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

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

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

OMG!  This is like watching some duffer's arteries harden.

Let's see, we jump from bank tellers a couple days ago to teaching civics to the today show to people drinking wine and talking about movies to mindless pap to "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" which makes no sense whatsoever to Orson Welles and aliens.

Gets some help, oats, you're ticking off a bunch of boxes on the pre-dementia checklist here. Seriously, schedule an exam with a neurologist. There's medications that can slow the progression of the disease.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Sal wrote:The misogyny in this thread is disheartening and disgusting.

My sentiments exactly, Sal, and I agree with othershoe that all of this is somewhat surprising and disappointing to see coming from liberal men, whom I tend to consider generally more open minded and forward-thinking -- a misplaced prejudice of my own, I guess.

Like you, I may have to come to some conclusions that my mind doesn't want to see.

But then, I shouldn't really be very shocked, I suppose.   Seaoat speaks of "insecure little men" and I think he's hit that nail on the head, if you'll forgive the metaphor.   I spent a thirty year career in a world of men (largely) and I guess was considered something of a pioneer in my field in that regard.  I can say from my own long experience that, over time, it became apparent that it was indeed the most tiny-minded, insecure men who were the most offensive toward not only women, but everyone.  Somehow they were under the serious mis-impression that it made them appear bigger or better by stepping on others, when just the opposite was and is true.  We all know the type.

I'm no psychologist -- don't pretend to be -- but it seems just plain logical that, for whatever reason(s), these men must've been fearful and/or resentful of strong women, if not of women in general, and thus felt the need to denigrate them, assign motivations to them of their own choosing (mostly sexual, an assertion of false power), codify and put them into labeled boxes, and engage in all the rest of the behavior we've come to recognize as deep-seated misogyny.

It's truly sad, really quite pitiful, to see these individuals stuck in the arrogant, judgmental mindset of prior centuries, unable to mature and recognize all that women have to offer in society and the world of work.

(As an aside, I'm not speaking specifically of the attitudes displayed here toward Melania Trump; I truly have no idea whether she's deserving of pity or loathing or admiration or what.  I'm simply cognizant of my inability to render that kind of judgment, being entirely unfamiliar with her as a person.)

But back to the workplace: I can honestly say that, in my experience, the men who inspired the most admiration, respect, loyalty, and even affection from their coworkers -- male and female -- and who most often grew into leadership roles and highly successful careers, were those who, far from feeling the need to denigrate women, were genuinely proud and happy for the achievements of the capable females in the organization, and who not only applauded their abilities but often actively mentored them (and me!) toward fulfilling their true potential.

I'll just add (at the risk of overstaying my welcome on this post), that, in my opinion -- for whatever it's worth -- engaging in backward-thinking, tiny-minded, hate-filled rhetoric here is far more damaging to the poster's credibility than any error of grammar, style, or even fact.

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

My sentiments exactly, Sal, and I agree with othershoe that all of this is somewhat surprising and disappointing to see coming from liberal men, whom I tend to consider generally more open minded and forward-thinking -- a misplaced prejudice of my own, I guess.

Like you, I may have to come to some conclusions that my mind doesn't want to see.

But then, I shouldn't really be very shocked, I suppose.   Seaoat speaks of "insecure little men" and I think he's hit that nail on the head, if you'll forgive the metaphor.   I spent a thirty year career in a world of men (largely) and I guess was considered something of a pioneer in my field in that regard.  I can say from my own long experience that, over time, it became apparent that it was indeed the most tiny-minded, insecure men who were the most offensive toward not only women, but everyone.  Somehow they were under the serious mis-impression that it made them appear bigger or better by stepping on others, when just the opposite was and is true.  We all know the type.

I'm no psychologist -- don't pretend to be -- but it seems just plain logical that, for whatever reason(s), these men must've been fearful and/or resentful of strong women, if not of women in general, and thus felt the need to denigrate them, assign motivations to them of their own choosing (mostly sexual, an assertion of false power), codify and put them into labeled boxes, and engage in all the rest of the behavior we've come to recognize as deep-seated misogyny.

It's truly sad, really quite pitiful, to see these individuals stuck in the arrogant, judgmental mindset of prior centuries, unable to mature and recognize all that women have to offer in society and the world of work.

(As an aside, I'm not speaking specifically of the attitudes displayed here toward Melania Trump; I truly have no idea whether she's deserving of pity or loathing or admiration or what.  I'm simply cognizant of my inability to render that kind of judgment, being entirely unfamiliar with her as a person.)

But back to the workplace: I can honestly say that, in my experience, the men who inspired the most admiration, respect, loyalty, and even affection from their coworkers -- male and female -- and who most often grew into leadership roles and highly successful careers, were those who, far from feeling the need to denigrate women, were genuinely proud and happy for the achievements of the capable females in the organization, and who not only applauded their abilities but often actively mentored them (and me!) toward fulfilling their true potential.

I'll just add (at the risk of overstaying my welcome on this post), that, in my opinion -- for whatever it's worth -- engaging in backward-thinking, tiny-minded, hate-filled rhetoric here is far more damaging to the poster's credibility than any error of grammar, style, or even fact.




Very nice. I still have NO respect for any of the vermin that infest our White House. That's just the way I am.

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

My sentiments exactly, Sal, and I agree with othershoe that all of this is somewhat surprising and disappointing to see coming from liberal men, whom I tend to consider generally more open minded and forward-thinking -- a misplaced prejudice of my own, I guess.

Like you, I may have to come to some conclusions that my mind doesn't want to see.

But then, I shouldn't really be very shocked, I suppose.   Seaoat speaks of "insecure little men" and I think he's hit that nail on the head, if you'll forgive the metaphor.   I spent a thirty year career in a world of men (largely) and I guess was considered something of a pioneer in my field in that regard.  I can say from my own long experience that, over time, it became apparent that it was indeed the most tiny-minded, insecure men who were the most offensive toward not only women, but everyone.  Somehow they were under the serious mis-impression that it made them appear bigger or better by stepping on others, when just the opposite was and is true.  We all know the type.

I'm no psychologist -- don't pretend to be -- but it seems just plain logical that, for whatever reason(s), these men must've been fearful and/or resentful of strong women, if not of women in general, and thus felt the need to denigrate them, assign motivations to them of their own choosing (mostly sexual, an assertion of false power), codify and put them into labeled boxes, and engage in all the rest of the behavior we've come to recognize as deep-seated misogyny.

It's truly sad, really quite pitiful, to see these individuals stuck in the arrogant, judgmental mindset of prior centuries, unable to mature and recognize all that women have to offer in society and the world of work.

(As an aside, I'm not speaking specifically of the attitudes displayed here toward Melania Trump; I truly have no idea whether she's deserving of pity or loathing or admiration or what.  I'm simply cognizant of my inability to render that kind of judgment, being entirely unfamiliar with her as a person.)

But back to the workplace: I can honestly say that, in my experience, the men who inspired the most admiration, respect, loyalty, and even affection from their coworkers -- male and female -- and who most often grew into leadership roles and highly successful careers, were those who, far from feeling the need to denigrate women, were genuinely proud and happy for the achievements of the capable females in the organization, and who not only applauded their abilities but often actively mentored them (and me!) toward fulfilling their true potential.

I'll just add (at the risk of overstaying my welcome on this post), that, in my opinion -- for whatever it's worth -- engaging in backward-thinking, tiny-minded, hate-filled rhetoric here is far more damaging to the poster's credibility than any error of grammar, style, or even fact.


Here we go again with the "insecure little men" bullshit and all that implies. How clever.

Well, since I guess I'm included in that category, perhaps you can open my mind by explaining a few things for me.

Let's start with topless clubs. You can go into almost any city in the civilized world and find clubs where women dance half-naked around poles for men. Is that somehow the fault of "little insecure men"? Do the men force the women to do that? What's going on there, is there something about the pull-and-tug of human sexual relations that I'm missing? Why do the women do that? Why do the men go? Why aren't there an equivalent number of clubs with women watching men?

How about the fashion industry. Why can you look at a picture of men in suits from a hundred years ago and they look pretty much like a picture of men in suits from today--matching pants and jacket, light shirt, necktie. The number of buttons and shape of the coat may change but not by much. Now lets do the same thing with women's clothing, do the outfits look much the same? HA! Explain that to me, why are women obsessed with their appearance?

How about high heels? Go ahead, explain why women wear them. Are they comfortable or do they draw the attention of males.

How about the cosmetics business? Every month it's some new unguent or emollient that will guarantee wrinkle-free youth. Do men do that? Do they worry obsessively over how smooth their skin is? If not, why not? Is there something going on here I don't understand?

Look, here's my point: Men and women have different motivations regarding social relations, but now any acknowledgement of this is called misogyny. Any criticism or even observation of female behavior is a tiny-minded, hate-filled outrage. What nonsense. Women and men are equally guilty in the bizarre world of human socio-sexual relations.

You're equally guilty of passing judgement on any male opinion with which, in your small-minded way, you disagree. And screw Melania Trump, she's not even an honest whore. At least with a whore you get a happy ending for your money. She's a disgraceful human being and deserves everything she gets. She could bail at any time.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Any criticism or even observation of female behavior is a tiny-minded, hate-filled outrage. What nonsense.

sock mockery staged to incite.....poser.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Any criticism or even observation of female behavior is a tiny-minded, hate-filled outrage. What nonsense.

sock mockery staged to incite.....poser.

Hoser!

ul·tra·crep·i·dar·i·an

əltrəkrepəˈderēən/

adjective

1.
expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise.
"“Dad, how do we know the universe is expanding?” inquires your six-year-old. Try answering that without resorting to an ultracrepidarian trick here or there"

noun

1.
a person who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise.
"most patients are ultracrepidarians when it comes to medicine"

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Del. wrote:

How clever.

Yes del. RealLinda is a very clever member of this forum. Certainly clever enough not to buy into the weird obsessions of the gulf breeze banshee like the banshee's drug abusing lap dogs do. If you really want to know the womans point of view you should pester Joani more about it. Most people here consider the retired ER nurse to be pretty much a "mannish boy" so you can hear both sides of the story at the same time. Saint Mary Anthony my ass. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:
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?

For sure we are trying to address way too many topics at once.

I agree that in some circumstances women objectify themselves. I did not mean to suggest that you personally were giving 45 a pass but that the general public had done so by ignoring his behavior and voting him in to office in spite of it.

I am not arguing the entire social/sexual habits of our culture. I am just saying that in this particular case, 45 and his third wife, that 1) she did not expect to be First Lady; 2) she is being maligned for her past behavior and continues to be treated as nothing more than a sex object; 3) his admission of sexual assault was thought to be of little consequence by voters.

I agree that your ballplayer example does not make any sense, lol.

The relationship between men and women is complicated. There are many different settings in which this relationship plays out. Attitudes are evolving but there is still a long way to go. Society would be healthier if women were treated more like contributing, talented, and valuable people.

View user profile
Let's not pretend that these "human socio-sexual relations" occurred in a vacuum.

There's a long history of subjugation and injustice inherent to it all.

It hasn't been so long ago that women were considered property.

These attitudes create a deep and intractable undercurrent that continues to intrude on our relationships in every conceivable way.

That doesn't make it right, and certainly continued objectification serves no useful purpose in a society which strives toward justice for all.

View user profile
Sal wrote:Let's not pretend that these "human socio-sexual relations" occurred in a vacuum.

There's a long history of subjugation and injustice inherent to it all.

It hasn't been so long ago that women were considered property.

These attitudes create a deep and intractable undercurrent that continues to intrude on our relationships in every conceivable way.

That doesn't make it right, and certainly continued objectification serves no useful purpose in a society which strives toward justice for all.




It doesn't help when the first lady excuses talk about grabbing women by their pussies as mere locker room talk. Would she brush off a tape of deplorable Milo talking about grabbing her 10 year old son by his tally wacker? Just saying.

View user profile
Sal wrote:Let's not pretend that these "human socio-sexual relations" occurred in a vacuum.

There's a long history of subjugation and injustice inherent to it all.

It hasn't been so long ago that women were considered property.

These attitudes create a deep and intractable undercurrent that continues to intrude on our relationships in every conceivable way.

That doesn't make it right, and certainly continued objectification serves no useful purpose in a society which strives toward justice for all.

Exactly.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
Sal wrote:Let's not pretend that these "human socio-sexual relations" occurred in a vacuum.

There's a long history of subjugation and injustice inherent to it all.

It hasn't been so long ago that women were considered property.

These attitudes create a deep and intractable undercurrent that continues to intrude on our relationships in every conceivable way.

That doesn't make it right, and certainly continued objectification serves no useful purpose in a society which strives toward justice for all.

Exactly.

If women were subjugated and, at one time, considered property, then it was men who de-subjugated them! What a mistake that's turning out to be!

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Sal wrote:Let's not pretend that these "human socio-sexual relations" occurred in a vacuum.

There's a long history of subjugation and injustice inherent to it all.

It hasn't been so long ago that women were considered property.

These attitudes create a deep and intractable undercurrent that continues to intrude on our relationships in every conceivable way.

That doesn't make it right, and certainly continued objectification serves no useful purpose in a society which strives toward justice for all.

Exactly.

If women were subjugated and, at one time, considered property, then it was men who de-subjugated them! What a mistake that's turning out to be!

If???

View user profile
If women were subjugated and, at one time, considered property, then it was men who de-subjugated them! What a mistake that's turning out to be!


Pretending to be progressive in your views, then saying incredibly stupid things which either you lack the cognitive skills to recognize, or as a sock are simply spamming the forum. If your fears of women are for real as you have indicated in this thread, and not just stupid, or a pretend position, you probably should seek some type of counseling. The First Lady never wanted to be First Lady. She never wanted to be a politician's wife. She chose a high profile developer to marry, and probably never imagined that she would be in the position she is in today. Also, when pulling words out of thin air, try to use the Oxford Dictionary to help you better understand words.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:If women were subjugated and, at one time, considered property, then it was men who de-subjugated them! What a mistake that's turning out to be!


Pretending to be progressive in your views, then saying incredibly stupid things which either you lack the cognitive skills to recognize, or as a sock are simply spamming the forum.  If your fears of women are for real as you have indicated in this thread, and not just stupid, or a pretend position, you probably should seek some type of counseling.  The First Lady never wanted to be First Lady.  She never wanted to be a politician's wife.  She chose a high profile developer to marry, and probably never imagined that she would be in the position she is in today.  Also, when pulling words out of thin air, try to use the Oxford Dictionary to help you better understand words.


Well stated!

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:If women were subjugated and, at one time, considered property, then it was men who de-subjugated them! What a mistake that's turning out to be!


Pretending to be progressive in your views, then saying incredibly stupid things which either you lack the cognitive skills to recognize, or as a sock are simply spamming the forum.  If your fears of women are for real as you have indicated in this thread, and not just stupid, or a pretend position, you probably should seek some type of counseling.  The First Lady never wanted to be First Lady.  She never wanted to be a politician's wife.  She chose a high profile developer to marry, and probably never imagined that she would be in the position she is in today.  Also, when pulling words out of thin air, try to use the Oxford Dictionary to help you better understand words.


The ability to recognize irony, satire and sarcasm is a  well-known indicator of intelligence in children. You flunked the test, sparky.

I've never pretended to be a progressive or anything else. Some of my posts are deeply felt and some are intended to provoke argument. Check the number of replies and the view count on this thread. Whatever I'm doing, it seems to be creating interest. Is that a bad thing?

As far as Melania is concerned, she could divorce Trump at any time. She's not being forced to stay against her will. She could also spill the beans, so to speak--leak or openly publish some dirt on Trump, of which I'm sure she knows plenty.

She's essentially a whore who has made a career on nothing more consequential than her looks. She's a supremely bad example for any young woman on the planet. Women like her contribute to the continued exploitation of women worldwide.

As far as pulling words out of thin air goes, I'll leave you with this from the OED:



Last edited by del.capslock on 4/20/2017, 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Old Business: the initial link in this thread did not take me to the Melania nudge. When I saw this I thought it was cute. Also, the position of the camera makes it look as if the person in the military uniform has sprouted bunny ears like angle wings because the Easter Bunny is standing right behind him.

With a sorry a** administration like this one we have to take our humor where we can find it!


http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2017/04/20/times-i-wish-i-had-melania-trump-nudge-me-action

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:Old Business: the initial link in this thread did not take me to the Melania nudge. When I saw this I thought it was cute. Also, the position of the camera makes it look as if the person in the military uniform has sprouted bunny ears like angle wings because the Easter Bunny is standing right behind him.

With a sorry a** administration like this one we have to take our humor where we can find it!


http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2017/04/20/times-i-wish-i-had-melania-trump-nudge-me-action




There was a GIF of the nudge in the original but I don't see it now. What I do notice is how Baron looks like he would rather crawl under a rock instead of standing out in public next to Mommy Bimbo and Daddy Bozo. " ME, no I'm an orphan that has nothing to do with these two circus clowns I was forced to stand next to."

View user profile
Telstar wrote: What I do notice is how Baron looks like he would rather crawl under a rock instead of standing out in public next to Mommy Bimbo and Daddy Bozo. " ME, no I'm an orphan that has nothing to do with these two circus clowns I was forced to stand next to."

Already, at 11, he knows his parents are fucked up. He'll be in the news for the next twenty years, poor kid. His mother will spoil him, his father will ignore him and he'll be a mess.

I scrolled through a bunch of Google images of him and could not fine ONE of him smiling. Imagine that, an eleven-year old kid, living in luxury that'd make the Sun King blink and you can't find an image of him smiling.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/







View user profile
He's looking like this:



But his friends at boarding school have shown him this:



Yeah, he's gonna be fine.

It's almost criminal child abuse to trot this poor kid out for the public to gawp at.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:He's looking like this:



But his friends at boarding school have shown him this:



Yeah, he's gonna be fine.

It's almost criminal child abuse to trot this poor kid out for the public to gawp at.





Little Baron in THE OMEN 666

View user profile

Sponsored content


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

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

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