You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

[brycejones]

The GOP is full of top men, top men.

 

[HomerJS]

Three Stooges did a bit playing Japanese acrobats, bottom man/top man. I searched for video clips via bing. Such a bad idea

 

[hal2kilo]

Three Stooges did a bit playing Japanese acrobats, bottom man/top man. I searched for video clips via bing. Such a bad idea

Ahh sooo! I think I have it in my collection.

 

[Blackjack200]

Not sure how I feel about all this. What did the guy do that was wrong, that deseved his private life to be brought out into the open like this?

He's not married, he has no kids, he's not cheating on anyone, he wasn't harrassing anyone. He was using an adult service for its legal, intended function. As far as I read, he wasn't really critical of gay people, he did vote against making sexual orientation a protected class, but that seems like a reasonable position to take, even if it's one I disagree with.

IDK, maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[Blanky]

Some years ago I had been following a website for Glock handguns called 'Glocktalk'. As with many gun related sites the followers tend to be very republican and in one of the off-topic areas there was a thread about perverted pols.

I noted with interest that there were many many posts about this dem or that dem with comments about there supposed perverse tendencies. I followed up by agreeing and then added another pol that had been arrested for toe tapping in a men's bathroom as a means of making a gay hookup. I then said, "oh wait, he (Larry Craig) was a republican."

Within minutes several of the posters replied with anger that I'd mentioned a republican. A few minutes after that I was notified I had been banned from the site!

Now, as with most sites, there are policies and mechanisms to handle situations that might involve banning and this site had a policy or warning followed by temp ban and then, if problems continued, permanent banning. On the section of the site covering the banning process there is a item called "reason for banning" as well as the duration of the ban. In my case there was no reason given and the ban, on first offense, was permanent.

So, my offense, though not specified, appears to have been mentioning a republican in a manor that was only permitted for dems.

Yeah, that's tolerance for you. So far that's the only site I've ever been banned from.


Brian

I visit a gun site from time to time and have learned to do my absolute, very best job of avoiding any political discussions because I find the people there to be insane in fairly significant numbers. Not all of them, but certainly more than in P&N.

 

[werepossum]

Knights in white satin
Never reaching an end
Letters are written
Never meaning to send

If by letters you mean emails with dick pics, pretty sure he meant to send those.

Maybe he thinks he's not gay because he's not a bottom.

Ah, the Bill Clinton defense. "I didn't have gay sex! This other dude may have had some gay sex, but even though I might have been standing right behind him with my pants around my ankles I don't even know his name."

Not sure how I feel about all this. What did the guy do that was wrong, that deserved his private life to be brought out into the open like this?

He's not married, he has no kids, he's not cheating on anyone, he wasn't harassing anyone. He was using an adult service for its legal, intended function. As far as I read, he wasn't really critical of gay people, he did vote against making sexual orientation a protected class, but that seems like a reasonable position to take, even if it's one I disagree with.

IDK, maybe I'm missing something here.

Agreed, unless he's opposing those bills as a cover. That would be despicable. I don't know if it applies here, but other Republicans (and some Democrats) have done that in the past so it's certainly possible.

 

[trenchfoot]

Some years ago I had been following a website for Glock handguns called 'Glocktalk'. As with many gun related sites the followers tend to be very republican and in one of the off-topic areas there was a thread about perverted pols.

I noted with interest that there were many many posts about this dem or that dem with comments about there supposed perverse tendencies. I followed up by agreeing and then added another pol that had been arrested for toe tapping in a men's bathroom as a means of making a gay hookup. I then said, "oh wait, he (Larry Craig) was a republican."

Within minutes several of the posters replied with anger that I'd mentioned a republican. A few minutes after that I was notified I had been banned from the site!

Now, as with most sites, there are policies and mechanisms to handle situations that might involve banning and this site had a policy or warning followed by temp ban and then, if problems continued, permanent banning. On the section of the site covering the banning process there is a item called "reason for banning" as well as the duration of the ban. In my case there was no reason given and the ban, on first offense, was permanent.

So, my offense, though not specified, appears to have been mentioning a republican in a manor that was only permitted for dems.

Yeah, that's tolerance for you. So far that's the only site I've ever been banned from.


Brian

You were sticking a needle in their bubble. They don't like it when the bubble they're floating around in is threatened with a rude poke of a needle called reality.

It would have been just as bad as if you had mentioned that all of their day dreaming about being the badass gun-sling'in root'in-toot'in straight-as-an-arrow-shoot'in hombre with a secret hanker'in for a mud-pack'in session with Steven Seagal was just not going to happen......ever.

 

[smackababy]

Is this really news? I could put my pictures as Obama on Grindr and try to pick up men. Does that make Obama gay?

Also, by messaging someone on Grindr, you are soliciting dick pics. It is a hookup app for homosexuals, and a quite effective one I hear.

 

[Subyman]

My grandmothers died before I was born. Perhaps you felt my words implied there is something wrong with you.

Nope, just wanted to throw a joke out there

 

[SMOGZINN]

I can't. It requires the suspension of a reality I can't shake.

Okay, lets see what reality that is.

What must appear as delight to some I see only as little children.

But they are not little children, they are adults. This is not reality, this is your delusion you are having a problem shaking. Maybe you are having a problem telling delusion from reality?

The idea of lusting over children, I find disgusting.

I notice that you don't say that you are not lusting over children, only that you find it disgusting.

I don't want to feed an industry where children grow up to bump and grind for money to titillate my dick.

Is it the fact that they grow up that keeps you from wanting to feed the industry? Would you prefer it if they remained children bumping and grinding to titillate your dick?

I have no objection to the notion that pornography appeals to something within us that is natural and even healthy, depending on how it is expressed. I see, however, nothing in the manner of appeal that is healthy.

Not everyone feels as you do. Most of us see the naked people before us as the consenting adults they are. Most of us are not fantasizing about children when we watch pornography.

 

[werepossum]

Okay, lets see what reality that is.

But they are not little children, they are adults. This is not reality, this is your delusion you are having a problem shaking. Maybe you are having a problem telling delusion from reality?


I notice that you don't say that you are not lusting over children, only that you find it disgusting.


Is it the fact that they grow up that keeps you from wanting to feed the industry? Would you prefer it if they remained children bumping and grinding to titillate your dick?



Not everyone feels as you do. Most of us see the naked people before us as the consenting adults they are. Most of us are not fantasizing about children when we watch pornography.

lol Well said.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

My grandmothers died before I was born. Perhaps you felt my words implied there is something wrong with you. I mentioned my opinion about the extent of sexual repression even among liberals. I see porn as an exploitive industry with all sorts of unsavory connections. I consciously boycott the industry and am happy doing so. Perhaps there will be others who can be happy too, doing the same.

I boycott organized religion because it holds no appeal for me, but I stop short of calling all religious people child molesters. You're making a serious value judgment on everyone who engages in an activity you personally don't engage in, and then pretend you don't understand how your words might appear offensive. Don't be surprised when people respond to your pretension with derision.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Some years ago I had been following a website for Glock handguns called 'Glocktalk'. As with many gun related sites the followers tend to be very republican and in one of the off-topic areas there was a thread about perverted pols.

I noted with interest that there were many many posts about this dem or that dem with comments about there supposed perverse tendencies. I followed up by agreeing and then added another pol that had been arrested for toe tapping in a men's bathroom as a means of making a gay hookup. I then said, "oh wait, he (Larry Craig) was a republican."

Within minutes several of the posters replied with anger that I'd mentioned a republican. A few minutes after that I was notified I had been banned from the site!

Now, as with most sites, there are policies and mechanisms to handle situations that might involve banning and this site had a policy or warning followed by temp ban and then, if problems continued, permanent banning. On the section of the site covering the banning process there is a item called "reason for banning" as well as the duration of the ban. In my case there was no reason given and the ban, on first offense, was permanent.

So, my offense, though not specified, appears to have been mentioning a republican in a manor that was only permitted for dems.

Yeah, that's tolerance for you. So far that's the only site I've ever been banned from.


Brian

What you should have done is you should have made several posts about "perverted" R polititians without mentioning their party affiliations and watch everyone quote you/agree with you until someone finally realized what was happening. You would have been banned either way, but this way is a lot more fun

 

[BoberFett]

Not sure how I feel about all this. What did the guy do that was wrong, that deseved his private life to be brought out into the open like this?

He's not married, he has no kids, he's not cheating on anyone, he wasn't harrassing anyone. He was using an adult service for its legal, intended function. As far as I read, he wasn't really critical of gay people, he did vote against making sexual orientation a protected class, but that seems like a reasonable position to take, even if it's one I disagree with.

IDK, maybe I'm missing something here.

What you're missing is the perverse culture that has been building up on the Democrat side where there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

What you're missing is the perverse culture that has been building up on the Democrat side where there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

I kind of agree Bobber, lets not forget the Republicans either. They are guilty too.
We've become too partisan and we all tend to ignore what's in front of us.

 

[smackababy]

IDK, maybe I'm missing something here.

You are missing something. Anyone who does anything remotely against the advancement of gays is a legal target under the Laws of Armed Combat. A couple years ago you donated for a vote that didn't even pass? Shamed publicly until you are ousted from you position at the company you work for!

 

[BoberFett]

I kind of agree Bobber, lets not forget the Republicans either. They are guilty too.
We've become too partisan and we all tend to ignore what's in front of us.

Absolutely they are, Republicans are just as filthy as Democrats.

I think most people are good. The rank and file who go to work every day, take care of their families, and pull a lever every couple of years marked R or D, they're just living their lives.

But the people who rise to power and the mudslingers who support them unequivocally (i.e., most people in this forum) are the problem.

Republicans get nasty, there's no doubt about that. They'll attack women, homosexuals, and whoever else offends their bible-thumping sensitivies. But just look at how disgustingly the Democrats act in this forum. God forbid a Republican makes a comment about a Democrat, then they're hate mongering bigots. Making fun of Sarah Palin's mentally handicapped child is A-OK with them, because she's the enemy.

That's why I wish the hardcore Ds and Rs would just get it over with and kill each other. Let the rest of us live in peace.

 

[BoberFett]

You are missing something. Anyone who does anything remotely against the advancement of gays is a legal target under the Laws of Armed Combat. A couple years ago you donated for a vote that didn't even pass? Shamed publicly until you are ousted from you position at the company you work for!

You have to understand the nutty position that has become big with the "liberal" crowd these days, intersectionality and the Oppression Olympics.

Think of it as a rating of all your traits based on a simple chart. Just add them up and see what your score is. If you have a high number, you have nothing to complain about and are not allowed to criticize anyone. Making fun of you is fair game because that's "punching up". You are not allowed to comment about anyone with a lower score than you, because that's "punching down" and you need to check your privilege, shitlord.

Transexual -10
Black -9
Democrat -7
Homosexual -5
Female -5
Muslim -5
Hispanic -4
Atheist -2
Asian 0
Heterosexual +4
Christian +5
Male +5
White +8
Republican +9
Wealthy +10

Sarah Palin, being a wealthy (10), white (8), Christian (5), Republican (9) woman (-5) scores a 27. She's fair game for almost anybody.

Obama of course cannot be made fun of by anyone. Not even comedians.

It will be interesting to see where Bruce Jenner ends up. She has all the sympathy from the left as an oppressed transexual. But there could still be enough room to make fun of her and get away with it due to being a a wealthy, white Republican.

 

[hal2kilo]

I boycott organized religion because it holds no appeal for me, but I stop short of calling all religious people child molesters. You're making a serious value judgment on everyone who engages in an activity you personally don't engage in, and then pretend you don't understand how your words might appear offensive. Don't be surprised when people respond to your pretension with derision.

So Moony's a prude, who knew. Maybe I have MDS.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Transexual -10
Black -9
Democrat -7
Homosexual -5
Female -5
Muslim -5
Hispanic -4
Atheist -2
Asian 0
Heterosexual +4
Christian +5
Male +5
White +8
Republican +9
Wealthy +10

Any ratings system which says that literally everyone in the world is allowed to make fun of Donald Trump is a rating system I can get behind.

 

[ivwshane]

I kind of agree Bobber, lets not forget the Republicans either. They are guilty too.
We've become too partisan and we all tend to ignore what's in front of us.

When democrats start creating voter ID laws that disproportionally target republican voters and pass laws at the local level that effectively ban gun sales by targeting gun sellers and forcing them to abide by ridiculous no point restrictions/regulations and at the federal level the dems start adding gun ban type language to every bill or when dems start holding the country hostage over congressional procedures that haven't been controversial (aside from scoring political points), and when dems start filibustering their own bills, only then will your point be accurate.

This false equivalency is pure bullshit trotted out by hacks who have realized their teams un stopping decline of American relevance who's only option is tear down their opponent as opposed to actually putting out new and better ideas.

 

[ivwshane]

Absolutely they are, Republicans are just as filthy as Democrats.

I think most people are good. The rank and file who go to work every day, take care of their families, and pull a lever every couple of years marked R or D, they're just living their lives.

But the people who rise to power and the mudslingers who support them unequivocally (i.e., most people in this forum) are the problem.

Republicans get nasty, there's no doubt about that. They'll attack women, homosexuals, and whoever else offends their bible-thumping sensitivies. But just look at how disgustingly the Democrats act in this forum. God forbid a Republican makes a comment about a Democrat, then they're hate mongering bigots. Making fun of Sarah Palin's mentally handicapped child is A-OK with them, because she's the enemy.

That's why I wish the hardcore Ds and Rs would just get it over with and kill each other. Let the rest of us live in peace.

Lol! "The rest of us"? You poor, poor hack!

 

[Steeplerot]

The righties never fail to amuse!

 

[norseamd]

From the nym it sounds like he prefers to pitch instead of catch.

But something that is funny about that is that many good old boys think that to give can never be gay but to ever receive is always gay. And it has actually long roots in Western society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar#Rumors_of_homosexual_practices

 

[nickqt]

You have to understand the nutty position that has become big with the "liberal" crowd these days, intersectionality and the Oppression Olympics.

Think of it as a rating of all your traits based on a simple chart. Just add them up and see what your score is. If you have a high number, you have nothing to complain about and are not allowed to criticize anyone. Making fun of you is fair game because that's "punching up". You are not allowed to comment about anyone with a lower score than you, because that's "punching down" and you need to check your privilege, shitlord.

Transexual -10
Black -9
Democrat -7
Homosexual -5
Female -5
Muslim -5
Hispanic -4
Atheist -2
Asian 0
Heterosexual +4
Christian +5
Male +5
White +8
Republican +9
Wealthy +10

Sarah Palin, being a wealthy (10), white (8), Christian (5), Republican (9) woman (-5) scores a 27. She's fair game for almost anybody.

Obama of course cannot be made fun of by anyone. Not even comedians.

It will be interesting to see where Bruce Jenner ends up. She has all the sympathy from the left as an oppressed transexual. But there could still be enough room to make fun of her and get away with it due to being a a wealthy, white Republican.

LOL Republicans pretending to be Libertarians.