No limit on stupid

MrMac · Post by **MrMac** » Sat Jun 13, 2015 8:46 am

BDF wrote:Surely we are getting close to reaching our limit.

Stan don't have daughter(s)?

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:11 pm

Wildcat92 wrote:
stan wrote:

If I wrote "got a Clinton", the possible references are many -- got a bribe, got caught lying, got caught obstructing justice, got away with a crime, got preferential treatment, got caught with underage prostitutes, got caught for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape ....

But a "Lewinsky" does not have any possible other meanings. She specifically told her friends she was going to DC to earn herself some kneepads and she did. She has nothing to complain about because she turned herself into a public joke. Just as Clinton has no reason to complain that history will remember him as the prez whose need for phone sex trumped national security.

I was actually trying to use an expression that was less objectionable than "blowjob". But I suspect that the panty-bunchers would squeal no matter what.
I can't imagine why anyone would think you have a misogyny problem. Totally mystifying.

I don't. And there is not one thing in my post that indicates I have one. Take your slander and shove it. I have contempt for Clinton and for Lewinsky and it has nothing to do with the sex of either and everything to do with their actions. Between the two, the despicable Clinton has been far more contemptible.

I love women. My contempt is not for women. My contempt is for liars and slanderers of both sexes. My contempt is for those who stir up hatred, divide people, and slander the innocent. In short, for panty-bunchers like you.

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:19 pm

MrMac wrote:
BDF wrote:Surely we are getting close to reaching our limit.
Stan don't have daughter(s)?

Of course, I have a daughter. Why don't you educate me on what you think I have written that is unfair to my daughter or women in general?

Seriously.

Do liberals live in such a logic-free cocoon that they think that anyone who disagrees with politically correct BS must be a hater? I expect that kind of moral immaturity from a lot of fools, but I would have expected better from Davidson alums.

Speedy · Post by **Speedy** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:00 pm

Stan, I think the misogyny idea comes from how you've taken this thread as your personal platform for publicly scorning efforts made by colleges to make their campuses safer place for women. Or maybe it's your outwardly aggressive refusal to accept that sex-related jokes can feel like bullying to some, even if that's not your intent. Or perhaps it's belief that women (allied men) who find your remarks sexist or offensive are just "panty bunchers."

No, it's not your fault that the world has double standards for males and females. But it is your responsibility, as a decent human, to help mitigate it. You may be different in real life, but in your actions on this board, you gleefully flout that responsibility. In my opinion, that's what makes you a misogynist.

Speedy · Post by **Speedy** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:02 pm

stan wrote: In short, for panty-bunchers like you.

Seriously, how can you not see that your comments are sexist?

Wildcat92 · Post by **Wildcat92** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:16 pm

If I moderated this forum, Stan, you'd have been gone long ago, just for general bullish unpleasantness. But those who do are more generous with their patience than I am.

In my experience, those who respond to criticism of their obvious problematic comments by screaming about the PC police are fully aware of what they are doing and thus doubly jerkish.

But you keep being you. Have at it.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat · Post by **MakeIt-TakeIt Cat** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:17 pm

Speedy,

You obviously have strong opinions regarding misogyny and what qualifies one to be a misogynist. And with fairly limited information about Stan you've decided he is a misogynist. And you don't indicate much doubt about it.

Over the past 20 years or so have you been able to gather enough information for an unqualified opinion as to whether former President Clinton is or is not a misogynist?

Wildcat92 · Post by **Wildcat92** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:19 pm

stan wrote:
MrMac wrote:
BDF wrote:Surely we are getting close to reaching our limit.
Stan don't have daughter(s)?
Of course, I have a daughter. Why don't you educate me on what you think I have written that is unfair to my daughter or women in general?

Seriously.

Do liberals live in such a logic-free cocoon that they think that anyone who disagrees with politically correct BS must be a hater? I expect that kind of moral immaturity from a lot of fools, but I would have expected better from Davidson alums.

Believe me, sir, I find it hard to believe you and I went to the same college.

Speedy · Post by **Speedy** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:36 pm

Look, Stan & MITI. I've got work to do and can't spend the whole day explaining how you don't get to decide whether it's acceptable for someone to be offended. But I had to say something before I get back to important stuff, lest you somehow feel triumphant thinking you've managed to bunch my panties. You haven't. You've only bunched your own.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat · Post by **MakeIt-TakeIt Cat** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:40 pm

Speedy wrote:Look, Stan & MITI. I've got work to do and can't spend the whole day explaining how you don't get to decide whether it's acceptable for someone to be offended. But I had to say something before I get back to important stuff, lest you somehow feel triumphant thinking you've managed to bunch my panties. You haven't. You've only bunched your own.

No opinion about former President Clinton? A yes or no would suffice.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat · Post by **MakeIt-TakeIt Cat** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:07 pm

Speedy wrote:
MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:
No opinion about former President Clinton? A yes or no would suffice.
Are you asking me to play Hot-or-Not with Stan and Clinton's relative sexism? It's funny you think that would resolve anything.

I asked a simple question. No answer is fine. That's what I expected anyway.

MikeMaloy15 · Post by **MikeMaloy15** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:08 pm

It's a shame this thread will be locked down when you're THIS CLOSE to securing the 2016 election with triumphant posts on the internet.

Oh, wait, it can't be shut down. It's the No Limit on Stupid thread, and we're all playing roles in supporting its theme.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat · Post by **MakeIt-TakeIt Cat** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:23 pm

No attempts at triumph here. I'm assuming a favorite Democrat icon will be the first "First Gentleman".

I was just checking for credibility among posters and laying bait to see if predictable Dems would jump in to attack. It worked on both counts.

mccabemi · Post by **mccabemi** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:54 pm

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:No attempts at triumph here. I'm assuming a favorite Democrat icon will be the first "First Gentleman".

I was just checking for credibility among posters and laying bait to see if predictable Dems would jump in to attack. It worked on both counts.

Damn it am I too late? Screw Reagan.

wildforthecats · Post by **wildforthecats** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:12 pm

Lyndon LaRouche rules!