discussion comment
11 years ago
@DoctorPhil -- You know...most people don't find day old shit funny. I bet many people judge you for the fact that you do. But I won't judge you. As long as your comfortable saying you find shit HI-lar-EEEE-ous I will just play along.
However, I would like to help you. With most people you'll want to be circumspect about admitting your coprophilia. Try substituting something that most of society finds pleasant.
For example, when talking to your buddies you might say "I was up all night last evening...I went out and paid a streetwalker to take a big...uh...plant a big flower on my face. Ain't nothing i dig more than a good Hot Kar...uh...hot petunia!".
That way nobody will catch onto your obsession with feces!
P.S. do stay away from me though. I won't judge you but I don't want to shake your hand after you've been putting 'em in shit.
discussion comment
11 years ago
*Christianity is, in reality, too diverse a group to paint with a single brush.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Esta -- In an effort to dial back some of the acrimony and be fair to ATACdawg I will say that many Christians have been motivated by their religion to do good. It is a bit unfair to saddle modern practitioners of a religion with all the sins of the past (nor should they credited with the positives that were accomplished in the name of their religion). Christians is, in reality, to diverse a group to paint with a single brush.
Although that is my general feeling that most groups are pretty diverse, it is interesting to see a particular strain of American conservative emerge in some recent posts. There seems to be a lot of paranoia in this group. Unless they're joking, these conservatives don't just feel that modern progressives (which have essentially no power in modern American politics) aren't just wrong on policy issues but that they are EVIL.
Yep...progressives are actually Nazis who are out to kill good conservatives, enslave puppies, and force good conservative men to eat apple pies that have been defiled in a manner akin to the movie "American Pie". DoctorPhil's world must be a very scary place...fortunately he KNOWS who is out to get him. I just hope that whackjob isn't going to lose it and go all postal on a Progressive insurance agent someday. SMH
discussion comment
11 years ago
DoctorPhil...were you born damaged or did some hot liberal chick stand you up from your high school prom? Your posts ain't normal my friend. You clearly need professional help. Please seek it out before you become a danger to yourself or others.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@DrPhil... Well, I've got no problem with southerners, coon asses, rednecks, and hillbillies. But Christians...they're pretty fucked up.
If we're going to play PC games... Yes, ilbbaicnl was pretty obnoxious right there. To be fair, at least some cops in both the backwoods and in big cities all tend to view drugged out strippers as fair game.
But if we're going to critique humor, I would say that I didn't catch onto the humor. You see, mockery tends to work better if there is a connection to reality. The problem here is that police anywhere aren't really progressive and neither progressives nor conservatives are pro-rape.
OK...since you asked nicely, I'll make a correction to skibum's joke to yield that connection to reality:
Yeah ilbbaicnl...backwoods cops can be like that. But good thing she wasn't in NYC. The cops that assraped Michael Mineo with a nightstick probably would have joined i!
Still not funny though...maybe it is 'cos rape ain't funny.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@sharkhunter - keep grokin' those strippers my brother!
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Slick -- share the Conan system my brother.
Let's all agree, however, that the Lovecraft system is better left untried!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Come to think of it Slick has a point. Some NYPD are pro-rape. But I don't think those were the progressives on the force... (and NYPD not taking Mineo's allegations seriously doesn't exactly make 'em seem politically correct).
discussion comment
11 years ago
Libby's shoot -- love the look on her face. Ugly dude is a bit distracting...but hot college chick sucking, fucking, takin' it up the ass, a getting a facial...don't get better than that
Backroom Casting Couch - Libby from Kansas:
www.pornboro.com/2974/backroom-casting-couch-libby-from-kansas/
discussion comment
11 years ago
Sasha Grey is pretty cool. No Bree Olson? I know the Charlie Sheen thing is a turnoff, but she's hot.
I really dig sites that catch 'em early like exploited college girls and girlsdoporn. ECG gets those chicks doing some hardcore shit. Some are one and done.
I really liked Libby (Elizabeth Hawkenson) on backroomcastingcouch...
https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Elizabeth_Hawkenson
Elizabeth Hawkenson a.k.a. "Libby" is a random 18-year-old butthurt slut ... she is infamous for her sextape on Backroom Casting Couch.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Skibum... I'm calling bullshit on this haterade on progressives. Why do you think the NYPD is progressive? Didn't they lose a case on stop and frisk recently?...hardly a progressive policy. And progressives aren't pro-rape.
Before you come back with this, I don't think conservatives are pro-rape either. You know who is pro-rape? Rapists
discussion comment
11 years ago
I don't know Mikey. I bet homemade Juice porn would have some groovy sodomizing of hookers with the Colonel's XXXtra KRIS-pay. That might be coo-el.
But I draw the line at Juice or the chick eating the santorum covered chicken. That is just gross...
discussion comment
11 years ago
Cool. We both agree that both sides have freedom of speech.
If you are saying that GLAAD shouldn't have put pressure (and -- to my knowledge -- that pressure was basically saying "A&E...that dude is a homophobic asshole...kick him off of your channel") that is your opinion.
Me...I think GLAAD should be allowed to say and do what they want (stipulating that they aren't allowed to do anything illegal). That would include a boycott, if they want. The duck folk should be allowed to say and do what they want. That would include organizing a boycott of products that support gay rights, if they wanted.
That is freedom.
I'm just calling bullshit on the notion that GLAAD was out of line. Both sides of any argument can apply whatever pressure they want as long as it does not move into threats of injury or destruction of property).
discussion comment
11 years ago
![]()
ilbbaicnlKeep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
I wonder if ilbbaicnl posts on "meet Russian bride" sites with the alias "wealthybigpenisdude". That would be coo-el!
I bet Juice posts on those sites as "meputKFCupyoasswhole". FUCK YEAH!!!!!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Cool deogol... Then do yo feel GLAAD has a right to free speech EQUAL to that of the duck folks and can -- if they so choose -- use that right to punish the duck folks through legally acceptable actions such as boycotts?
Note that none of this implies you necessarily like what EITHER side says. I just think you and Che are obfuscating the issue. Che seems to say boycotts were OK but then seems to meander back onto how nasty the GLAAD folks were to pick on the poor duck dudes. You seem to imply that clad could act as Brownshirts and disrupt filming. True...they could do that but they haven't. Hell, I'm not aware of GLAAD actually threatening to organize a boycott, which would be within their rights.
My perspective...Phil Robertson can spout whatever bullshit he likes. He can attend whichever church he wants. If the government attempted to, shut him up I'd support his rights. If GLAAD sent thugs to disrupt filming, kick his ass, etc. I'd support arresting the thugs for trespassing, assault, etc. Wake me up when that happens.
Unless the infamous GLAAD Brownshirts actually start kickin' coon-ass asses I'll also support GLAAD's right to tell the duck folks to STFU. Do you support the freedom of BOTH sides to have their say?
discussion comment
11 years ago
Oh my GAWD... Dallas is just insane. Modern progressives are frickin' Nazis. I don't agree with all of the progressive agenda, but has to be the stupidest TEA party meme out there.
I mean really, do you actually BELIEVE a group of LBGTQ activists exercising their right to free speech in requesting Duck Dynasty go off the air (and LOSING the argument because other people exercised their right to free speech and supported the duck folk) is JUST LIKE Kristallnacht?
I'd say that I'd like to try what Mr. Dallas is smokin' 'cos it has gotta be pretty far out...but whatever that dude smokes has to be killing brain cells!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Before I get called for the last sentence being a run on, I'll just say it reflects me hitting my iPad space bar once rather than twice. As a consequence, two sentences were incorrectly elided. Hopefully, deogol will focus on content rather than that error or any other spelling/grammatical errors.
Just to be crystal clear about my position, Phil Robertson (aka Mr. Duck) has every right to spout whatever homophobic, racist, or religious crap he wants. Let's personalize this...I have a right to ignore it. I have the right to call him un-American. I have a right to say "I dislike that crap you said so much I won't support you economically" (hollow threat in my case since I've never watched his show and don't actually feel strongly enough about his ignorant crap to find other ways to pressure him). I don't, however, have a right to be a Brownshirt and "punish" Mr. Duck in any illegal ways (hacking his web site, flying to Louisiana and destroying his property, etc). ALL things like that are off the table.
That sums up an actual belief in freedom of expression. In contrast, deogol would appear determined to deprive me of my rights in this example.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Looks like Alucard is lookin' for some Orion slave girl nookie. Qapla' my friend!
(BTW, I refuse to buy into the prequel idea that the Orion slave girls are the masters...just exercising my free speech to put down a canonical but crappy Star Trek series...long live TOS).
discussion comment
11 years ago
@deogol -- I hate to say it, but you and Che are the ones with fundamentally incoherent viewpoints. Indeed, I think you're either being obstinate and refusing to concede a point where you know you're incorrect or you fundamentally don't understand freedom of expression.
I'd like to get your answer on a simple YES or NO question -- feel free to embellish, but pay me the respect of actually answering (unlike Che):
Did GLAAD have the right to urge A&E to kick the Duck Dynasty folks off the air? YES or NO
If yes, then what is your problem with what went on? Nobody involved did anything other than exercise their right to free speech. One side (GLAAD) said the other should STFU. The backed it up by ASKING the folks who provide the other side (the duck folk) a platform to stop giving them that platform. GLAAD asking the duck folk to STFU is within their rights! The other side (the duck folk) said no, we won't. The guys providing the platform at first appeared to side with GLAAD, then reversed course. So the other side (the duck folk) appears to have won. Didn't freedom of speech work in this instance?
If no, why is Mr. Duck's freedom of speech more important than GLAAD's?
More fundamentally, what is wrong with an individual or private organization saying, as you put it, that one "...is not American if [one] does not agree with them (and must be punished for it)"?
As long as said individual or organization don't impose their "punishment" illegally (i.e., as the Brownshirts did, through physical intimidation, assault, destruction of property, murder) the are simply exercising their freedom of speech. If your saying that GLAAD doesn't have the right to send thugs to Louisiana to kick the duck folks asses...well, OK, I'm with you. Wake me up when that happens.
But you appear to be the guy telling GLAAD they aren't American I'm glad you don't have the power of the law to enforce your opinion.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Che -- I certainly wasn't expecting you to speak for deogol. You've now clarified what I believe to be some subtle difference between your position and deogol's, especially with respect to your distinction between the "demand for adherence...to orthodoxy" and free speech per se. However, I still think that your position on this is fundamentally incoherent.
I won't take the bait of your allegation that I read what I wanted into your comments and simply respond to substance. I will, however, note that you didn't actually answer any of the questions.
You came closest to answering the first question, where you stated that "GLAAD clearly thought they had the power to force A&E to to threaten Phil's income" but then went on to state that you support consumer boycotts. But, in the long run, GLAAD has no actual power save consumer pressure. Last I checked, there are no GLAAD Brownshirts assaulting or shooting those with whom they disagree. Wake me up when either side of this debate starts doing that.
Since I don't want to put words into your mouth I won't try to interpret that as a YES or a NO answer to a question that was ultimately a yes or no question. Just to clarify, my question was essentially whether anyone with actual power to deprive Phil (aka Mr. Duck) of life, liberty, or income did so? My answer was NO. GLAAD did indeed try to convince people not to give Mr. Duck their money by using their right to speak out. The fact that they appear to have lost only reinforces my assertion that they had no actual power.
Yet you seem to be making GLAAD out to be bad guys for exercising a limited power that you claim to support. To be fair, you don't come out and say they are bad guys. You just equivocate. Then you refer back to this non-answer in subsequent "answers".
I would, however, make one more observation. Perhaps I am reading more into this than is there (after all, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth) but you almost immediately changed the topic when I brought up a right wing boycott. You immediately stated that all societies have PC dogmas and then stated that "alternative lifestyles" corresponded to today's PC dogma. Actually comparing it to McCarthyism! Here's a hint -- although there was private anti-Communist activities (e.g., Hollywood black lists) there was ALSO the force of government (e.g., the House Un-American Activities committee) behind McCarthyism). I think that's kind of different from some LBGTQ saying "whoa Mr. Duck...what you said there...uncool! A&E guys...do you really want an asshole like that on your network". The fact that A&E kinda sorta responded to that is on them. Finally, I will note that, to my knowledge, GLAAD has not actually called for a consumer boycott of A&E yet...though that is the ONLY actual power they could bring to bear on Mr. Duck.
Here is the reality of what I think happened. Phil is a sincere Christian "semi-coon-ass" who also happens to be a very successful businessman. I say "semi-coon-ass" because he is no doubt playing up the "coon-ass" parts of his personality for the cameras. However, I have no doubt that he is a member of the "coon-ass tribe" at the end of the day. The A&E execs aren't coon-asses. They are members of the same tribe as GLAAD -- urban, non-religious, pro-"alternative lifestyle". So GLAAD says "whoa...that Mr. Duck dude is an obnoxious homophobe" and the A&E execs went "yep...what he said is obnoxious...we were kind of hoping nobody would notice...let's cut the dude loose". Then they realized they might lose money...and you know what happened then.
Let's just say we found out whether money trumped "tribal loyalty". We shall see if GLAAD pushes it and actually tries a boycott...
discussion comment
11 years ago
![]()
ilbbaicnlKeep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
Ah... I suspect I'm not on Lowpaw's radar. She's into her thing and that's coo-el, but I don't find her antics that entertaining. No disrespect intended...just a comment that her posts aren't super-entertaining to me (I find 'em 'meh') and I suspect the feeling is mutual.
The comment was a general politically incorrect joke, not intended for Lowpaw per se (positively or negatively)
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Shadow -- one word 'bout the smelly pussy posts.... Ewwwwwww!!!!
@LDK -- say it ain't so. There is something so genteel 'bout your jizzin' in yo' trousers antics. Somehow a history with streetwalker beaver taints the pure "Leave it to Beaver" essence o' all the LDKing you do.
discussion comment
11 years ago
![]()
ilbbaicnlKeep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
Hmmmm...explain Monsieur sclvr5005
discussion comment
11 years ago
![]()
ilbbaicnlKeep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
^^^
GMD -- who gives a fuck what a bunch o' clam lickers think?
;-)
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Che - I think you and deogol are fundamentally confused about freedom of speech. You gave the example of the former Soviet Union executing a non-conformist. You're right about the culture war, but you seem to confound the idea of a culture war faught by individuals vs one faught by the govt. for me, it all comes down to two questions:
1. Did anybody with any power to actually deprive Mr. Duck of his freedom step in and tell him he would be punished for saying what he said? NO
2. Does GLAAD have a right to say "Mr. Duck is an obnoxious asshole and if you (in this case A&E and its parent corporation) give him a platform to speak we'll punish you by not supporting your business"? In my opinion YES.
How is this any different from conservatives boycotting the Dixie Chicks in 2003? (BTW, I think conservatives DID HAVE a right to use their own right to free speech to advocate a boycott of the Dixie Chicks and even to try to get them dropped from their label)
I'm not sure what you two are saying...is it that the answer to #2 is no? If so, how do you square that idea with the idea of personal freedom?