers. I'm disappointed.


> You're all assholes with a fucked up,
> convoluted way of life .


That's for sure. I bet you're not doing much better.


> > I suppose I could use up another hour or so of my precious time demolishing
> > one by one every myth that Turin is trying to portray me as representing,
> > but then I would be making the same mistake as he is - letting petty
> > personality issues get in the way of IDEAS.

> Phil, you don't have any "ideas". That's the REAL big lie of
> conservatism.


> Conservatives don't have ideas. They have mantras. They have
> slogans.



Tippee canoe and Tyler too.


> THAT is why you don't continue for another hour of saying nothing.
> You can't. You've reached your limit. Now, like a cocktease who's
> been boring the guys for four hours, you're gonna split without ever
> showing a damn thing.


It's getting late and I don't have a clue why I'm punching this puter
talking to you.


> All that you imbeciles ever have are sketchy outlines. Never any
> details to put into your anecdotal pictures.


The Masculist Trinity
http://www.geocities.com/qim/masculisttrinity.htm


> I have never seen you or
> your idiot fellow conservatives, here, engage in anything other than
> to parakeet talk radio phrases.


I love listening to Phil Hendrie.


> ...And, that's all that you ever will do.


I feel so guilty. Thanks for straightening us out Turin. You're my
hero.

Tom


Subject: Re: The 'Loyalty' of a Footballers Wife...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse

OK, time out. Group hug for Turin. I feel bad about bitch slapping
him in my last post. After reading this post of his to Phil I
realized he's a cookie cutter old Leftist like my brother who I love
dearly.

How many fingers did you lose Turin? I used to be a teamster in
Buffalo, NY and worked most of the factories and trucking docks around
there with CH Heist, a high pressure water industrial cleaning outfit.
They even flew us to Jolliet to clean the condensors in an oil
refinery there. I didn't lose any fingers, but am grateful I didn't
get cancer cleaning out those chemical vats with high pressure water
at Hooker and Dupont chemical plants in Niagara Falls.

How about a Teamster high five...brother?

Tom

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
turin_tu...@yahoo.com (Turin) wrote in message ...
> 'Philip Lewis' wrote in message ...
> > 'Turin' wrote in message ...
> > > Philip "