The Genius of Phil Hendrie

"Masculist" ...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > Here's some more Phil Hendrie bits that you can
> > chuckle to. They are all short bits (5-10 min 2mb)
> > except the last one, "Women CEO's", which is meant
> > more for men's advocates. They can be downloaded
> > anytime in the next 7 days.

> Ahh, yes. Ted Bell. Heh heh heh.

"We want to put our meat in your mouth". Hendrie bitches alot about
the FCC but when it comes to him the FCC was a blessing. The guy
needs limits

> > Warning...Male entertainment.

> > 6. Ted Bell - Women CEO's
> > "Stop acting pussy whipped"
> >http://download.yousendit.com/541B09C932D4BE6E

> What a troll! I especially enjoyed the spectacle
> (or "audacle" because Phil Hendrie's performances
> are heard but not seen ;-) of the indignant callers
> who fumed at Ted Bell for being sexist yet insisted
> THEY would happily hire a women instead of a man
> for jobs, especially CEO jobs!

Thanks to the callers and Hendrie's social depth and agility, his bits
are a precious social history of our times. He's recorded for all
times this politically correct pussy shame of the late 20th and early
21st century. Thanks to Phil, generations to come will laugh and
feel superior to the assholes of our times...hopefuly.

> In the recording, there's a mention of 1999 that appears
> to imply the recording was made in 1999. This makes
> Phil Hendrie's mentions of Hewlett-Packard as a
> company that could do well with a woman as CEO
> notable because IIRC the disastrous recruitment by HP
> of Carly Fiorina (and subsequent firing) had not yet
> happened.

He's prescient like that occasionally. In his "John Kerry" interview
from 2004 I noticed the same thing. Hendrie is an enigma. He shows
great depth of understanding and knowledge of our (Men's) issues but
then falls back into traditionalism and reactionary militarism when
confronting it in a non humorous fashion...kind of like our fathers
did 40 years ago. He also plays those guys well and helps me put in
perspective what we are going through, proving the adage "the more
things change the more they stay the same".

Thank God for Phil Hendrie. He's an excellent role model for other
first generation immigrants ("Pedro's) on how they too can lead in
Amerika. But they need to change it back to "America" first.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

> --
> Jokes about calamitous visits to the doctor
> or the shrink or the bathroom, or the venting
> of sexual frustration on furry domestic animals,
> are a male province. It must have been a man
> who originated the phrase "funny like a heart
> attack." In all the millions of cartoons
> that feature a patient listening glum-faced
> to a physician ("There's no cure. There isn't
> even a _race_ for a cure"), do you remember
> even one where the patient is a woman?
> I thought as much.

> Christopher Hitchens, "Why Women Aren't Funny"
> _Vanity Fair_ magazine, January 2007
> <http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701?cur...>

I'm happy to see Hitchen's is putting his intelligence and all that
alcohol to good use...FINALLY!

Thanks Society. As High Priest of Soc.Men, you never disappoint.

Tom

DON'T BANK ON AMERIKA

DON'T BANK ON AMERIKA: "DON'T BANK ON AMERIKA"

The First Blast of the Trumpet

The First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women
1558
John Knox

Extracted from: Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559

Editor's Note

The First Blast of the Trumpet is, perhaps, Knox's most famous and controversial work. In the twentieth century, few people have read the book, and still fewer have made an attempt to understand the reformer's position.

For Knox, the teaching of scripture alone is sufficient to prove that women should not bear rule over men. The testimony of scripture is so plain, he wrote, that "to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness, that whatsoever pleases not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy" (p. 390).

Knox knew that his 16th-century opponents expected citations from classical and patristic sources. Therefore, the reformer takes aim at both the position and polemical methods of his critics by quoting some of the stoutest comments imaginable, refuting the government of women. Whether Knox personally joins with the ancient authors in every detail is immaterial; by numerous references to antiquity, the reformer demonstrates that there is a venerable history of opposition to the rule of women. Still, Knox points out that his main argument, even if stripped of the patristic citations, is fundamentally based upon the authoritative word of God. "For as I depend not upon the determinations of men, so I think my cause no weaker, albeit their authority is denied unto me; provided that God by his revealed will, and manifest word, stands plain and evident on my side" (p. 400).

Contemporary readers should also recall that, when Knox speaks of "nature," he is often making reference to human nature. Even so, he states, "this part of nature is not my most sure foundation" (p. 385). Again, his principal concern is with the revealed will of God, written in the Bible.

The treatise was published in Geneva in 1558. As indicated in the preface, the work was published anonymously. The author wished to conceal his identity, until he had issued two more blasts, intending to disclose his name with the publication of the Third Blast. The reformer's plan to write two sequels remained unfulfilled, although he later published a summary of the contents which he proposed to treat in the Second Blast. The summary of the Second Blast was appended originally to his Appellation (1558), but readers will find this summary following the First Blast in the present volume (pages 435-36).

The "Journal of Sexual Politics"

--- Jerry Boggs wrote:

> Government prof. leads new journal on politics and gender
> http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005111001040

Oh the horror, the horror...

"The journal was created by the APSA as a new outlet for the multitude
of current research on gender and politics. "Politics & Gender,"
according to a note in the first issue, aims to represent a full range
of questions, issues, and approaches on women and gender among the four
political science subfields: political theory, comparative politics,
international relations and U.S. politics. Baldez hopes that the
journal will help make the case that gender can be relevant to all kind
of political phenomena.

"We envision 'Politics & Gender' as a fresh contribution to
interdisciplinary women's studies scholarship," Baldez wrote."

Us Masculists need to start a "Journal of Sexual Politics" as an
alternative to this propoganda in the History and Political science
departments run by Rightist tradionalists and their toady marxist
feminists. They are strangling the truth in order to run rough shod
over all of us.

Tom

The New Masculist Left

To create a new left for the 21st century we first have to face some harsh realities which in fact work for our cause. The first reality is that the Right used feminism to TOTALLY defeat the old Left. Yep, it's gone, dead and burried. The Right successfully used our own women against us. Let it be a lesson to youngsters coming up.

The new left will have to defeat the feminists and provide a vision for the future. Both go hand in hand. Feminism is what is blocking any new vision or it's execution.

For young men this is a new beginning. For us older guys it's settling scores
and doing as fathers what we can for those coming up.

Tom

Da Black Hole

Check out remarksman's new/old blog. His writing is the best in the men's movement.

Tom

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 "