This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Watch First Hooker Nudge Fake #45 To Remind Him To Raise His Hand During National Anthem

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

RealLindaL wrote:
del.capslock wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:Good grief, if you call THAT "fleshy"...   What does that say about the rest of us aging mortals?

Oh, come on. Women stop caring about being sexually attractive to men once they've gotten their hooks into one. She probably spends thousands of dollars a month on dieticians, personal trainers, aestheticians--whatever the hell that is--and all the rest her personal beauty staff. Without them she'd blow up like a Macy's float, just like every Slavic female.

Women have a sell-by date--everyone knows that--and she's passed it. Young, hot women are a valuable commodity. Older, fleshy ones...   not so much. Unless they're married to a really rich guy. Then they'll drive the poor bastard to an early grave and spend the money on dumb shit.


Spoken like a true misogynist.   Could almost start to feel sorry for poor hate-filled del.caps, not to mention any other people (especially women) unfortunate enough to be a part of his dark, cloud-filled life.  

cheers  cheers  cheers And here I thought more progressive men were not misogynists! Argue against their policies, that's fine and expected but to attack her on sexual attractiveness etc. is not cool.

Like people could have a field day in that regard with 45 wondering about his abilities in that area but actually yuck, who wants to even think about that with so many other areas of real concern and incompetence to hit on?

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
del.capslock wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:Good grief, if you call THAT "fleshy"...   What does that say about the rest of us aging mortals?

Oh, come on. Women stop caring about being sexually attractive to men once they've gotten their hooks into one. She probably spends thousands of dollars a month on dieticians, personal trainers, aestheticians--whatever the hell that is--and all the rest her personal beauty staff. Without them she'd blow up like a Macy's float, just like every Slavic female.

Women have a sell-by date--everyone knows that--and she's passed it. Young, hot women are a valuable commodity. Older, fleshy ones...   not so much. Unless they're married to a really rich guy. Then they'll drive the poor bastard to an early grave and spend the money on dumb shit.


Spoken like a true misogynist.   Could almost start to feel sorry for poor hate-filled del.caps, not to mention any other people (especially women) unfortunate enough to be a part of his dark, cloud-filled life.  

cheers  cheers  cheers And here I thought more progressive men were not misogynists! Argue against their policies, that's fine and expected but to attack her on sexual attractiveness etc. is not cool.

Like people could have a field day in that regard with 45 wondering about his abilities in that area but actually yuck, who wants to even think about that with so many other areas of real concern and incompetence to hit on?









Fake #45 can compare his trophy hooker#3 to any cloth coated republican wife. In fact he already has.


View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I did not even bother to respond to this thread because it is offensive.  I have nothing but empathy for the first lady.  I was disgusted by those who tried to shame the former first lady, and I find nothing of value in this thread.   I was hoping nobody would respond and it would go away, but the socks cannot help being crass.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Leave her alone.  She did not run for president, and you can bet she is not happy about any of this.  President Obama and Michelle were a team, the current first lady did not have a lot to say about this tragedy.

Wow! This thread has opened a huge can of worms, how interesting! I agree with you on the point of the first lady not signing on for this crazy turn of events of her husband being elected. She turns out to be an easy target for people who want to attack someone without fear of retaliation. Big brave guys picking on a woman who never asked to be where she is today.

Some of us agree or disagree on political issues, men and women alike on various sides of an issue but, except for Mr. Oats, this has broken down into a gender issue. There is a lot of room here for a good discussion, hmm.

View user profile
Telstar wrote:Not that I mean fake#45 is unpatriotic, just that he's brain damaged like the poor backward hillbillies that installed him into our house.

There are two types of Republicans, billionaires and suckers. Check your wallet to see which one you are.

Saw this on another site recently and thought it fit with your post.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I did not even bother to respond to this thread because it is offensive.  I have nothing but empathy for the first lady.  I was disgusted by those who tried to shame the former first lady, and I find nothing of value in this thread.   I was hoping nobody would respond and it would go away, but the socks cannot help being crass.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Leave her alone.  She did not run for president, and you can bet she is not happy about any of this.  President Obama and Michelle were a team, the current first lady did not have a lot to say about this tragedy.

Wow! This thread has opened a huge can of worms, how interesting! I agree with you on the point of the first lady not signing on for this crazy turn of events of her husband being elected. She turns out to be an easy target for people who want to attack someone without fear of retaliation. Big brave guys picking on a woman who never asked to be where she is today.

Some of us agree or disagree on political issues, men and women alike on various sides of an issue but, except for Mr. Oats, this has broken down into a gender issue. There is a lot of room here for a good discussion, hmm.

One set of standards... thank you.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:

One set of standards... thank you.

Oh, shut up.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
othershoe1030 wrote:
Telstar wrote:Not that I mean fake#45 is unpatriotic, just that he's brain damaged like the poor backward hillbillies that installed him into our house.

There are two types of Republicans, billionaires and suckers. Check your wallet to see which one you are.

Saw this on another site recently and thought it fit with your post.







LOL it does indeed. lol!

View user profile
I am sadly disturbed to discover some of our male posters exhibiting attitudes toward women that Bill O'reilly would admire except for the fact that the first lady is married to a Republican so that would hold Bill in check.

This quote pretty much sums up my attitude toward gender issues.


Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:

Wow! This thread has opened a huge can of worms, how interesting! I agree with you on the point of the first lady not signing on for this crazy turn of events of her husband being elected.

The point is that she DID sign on for this when she married Trump. She made a career of posing in sexually provocative fashion spreads--which she was able to do because of a genetic mix that gave her a sexually attractive physique--then, when she attracted the attention of a notorious and obscenely wealthy philanderer, she married him.

Her whole career was based on nothing more than her looks. Youth and beauty are NOT accomplishments. She has never accomplished one thing that improves the human condition.

No one held a gun to her head. And now that her bargain is turning out differently than she'd hoped, everyone is worried about her feelings.

Tough shit.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:

Wow! This thread has opened a huge can of worms, how interesting! I agree with you on the point of the first lady not signing on for this crazy turn of events of her husband being elected.

The point is that she DID sign on for this when she married Trump. She made a career of posing in sexually provocative fashion spreads--which she was able to do because of a genetic mix that gave her a sexually attractive physique--then, when she attracted the attention of a notorious and obscenely wealthy philanderer, she married him.

Her whole career was based on nothing more than her looks. Youth and beauty are NOT accomplishments. She has never accomplished one thing that improves the human condition.

No one held a gun to her head. And now that her bargain is turning out differently than she'd hoped, everyone is worried about her feelings.

Tough shit.

It is not a stretch to say that back when Donald was cheating and skimping his way through the real estate development game in NYC it was difficult to picture such a con man sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. Sure she traded her assets for his assets, no doubt. I hardly think she expected to be under the media spotlight to the extent she is now, do you?

It could be said that she sold her good looks in the fashion (or whatever) market. He, on the other hand, bragged about taking what he wanted because he was a powerful male. She was marketing herself; he was stealing. She is being dragged through the mud and he is president. She may have "signed on" for the position of trophy wife but not First Lady.

The "can of worms" referred to has nothing to do with the First Family. It has to do with the crass comments posted by some here on this forum, comments I did not expect to see, but oh well.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:I am sadly disturbed to discover some of our male posters exhibiting attitudes toward women that Bill O'reilly would admire except for the fact that the first lady is married to a Republican so that would hold Bill in check.

This quote pretty much sums up my attitude toward gender issues.


Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.




Maybe. Nobody is certain that sub-moderators are people. scratch

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:

It could be said that she sold her good looks in the fashion (or whatever) market. He, on the other hand, bragged about taking what he wanted because he was a powerful male. She was marketing herself; he was stealing. She is being dragged through the mud and he is president. She may have "signed on" for the position of trophy wife but not First Lady.

The "can of worms" referred to has nothing to do with the First Family. It has to do with the crass comments posted by some here on this forum, comments I did not expect to see, but oh well. [/color]




Maybe if she can't stand the heat from we the people she should divorce herself from the kitchen in chief. As for crass comments I guess you learn something new every day. Just saying. Cool


View user profile
Yes, I learn many things every day. What bothers me about the sexist comments directed at the first lady is they are like racists comments. A whole group of people (women beyond Melania) is dehumanized by whoever makes the comments rather than being addressed or considered to be a co-equal human being.

I always wonder how these men would feel if the same types of comments that say Bill O'Reilly was making to some of his co-workers were being made to their sisters, wives, mothers, aunts, or daughters? It is not as if all men don't have at least one woman in their lives that they respect as a person above and beyond her age or sex appeal?

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote: A whole group of people (women beyond Melania) is dehumanized by whoever makes the comments rather than being addressed or considered to be a co-equal human being.


Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects. There's two sides to this coin, othershoe1030, but you REFUSE to acknowledge it. On this issue, you're just like PkrBitch, bleating "Snowflake! Snowflake!" all the time. Substitute sexism for snowflake and there you are.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote: A whole group of people (women beyond Melania) is dehumanized by whoever makes the comments rather than being addressed or considered to be a co-equal human being.


Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects. There's two sides to this coin, othershoe1030, but you REFUSE to acknowledge it. On this issue, you're just like PkrBitch, bleating "Snowflake! Snowflake!" all the time. Substitute sexism for snowflake and there you are.


I once posed nude for a sculptor. Does that make me a HO?

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
I once posed nude for a sculptor.  Does that make me a HO?


Ooooh! Yer making me hot! Got any pics?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects.

Stupid is hard to fix, but insecure little men are a hoot when trying to define how a beautiful young women should behave.

In 1963, while working on an article for Huntington Hartford's Show magazine, Steinem was employed as a Playboy Bunny at the New York Playboy Club. The article, published in 1963 as "A Bunny's Tale", featured a photo of Steinem in Bunny uniform and detailed how women were treated at those clubs. Steinem has maintained that she is proud of the work she did publicizing the exploitative working conditions of the bunnies and especially the sexual demands made of them, which skirted the edge of the law. However, for a brief period after the article was published, Steinem was unable to land other assignments; in her words, this was "because I had now become a Bunny – and it didn't matter why."


Little men with little equipment trying to define a woman's sexuality. Nothing changes much. The first lady, whether it is Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, or Betty Ford have always had applied to them men's standards of what a "good woman" should be.....Betty Ford said F that, and the country cheered, but the same chit every woman faces continues. When you have a daughter, a wife, and grand daughters you temper the judgment, and see the humanity. It helps actually having a relationship with a woman and not being in your basement posting on a computer in your mom's house.

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote: A whole group of people (women beyond Melania) is dehumanized by whoever makes the comments rather than being addressed or considered to be a co-equal human being.


Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects. There's two sides to this coin, othershoe1030, but you REFUSE to acknowledge it. On this issue, you're just like PkrBitch, bleating "Snowflake! Snowflake!" all the time. Substitute sexism for snowflake and there you are.


This is a strange argument. I see what you mean about some women turning themselves into sex objects. But there are two different things going on here.

There is a double standard wherein men are given the "get out of jail free" card that reads: "Boys will be Boys!" as in when 45 bragged about getting away with sexual assault. On the other hand Melania is being maligned for her past while Trump gets the good ol' boy pass.

It could be said that she sold her good looks in the fashion (or whatever) market. He, on the other hand, bragged about taking what he wanted because he was a powerful male. She was marketing herself; he was stealing. She is being dragged through the mud and he is president.

Even you thought Telstar had gone too far in the title of this thread:


Gee, Tel, hooker's a little harsh, ain't it?

Really, she is First Lady and she's no kid anymore so she's gettin' kinda fleshy--stress eating, probably--so wouldn't First Former Escort be more respectful?

But then you had to continue with the First Former Escort taunt and continued with a critique of her looks. See where the sexism comes in? It is that the guy gets rewarded for crass behavior and the woman gets the scarlet letter.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects.

Stupid is hard to fix, but insecure little men are a hoot when trying to define how a beautiful young women should behave.

In 1963, while working on an article for Huntington Hartford's Show magazine, Steinem was employed as a Playboy Bunny at the New York Playboy Club. The article, published in 1963 as "A Bunny's Tale", featured a photo of Steinem in Bunny uniform and detailed how women were treated at those clubs. Steinem has maintained that she is proud of the work she did publicizing the exploitative working conditions of the bunnies and especially the sexual demands made of them, which skirted the edge of the law. However, for a brief period after the article was published, Steinem was unable to land other assignments; in her words, this was "because I had now become a Bunny – and it didn't matter why."


You're making my exact point, you dimwit! When women allow themselves to become sex objects, serious people no longer take them seriously.

You're starting to exhibit an unhealthy interest in my "equipment". What's going on here, you want me to send you some pics or something? Has your fantasy life shriveled to the point that you need some new material to stoke the old libido when you're interfering with yourself?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
I can care less if #45 is Bobbitized. I despise her because of what she is married to. I have as much respect for Melania as I would Eva Braun, The Countess Bathroy or The whore of Babylon. Respecting her as a woman is giving her a thousand times more respect than the cheap slut deserves but that's just me. Sue me. What a Face

View user profile
The misogyny in this thread is disheartening and disgusting.

I've been loathe to even acknowledge it.

But, I have to tell you, I'm beginning to think it's indicative of the mindset of a broad swath of America.

I had convinced myself that Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate combined with a perfect storm of adversity.

My first choice would've been Elizabeth Warren.

I thought she combined the best of Sanders' policy prescriptions with a more appealing personality.

I've been participating on another forum with a much more diverse participation profile and with a large contingent of Reagan Democrat/Trump supporter types.

Sadly, they are already focused and organized to savage Warren in much the same way they savaged Clinton.

It is pathetic that in the 21st Century, we remain so deeply misogynistic and unprepared to elect a female president.

The American electorate is ignorant and backward.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote: A whole group of people (women beyond Melania) is dehumanized by whoever makes the comments rather than being addressed or considered to be a co-equal human being.


Women dehumanize themselves when they turn themselves into sex objects. There's two sides to this coin, othershoe1030, but you REFUSE to acknowledge it. On this issue, you're just like PkrBitch, bleating "Snowflake! Snowflake!" all the time. Substitute sexism for snowflake and there you are.


This is a strange argument. I see what you mean about some women turning themselves into sex objects. But there are two different things going on here.

There is a double standard wherein men are given the "get out of jail free" card that reads: "Boys will be Boys!" as in when 45 bragged about getting away with sexual assault. On the other hand Melania is being maligned for her past while Trump gets the good ol' boy pass.

It could be said that she sold her good looks in the fashion (or whatever) market. He, on the other hand, bragged about taking what he wanted because he was a powerful male. She was marketing herself; he was stealing. She is being dragged through the mud and he is president.

Even you thought Telstar had gone too far in the title of this thread:


Gee, Tel, hooker's a little harsh, ain't it?

Really, she is First Lady and she's no kid anymore so she's gettin' kinda fleshy--stress eating, probably--so wouldn't First Former Escort be more respectful?

But then you had to continue with the First Former Escort taunt and continued with a critique of her looks. See where the sexism comes in? It is that the guy gets rewarded for crass behavior and the woman gets the scarlet letter.

Aye yi yi, the mind reels...

This is the stupidest--although typically female--argument I've ever heard. She's used her looks and only her looks to get ahead and now you're saying her looks can't be criticized? Jesus! That's like saying a guy who uses his ballplaying skills to become a major league ball player can't be criticized when he lets himself go to seed and starts making wild throws. That doesn't even make sense.

Nobody forced her to pose suggestively, she did it for money and she made the decision to stay in the public eye. She can't escape the continuing consequences of that decision without making public amends. She's never acknowledged the grievous harm she others just like her have done to young women everywhere. Just think what young girls with average looks felt when they saw her "fashion" pics. The whole industry is toxic for young women and she made a bundle taking part in it.

There's no "boys will be boys" nonsense on my part,  I don't think Trump should have gotten a pass on his behavior and I dare you to find any comment of mine that would indicate otherwise.

While you're looking, check with your doctor and see if you can get a humor implant or something. Female comedians make much more pointed comments everyday about other women's looks. Is it your contention that only women should be allowed to criticize other women's looks?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
The American electorate is ignorant and backward.


It takes your breath away, but my dealing with three bank clerks a couple days ago just leaves me speechless. We just are not teaching civics, and a show like the today show used to have hard news coming from a well structured news organization. It has been replaced with people drinking wine and talking about movies.....celebrity......and mindless pap. When I try to speak to the average American and will often stop them in mid sentence and ask a question where they have made assumptions which quite frankly are not earthly. Orson Wells may have been correct.....we have been invaded by aliens.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:  Orson Wells may have been correct.....we have been invaded by aliens.



It wasn't the aliens that did it. It was the wine that killed Orson. Drink is the ruin of many a man.


View user profile
Sal wrote:The misogyny in this thread is disheartening and disgusting.

I've been loathe to even acknowledge it.

But, I have to tell you, I'm beginning to think it's indicative of the mindset of a broad swath of America.

I had convinced myself that Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate combined with a perfect storm of adversity.

My first choice would've been Elizabeth Warren.

I thought she combined the best of Sanders' policy prescriptions with a more appealing personality.

I've been participating on another forum with a much more diverse participation profile and with a large contingent of Reagan Democrat/Trump supporter types.

Sadly, they are already focused and organized to savage Warren in much the same way they savaged Clinton.

It is pathetic that in the 21st Century, we remain so deeply misogynistic and unprepared to elect a female president.

The American electorate is ignorant and backward.




We needed a woman's touch in our White House. What we have is a mafia pimp and his cheap two bit tramp.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum