Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share
Salacious, slightly obscene slogans of past presidential campaigns
The history behind the slogans: "We Polked You in '44, We Shall Pierce You in '52." "Cox and Cocktails." "Vote for Al Smith and make your wet dreams come true." "Dew-it-with Dewey."
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Women's suffrage was a mistake

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 18, 2009 06:12PM
Myce, you've attracted your very own try-hard troll! Have fun. cool smiley
Sam
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 18, 2009 07:00PM
"Women should be fired from their jobs, stripped of the right to vote and kicked back into kitchen and bedroom where all women belong. Feminism must be destroyed-along with socialism, racial equality, communism and zionism." This is no doubt this troll's favorite sentiment. What a dick. What's ironic is that he comes across as a cry-baby throwing a tantrum because society won't let him be a cry-baby. The boys aren't allowed to show their emotions like the girls do. Wahhhhh! Lmao! Wanna bet TrollBoy is single??
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 18, 2009 10:09PM
Excellent posts, John Thames. Do you know there is some hope that things could go back to the way they were before women's lib ruined society? There is a new organization for men and women who support rape. I think rape could be a good way to keep women in line and out of the military. This is their site Republicans for Rape. I am not a Republican because both parties are all a bunch of liberal manginas who suck up to feminazis. But this is a step in the right direction.
Sam
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 18, 2009 11:15PM
Lol! Could there really be people like this left in the world?? Scary thought...
Very funny, Mr. Beere.

But as I'm sure you already suspected, I agree with Miss Schlafly's position. She is one smart old gal.I fail to see why a wife should be paid for sexual services she does not perform. That would appear to deny the husband the benefit of what he bargained for when he got married.
Now to really up the outrage of the opposition. If you think my views on women are too much, let's see what you think of the Nazi "gas chamber" hoax as the proof of the fabled "Protocols of Zion".

CREMATING THE LEARNED ELDERS
(OR, THE PROTOCOLS OF “GASSING”)

Like Holocaust Denial, the Protocols of Zion are outside the parameters of polite society. It is easy to see why. If either is true, then there exists a centuries old conspiracy to enslave mankind. The Protocols are supposedly a forgery by the Czarist secret police; Holocaust Denial is supposedly a fringe movement of Hitler apologists and lunatics. What no one wishes to do is to submit either the Protocols or Holocaust Denial to rational examination. The moment that is done, the more obvious it becomes that both Holocaust Denial and the Protocols fit the facts. More than that, the truth of the one reinforces the truth of the other. That suggests a common ethnic origin behind the conspiracy.

The Protocols of Zion are supposedly a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s nineteenth century book “Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”. Undoubtedly there are point-by-point equivalences. But all that really begs the question. The Protocols did not describe the world as it existed when they first appeared in the early twentieth century (around 1905 to 1920). But they very much do describe the world as it has subsequently developed in the succeeding century. Why? The predictive validity is the point crying out for explanation. The Protocols became a rallying point for the British press in the aftermath of the First World War. They seemed to confirm the terrible reality of the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The activity of the world’s Jews at the Paris Peace Conference where Jewish delegations from the Old and New World’s congregated and demanded “minorities treaties” testified to the reality of co-coordinated Jewish international power in the real world. It was the British Empire itself which sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine-allegedly as the result of a “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into World War One. The “Morning Post” and the “London Times” hammered on these themes constantly in the years 1919-1923. Today, anyone can see that Jews and Israel First organizations provide the majority of the political campaign financing of the two political parties. Anyone can see the extreme Jewish control of the media. The Cam West media monopoly of the Asper family in Canada, the Samuel Newhouse chain of newspapers in America, the purchase of both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune by the Polish-Jewish real estate developer Samuel Zell, it all speaks for itself. Anyone can see that Israel First advisors surround both George Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. The identity of the neo-cons who got the U.S. into the disastrous Iraq war is known; so is the identity of the Israeli Rahm Emmanuel who is Barack Obama’s wirepuller. Anyone can look at these self-evident facts and compare them with the Protocols. Do not the Protocols speak of Jews controlling the press, dictating both sides of every debate and serving as the advisors and controllers of the politicians? Cannot everyone see that this is precisely what is taking place in the real world? The Protocols speak of no-win wars to tear down national sovereignty and promote international organization. Has anyone forgotten the partition of Europe at the end of World War Two? (Rather like the partition of a small Arab country in Palestine at the end of the First World War?) Does anyone remember N.A.T.O., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or S.E.A.T.O., the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization? Did not Korea and Vietnam follow the pattern of no-win wars and never ending international conferences? The Protocols speak of international organizations under Jewish auspices. What were the original League of Nations and the successor United Nations if not precisely this? When the United Nations passed its famous “Zionism is a form of racism” resolution in the mid-1920’s, a certain power stepped in and forced the repeal of the resolution. Was it the same power which sponsored the minorities treaties and the mandate over Palestine in the 1920’s? The Protocols speak of creating emergencies to control the masses. Does this not accurately describe the staged 09/11 incident and the bogus “War on Terror”? Does it not describe the previous emergency of the Great Depression and the emergency measures of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Jew Deal”? The Protocols recommend a centralization of power in the chief executive and the suspension of constitutional procedures. Does this not sound like the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts? The Protocols particularly recommend treating the exposure of subversion as more reprehensible than the subversion itself. Does this not sound exactly like the technique that was used to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy?

If there were an international conspiracy such as the Protocols describe, that conspiracy would need a cover story, a holy lie behind which it could hide its power. That lie would make the imperial power morally unimpeachable and unchallengeable. It might constitute a historical myth making any objective examination of the ruling powers history or behavior beyond the parameters of socially acceptable discourse. The lie, were it questioned and exposed, might even need legal protection making it a crime to write or speak critically on the subject. The lie, were it exposed, might serve as a sort of @#$%&’s Box to all the other lies hiding behind it. The lie might be so “ethnic specific” that its exposure would leave no doubt as to the identity of the international conspirators. Is there such a lie at work in the world today? Yes there is. It is the lie of the Nazi “gas chambers” and the supposedly murdered six million Jews. This lie has as much evidence against it as the Protocols have evidence in their favor. The Jews claim that the Nazi “gassing” program is the most thoroughly documented extermination of all time. But all the evidence rests on a kangaroo court at Nuremberg run by the Jews behind the scenes. No one knew anything about the supposed extermination at the time it was taking place, a fact which is more than suspicious. Key German records of the alleged killing camps were carted off to the Soviet Union and not presented to the kangaroo Nuremberg court. Those records tell a story entirely different than the story told at the trial. The records show that the Auschwitz camp where millions of Jews were supposedly “gassed” was a major industrial production center for the German war effort. The records show that the Jews and others interned in the camps were used as labor for the German war effort. The records further show that a total of 140,000 internees died in the Auschwitz camp over its operation, of whom 70,000 were Jews. The main cause of death was typhus and heart attacks caused by typhus. The records show no evidence of an extermination program whatever. In fact, the records show that the camp was shut down in the summer of 1942 because of a gigantic typhus epidemic. The crematory ovens were built in the spring and summer of 1943 to dispose sanitarily of the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the crematory ovens was consistent with the deaths from disease, not with the millions of claimed deaths. The German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler, issued an order that the death rate in the German labor camps be “reduced at all costs”, an order that is inconsistent with any extermination program. Adolf Hitler was recorded by a German Ministry of the Interior official as stating that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem delayed until “the end of the war”, a position which is utterly irreconcilable with any claim that he was simultaneously exterminating the Jews. The Germans had a special investigating branch of their judiciary under Judge Konrad Morgen to root out abuses of prisoners in the camps. Numerous camp commandants were tried and convicted for these abuses. In the famous Auschwitz camp, the Germans provided hospitals, libraries, theatres and brothels, among other amenities, for the Jews they were supposedly exterminating. The supposed “gas chambers” were nothing but morgues for storing bodies before they could be burned. Those morgues show none of the design characteristics of real gas chambers. They have no means of heating, distributing or ventilating gas. They are hardly airtight. Some of them are built underground, hardly a design advantage. The morgues are rather small and could never have held the claimed number of victims, all of whom would have died of suffocation without any need of “gassing”. The chambers of the morgues show no traces of Prussian Blue hydrogen cyanide residue. The delousing chambers where the Germans were disinfecting the clothing of the prisoners are covered with Zyklon B stain. And that was the real use of the Zyklon B, which was used profusely throughout the camps-to disinfect clothing and barracks to prevent epidemics. Several forensic reports of the so-called “gas chambers” have been performed. The first was by Fred Leuchter, an American designer of prison execution equipment. Subsequent investigations have been performed by the Viennese engineer, Walter Luftl, and the German chemist, Germar Rudolf. All the investigations have confirmed both the test results and the conclusions- there were no execution “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or any other German camp.

Many other revisionist scholars have investigated the multiple absurdities of survivor testimonies and the endlessly conflicting accounts. Among these scholars are Professor Robert Faurrison, Carlo Mattogno, Gerd Honsik, Jurgen Graf, Enrique Aynat Eknes, Germar Rudolf and many others. The survivor testimonies always suffer from three defects:

(1) They are internally inconsistent;

(2) They are inconsistent with each other;

(3) They are inconsistent with the physical facts.

There are other glaring problems with the extermination story. The Jews in many western European countries were not even deported (not exterminated) until very late in the war. Many of the deportations did not even begin until 1944, after the allies had landed at Normandy. In Russia one-half to two-thirds of the Jews had been deported by the heavily Jewish communist regime ahead of the German advance. That is why most of the Jews supposedly exterminated by the Germans were in fact hiding east of the Ural Mountains during the war. After the war, these Jews poured into the commissariats of the Iron Curtain countries in Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and East Germany were top heavy with very much alive Jewish commissars. A huge exodus of Jews poured out of Russia on their way to invade Arab Palestine. Still more went to America and South America disguised as citizens of the countries of their origin. (Poles, Czechs, etc.) Today, there exist tremendous numbers of “survivors” who logically should not exist, collecting never ending reparations. These survivors all insist that the extermination of the Jews was real, even as one survivor story after another is shown to be a fraud.

The Holocaust tale does not mean that large numbers of Jews did not die in World War Two. The true death total was probably between one to two million. That is a lot of deaths but nowhere near the number of German soldiers and civilians who died during and after the war. The significance of the Holocaust Hoax is now clear. It is the obverse side of the Protocols of Zion coin. The design of the Protocols was proved to be true in the earlier part of this essay. Their platform has been fulfilled. The Holocaust Hoax is the proof that the design behind the Protocols is Judaic. It is the warning to the masses: “Don’t look here!” The ban on inquiry into the Protocols is the same as the ban on inquiry into the Holocaust. The reason is precisely the same. The Protocols are the shoe that fits; the Holocaust is the lie that cannot be sustained. The one leads inevitably to the other. They are the hand and the glove with the perfect fit.
[www.tygrrrrexpress.com]

See incisive comments at bottom of blog by John Thames.
[www.amazon.com]

See following incisive reiew of McDermott's book "Why Women And Power Don't Mix". He makes essentially the same arguments I do.
Anonymous User
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 01:12PM
LOL! Why would I be mad? You're funny JT. And long winded. You fit the stereotype of an antifeminst pretty well, like a parody of radical feminism. You're obsessed, bitter, often illogical, are jealous of the opposite sex and possibly demented. As a bonus, you're a racist. The Zyklon B pussy juice cocktail was a nice touch, really. Have you considered a career entertaining right-wing psychos via church or radio? I think Robert on the politics forum would be interested in your ideas about Nazis.
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 04:29PM
I actually like when lunatics are long winded like that. They give you plenty of reason, in their own voluminous and demented words, how and why their views are never to be taken seriously.

.
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 04:34PM
"I fail to see why a wife should be paid for sexual services she does not perform. That would appear to deny the husband the benefit of what he bargained for when he got married." -jt

I imagine john has no trouble with hookers but has a lot of trouble in a relationship.

.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2009 04:35PM by Ponderer.
Sam
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 05:36PM
I'm sure thames and beere are the same guy and if he really believes the crap he's posting is a potentially dangerous person, maybe even a serial killer. Sounds very unstable. You gotta wonder what his mama did or didn't do to him.
I have become accustomed to my critics accusing me of non-existent psychological problems. It is the substitute for rational argument.

Actually, I have never used a prostitute. Nor do I intend to. A great many men who have been financially raped in divorce court undoubtedly wish they had. No, Beere and Thames are not the same guy. I have no criminal record and have never been arrested for anything. I am a great danger to people who know only what the TV set tells them. That, I suspect, is what so offends Myce and others like him.
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 06:13PM
They have different IPs, Sam.

.
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 06:17PM
john, why does a man marry a woman?

Please go into extreme detail, as you seem to have no problem doing, in answering this question. I then have a follow-up question.

.
Sam
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 06:36PM
Hmmm...home vs. work computers? Regardless, then we have 2 potentially dangerous dicks on the loose...
Anonymous User
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 06:47PM
Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But as I'm sure you already suspected, I agree
> with Miss Schlafly's position. She is one smart
> old gal.I fail to see why a wife should be paid
> for sexual services she does not perform. That
> would appear to deny the husband the benefit of
> what he bargained for when he got married.

John, women derive sexual pleasure from putting up a resistance and being overwhelmed; that's a biological fact. If you're too too shy (i.e. too much of a loser) to take charge of your marriage, don't come on the Internet spreading misogyny. Being shy is a weakness and men shouldn't have weaknesses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2009 06:49PM by Juergen.
Anonymous User
Re: Women's suffrage was a mistake
October 19, 2009 06:47PM
</troll>
The short answer is to gain access to the baby box she has that he lacks so he can reproduce himself.

Now, let me entertain you with the reality of marriage. It is allegedly a "partnership between equals". Here is how this "partnership" really works. The woman works to support the man who stays home with the kids. The man decides his wife is no longer pleasing to him. He files for no-fault divorce. The wife is automatically hit with a restraining order banishing her from the house. She must pay for the husbands legal costs even though he is walking out on her. He gets the house, the car and all her money. He gets automatic custody of the kids, plus massive child support and alimony. He uses most of the money on himself, not on the kids whose welfare supposedly comes first.If the woman dares to oppose him in any way he files a false accusation that his wife was either abusing him or molesting the kids. The moment that he makes those accusations, the wife is automatically considered dangerous based on the principle that protecting children is more important than protecting falsely accused momies. Besides, false accusations by men against women are never punished by sexually biased judges. Thus, the husband can lie with impunity. If the wife actually does go berserk because she is being taken to the cleaners, then financial rape is no defense to the husband beating charge. Only blacks rioting in the streets or Jews beating up on Palestinian Arabs are entitled to the "I was abused" defense.

The poor woman is destroyed. Everything she ever struggled for has been taken from her - with no cause. She hardly ever gets to see her kids again. Her husband violates her visitation rights with impunity. She gets laid off and can no longer meet her child support payments. She is now a "dead beat" mother - abhorred by the same society that alows "pro-choice" fathers to shoot children they do not want. Her financial indigence is no excuse. She can be shipped off to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight for her country in a meaningless war - but she is still on the hook for rhe child support she cannot pay. She comes home with both legs missing and a greatly enlarged hole where her vagina used to be - only to listen to her ex-husband on the TV yapping about the "oppression of men". She wonders why she was ever dumb enough to trust a man and get married. Now she knows the answer - and so, Ponderer, do you.
Juergen:

I've never been married and I have no intention of getting married. I know better.Women cause misogyny with their behavior the same way Jews cause anti-Semitism with their behavior.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!