| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2006 05:40:53 PM |
| Object: |
Whatever happened to masculinity? |
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/060127
Whatever happened to masculinity?
by Chuck Baldwin
The recent Hollywood infatuation with homosexuality is only the latest
example of how true American manhood is being systematically dismantled.
Throughout our culture, masculinity is de-emphasized, even scorned.
I well remember how Ronald Reagan was castigated as being "too masculine."
Truly, Reagan was the last masculine president America has had (and maybe
will have). Can you imagine what today's generation of soft Americans would
think of Harry Truman or Theodore Roosevelt?
By masculine, I mean a man who not only demonstrates the physical qualities
of ruggedness but who also possesses inner toughness. A man who says what he
means and means what he says. A man who recognizes the importance of
honesty. A man of noble principle. A man without covetousness. A man who
cannot be bribed or bullied. A man committed to manly virtues. A man who is
the head of his home and knows how to control and discipline his children. A
man who loves justice but also knows tenderness and mercy. A man who fears
God and shows reverence for the sacred. A man who knows the difference
between the rule of law and the lust for power. On the whole, our society
today has little tolerance for such men. Even in our churches, masculinity
is dying.
It seems that most Christian schools and church Sunday Schools (and probably
Christian homes) are controlled and dominated by women. Now, please don't
misunderstand me. There is certainly nothing wrong with women working and
serving in the Lord's vineyard. I can't imagine where we would be without
the sacrificial and tireless efforts of the countless thousands of dedicated
Christian women found in virtually all of our ministries. However, except
for rare examples, women are not capable of inculcating manliness into young
boys. This is truly man's work.
The overexposure of young boys to women leaders is taking a serious toll on
their masculinity. Think about it: it is not uncommon for a young boy to
never know a male teacher or principal until reaching high school, and even
then, male teachers are egregiously outnumbered by their female
counterparts. In some schools, the ratio is 10 to 1. If a boy does not grow
up with his father in the home, the problem is only exacerbated.
Take a stroll down the hallways of most high schools, including most
Christian high schools. What do you see? Soft, effeminate boys! Most
Christian schools do not even provide masculine sports such as football,
wrestling, or boxing. Beyond that, boys are constantly taught to submit to
feminine leadership. Independence and assertiveness are considered evil,
when in fact, any man worth his salt must, by definition, be a man of
independence and strength.
I see this constantly in gospel music. Many of today's popular Christian
entertainers (and that's all many of them are) are markedly soft and
effeminate in appearance, voice, mannerisms, and actions. Believe it or not,
it did not used to be this way.
There was a time in America when society as a whole expected men to be
masculine. Boys were taught physical, emotional, and spiritual toughness.
They played "rough" games. They were taught how to defend themselves and
others. At the same time, they were taught rules of etiquette, polite
manners, and proper speech. They knew the meaning of the word "gentleman."
Manhood had more to do with how well he behaved, not how well he cussed.
That Hollywood is continuing to pollute our culture with its incessant
promotion of movies which praise and promote the homosexual lifestyle is one
more nail in the coffin of American decency and manhood. But Hollywood is
not the only culprit. America's politicians, business leaders, and even
church leaders are all contributing to the problem!
It is unclear whether America will be able to rebound from this
anti-masculinity political correctness that currently permeates our culture.
However, one thing is clear: true masculinity is fast disappearing from the
American landscape, and as it vanishes, so does one of the significant
attributes that helped build this nation.
There is yet one more uncertainty: how long can America survive without it?
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
30 Jan 2006 06:57:03 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
Whatever happened to masculinity?
Republicans redefined it as, "A cowardly little mommas
boy who pulled strings to get into the national guard and
dodge the draft, only to desert his unit the first time it got
a little inconvenient for him."
Remember early on Bush's first stolen term, and the way
he groveled at the feet of the Chinese after they knocked
down one of our planes over international waters, then
stripped it clean like a pack of thieves?
"I'm... I'm... sorry," Bush told them. "I'm so terribly sorry
that our plane offended you."
Chicken *****.
Then 9/11 came, and chicken ***** Bush hid behind
school children for more than 20 minutes as thousands
died. And even when they finally did manage to pry
him out of that school, he buzzed around the country in
Airforce One, dodging non-existing "terrorists" as
they tried to collide their invisible planes with him.
Please.
Or how about when Bush broke the rules to get a gay
prostitute inside the Whitehouse, where he pretended
that he was a reporter?
Now Republicans are about to place a second gay
judge on the Supreme Court. What, you don't seriously
believe that Alito is straight. Come on. Even you
couldn't be that retarded. And Roberts, well, Roberts
was so gay he had to adopt a few photo ops...errrr...
"Children." He couldn't even get it up for the turkey
baister, just knowing it was going to go inside a
woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
30 Jan 2006 07:16:41 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
Whatever happened to masculinity?
Republicans redefined it as,
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard, sniffing
airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers into the mouths of
chubby interns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
30 Jan 2006 10:45:41 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 12:49:15 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 01:14:38 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton. Not even with Ronald Reagan -- where the economic
growth was pretty much limited to the top third of income
earners -- did the rich do as well.
Even the stockmarket POST BUBBLE saw more growth under
Clinton than under Reagan. That was still true two years later,
post 9/11... post Bush slide... even after all the ground the DJIA
lost AFTER Clinton left office, it still represented a greater
percentage gain under Clinton than Reagan.
Bush isn't in Reagan's league, never mind Clinton's.
Clinton succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Republicans,
scoring both on economic growth AND fiscal responsibility.
That's why Republicans doubt their own masculinity. Because
they know they failed. Clinton & the Democrats ARE better,
and Republicans know that. Republicans really do have smaller
dicks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 02:47:09 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton.
Oh, come on. He's not a CAUSE of any of this.
Not even with Ronald Reagan -- where the economic
growth was pretty much limited to the top third of income
earners -- did the rich do as well.
So Clinton favored the rich? I take it that this means that he
repulsed you as much as Reagan did, and that you certainly never voted
for him.
Even the stockmarket POST BUBBLE saw more growth under
Clinton than under Reagan. That was still true two years later,
post 9/11... post Bush slide... even after all the ground the DJIA
lost AFTER Clinton left office, it still represented a greater
percentage gain under Clinton than Reagan.
Bush isn't in Reagan's league, never mind Clinton's.
Probably not. Bush gave up cocaine years ago. Clinton was still
toking while in office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
02 Feb 2006 01:23:49 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton.
Oh, come on. He's not a CAUSE of any of this.
Sure he is. In fact, if Clinton was a Republican even you
needle-dicks would be saying so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 08:08:32 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton.
Oh, come on. He's not a CAUSE of any of this.
Sure he is. In fact, if Clinton was a Republican even you
needle-dicks would be saying so.
When did YOU needle-dicks ever give Reagan credit for anything?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 09:37:49 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
When did YOU needle-dicks ever give Reagan credit for anything?
"Boo-hoo! Boo-hoo! I'm a little girl! I'm a ***** eating neo-con!
I'm crying because nobody to the left of Hitler would give Reagan
credit for all the economic growth that left people like myself
behind. After all, it was pretty much limited to the top one-third
of income earners, and I'm nothing but stupid trailer trash...."
Face it: Trailer trash like you were left out of Reagan's expansion.
In fact, trailer trash like you -- the bottom 25% of the nation --
actually got poorer under Reagan. Under Clinton, on the other hand,
the economic expansion was not only longer & bigger, but DID
include people in the middle & bottom as well as the top.
Reagan did nothing for you. Reagan did nothing for me. Well,
except that he managed to push through an increase in the
Social Security withholding (not paid by the rich) and used it
to cut the top tax bracket LOWER than the middle class bracket.
The top bracket under Reagan was 28%. Just below that, the
middle to upper middle class bracket was, what? 32%?
That's right, under Reagan if your adjusted net income was
$40K you paid 32%, and if it was $40 million you paid 28%.
Look it up.
Reagan saddled your children with debt, even as he increased
the gap between you and the rich. You saw your real earnings
sink or (at best) remain stagnent, while the rich watched their
incomes explode.
Reagan fucked you. You liked it. Heck, you LOVED it.
*****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 09:46:43 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
When did YOU needle-dicks ever give Reagan credit for anything?
"Boo-hoo! Boo-hoo! I'm a little girl! I'm a ***** eating neo-con!"
Glad to meet you, LG-SENC.
I'm a more masculine steak-eating PALEO-con. I see that there really
isn't much common ground between us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 11:24:03 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
I'm a more masculine steak-eating PALEO-con.
The only one you're kidding is yourself.
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it. You moaned
while he drilled your *****. Reagan fucked the poor & middle
class, and you loved it.
Gay men have a word for people like you. The word is "Bottom."
You're a bottom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 11:41:02 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
I'm a more masculine steak-eating PALEO-con.
The only one you're kidding is yourself.
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
05 Feb 2006 12:02:41 AM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
There's nothing strange about it. Ronald Reagan did ***** you
and you did love it. Period.
It's true that Bush is fucking you even harder, but it's just as
true that you still love it. You moan while he sticks it in you.
Don't deny it, girl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 11:52:35 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
There's nothing strange about it.
Maybe I'm just focusing too much on the strangeness of the source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
07 Feb 2006 12:23:28 PM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Maybe I'm just focusing too much on the strangeness of the source.
More like a case where you moan so loud when Republicans
***** you that the people in France are like, "Wow! Did you
hear that? And they call us homos!"
On the bright side, Bush "brought you home," in a manner of
speaking, without any reach-around.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
05 Feb 2006 12:13:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 01:02:41 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
in message <N-GdnYfzQtetD3jenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
There's nothing strange about it. Ronald Reagan did ***** you
and you did love it. Period.
It's true that Bush is fucking you even harder, but it's just as
true that you still love it. You moan while he sticks it in you.
Don't deny it, girl.
Listen to what the repugs *really* think about their fundie
supporters:
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right,
Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," [Delay aide
and convicted swindler Mike] Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read
into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote
against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole
thing slip past them."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index_np.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
05 Feb 2006 11:52:32 AM |
|
|
In article <0p5bu1p0pp0rfnpkel40q5gs86toquds5q@4ax.com>,
Boy Toy <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote:
Listen to what the repugs *really* think about their fundie
supporters:
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right,
Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," [Delay aide
and convicted swindler Mike] Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read
into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote
against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole
thing slip past them."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index_np.html
that approach has been effective for them based on the kinds of
things similar-minded wackos post here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 11:48:05 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2006 21:41:02 -0800, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
I'm a more masculine steak-eating PALEO-con.
The only one you're kidding is yourself.
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
However, it's not a strange remark, considering the target.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 11:51:25 PM |
|
|
Adam H. wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006 21:41:02 -0800, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
I'm a more masculine steak-eating PALEO-con.
The only one you're kidding is yourself.
Ronald Reagan fucked you, and you loved it.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
However, it's not a strange remark, considering the target.
That's a strange remark, considering the source.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 08:13:13 PM |
|
|
In News 1139105312.006906.238010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, Grizzlie
Antagonist at lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com, typed this:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton.
Oh, come on. He's not a CAUSE of any of this.
Sure he is. In fact, if Clinton was a Republican even you
needle-dicks would be saying so.
When did YOU needle-dicks ever give Reagan credit for anything?
Each and every time he's deserved credit for something.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 11:21:45 PM |
|
|
On 2006-02-01 08:14:38 +1300, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton. Not even with Ronald Reagan -- where the economic
growth was pretty much limited to the top third of income
earners -- did the rich do as well.
Even the stockmarket POST BUBBLE saw more growth under
Clinton than under Reagan. That was still true two years later,
post 9/11... post Bush slide... even after all the ground the DJIA
lost AFTER Clinton left office, it still represented a greater
percentage gain under Clinton than Reagan.
Bush isn't in Reagan's league, never mind Clinton's.
Clinton succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Republicans,
scoring both on economic growth AND fiscal responsibility.
That's why Republicans doubt their own masculinity. Because
they know they failed. Clinton & the Democrats ARE better,
and Republicans know that. Republicans really do have smaller
dicks.
I think the one thing Democrats realise is this; if you want to spend
more, you must tax more, if you want to cut taxes, you must cut
spending.
The Republicans, however think that the rules of fiscal management
don't apply to them.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
05 Feb 2006 12:00:01 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On 2006-02-01 08:14:38 +1300, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah, all that economic growth... all those new jobs created.
Working people AND rich people never did better than under
Clinton. Not even with Ronald Reagan -- where the economic
growth was pretty much limited to the top third of income
earners -- did the rich do as well.
Even the stockmarket POST BUBBLE saw more growth under
Clinton than under Reagan. That was still true two years later,
post 9/11... post Bush slide... even after all the ground the DJIA
lost AFTER Clinton left office, it still represented a greater
percentage gain under Clinton than Reagan.
Bush isn't in Reagan's league, never mind Clinton's.
Clinton succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Republicans,
scoring both on economic growth AND fiscal responsibility.
That's why Republicans doubt their own masculinity. Because
they know they failed. Clinton & the Democrats ARE better,
and Republicans know that. Republicans really do have smaller
dicks.
I think the one thing Democrats realise is this; if you want to spend
more, you must tax more, if you want to cut taxes, you must cut
spending.
The Republicans, however think that the rules of fiscal management
don't apply to them.
Democrats believe in free drugs, free sex, including, in some cases,
mandatory homosexuality, free abortions, free needle exchanges, and
nickel beer - all without cost of consequence - and want to impose
some sort of pax-Woodstock upon the country. I'd hardly call Democrats
models of responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
05 Feb 2006 12:43:51 AM |
|
|
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> writes:
Matt wrote:
I think the one thing Democrats realise is this; if you want to spend
more, you must tax more, if you want to cut taxes, you must cut
spending.
The Republicans, however think that the rules of fiscal management
don't apply to them.
Democrats believe in free drugs, free sex, including, in some cases,
mandatory homosexuality, free abortions, free needle exchanges, and
nickel beer - all without cost of consequence - and want to impose
some sort of pax-Woodstock upon the country. I'd hardly call Democrats
models of responsibility.
This guy is completely out of touch with reality. I might add, however,
that needle exchange programs work - drug use doesn't go up but the
addicts stay healthier. It takes time to get them into treatment
programs, and the programs aren't effective until an addict reaches
the point where he is really motivated to change. The effect of the
needle exchange programs is to limit the damage until the addict can
be cured.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 04:19:14 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a right-wing
nut who needs to kill people to "prove" his masculinity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 04:24:22 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a right-wing
nut who needs to kill people to "prove" his masculinity.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a left-wing nut who
needs to kill the unborn to prove his slavishness towards women and his
devotion to the cause of "choice".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 04:35:58 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a right-wing
nut who needs to kill people to "prove" his masculinity.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a left-wing nut who
Smirk. The dickless right-wing moron plays the schoolyard game of
"I know you are but what am I?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
04 Feb 2006 08:12:30 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a right-wing
nut who needs to kill people to "prove" his masculinity.
Only a tiny ***** can cause the overcompensation of a left-wing nut who
Smirk. The dickless right-wing moron plays the schoolyard game of
"I know you are but what am I?"
Me? I don't import illegal aliens to work in my textile industry, get
the little girls pregnant, and then kill their unborn in order to cover
my tracks. That's your game. I don't know for one minute that it's
mine.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
31 Jan 2006 04:51:09 PM |
|
|
In News 1138733355.275216.39440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, Grizzlie
Antagonist at lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com, typed this:
JTEM wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
Yeah, that got a lot funnier the second time. Sure. It's Clinton's
fault that Republicans are suffering from diminished masculinity
because he didn't pay for sex, and he had it with women.
Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Only lowered testosterone levels
can make a liberal.
I agree. And only zero testosterone levels make a conservative. Only
moderates should be allowed to populate the Earth anyway.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
30 Jan 2006 07:14:14 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
Whatever happened to masculinity?
Republicans redefined it as, "
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard, sniffing
airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers into the mouths of
chubby interns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatever happened to masculinity? |
30 Jan 2006 09:33:22 PM |
|
|
<lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote
Liberals redefined it as growing long hair and a beard,
sniffing airplane glue, and sticking their teeny whangers
into the mouths of chubby interns.
So what upsets you, the fact that Clinton's sex partner
was female (unlike Bush's) or the fact that he didn't
have to pay her?
Seriously. After Bush & his gay prostitute, you'd have
to be retarded to bring up Clinton and his female intern...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
