They said it: “man this dude is Krazy!” “you sir are an idiot” “you are a lunatic” “are you really black?” “meanest, most divisive, most irrelevant blog I have ever read”
Pro Hillary blog ANGRY over the sale of Hillary “nut crackers”
Wednesday, May 7th, 2008
NBC Promotes Misogyny by Selling ‘Hillary Nutcrackers’ in Airport Shops
As pretty well the whole world knows now, NBC is a corporation bursting at the seams with misogyny. So are you surprised to discover that NBC’s quest to promote sexism is on display in the nation’s airports?Apparently, CNBC stores — like this one at Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC. — are where you need to go to purchase sexist jokes like “Hillary Nutcrackers.” Is there an adult sign on this store? Because I seriously doubt that parents relish the thought of explaining the “Hillary Nutcracker” to their daughters and sons.
Can racists find their toys at NBC stores too? Is NBC an equal opportunity hater?
I just got back from a vacation, and I had a layover in Washington, DC. Across from where I sat lay the CNBC store, proudly sporting that NBC peacock we’ve come to know so well. . . I wandered over to grab a newspaper or a magazine, and this is what I found in the center of the store, facing outward from the cash register. Did you get it? Did you get the joke? Because strong women hate penises. Strong women want to “bust men’s balls” because let’s face it, they’re envious of our balls. They are all, you know, menopausal and uptight. And we dudes, we’re just hanging out, when they come around cracking our nuts…
Question for White Men: Who do you hate more Negros or Women?
Monday, April 21st, 2008
A great example of how stupid and racist liberals are…
Here’s another thing I don’t like about this primary: now that there are only two Democratic candidates, it’s suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race. This may have always been true, but weeks ago it wasn’t so obvious — once upon a time there were eight candidates, and although six of them withered away, their presence in the campaign managed to obscure things. Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.But now there are two and we’re facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men.
How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)
What was he thinking of? That was the first question that came to mind when the story of New York governor Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with a prostitution ring was reported in the media.It was also the first question that came to mind when star quarterback Michael Vick ruined his career and lost his freedom over his involvement in illegal dog fighting. It is a question that arises when other very fortunate people risk everything for some trivial satisfaction.
Many in the media refer to Eliot Spitzer as some moral hero who fell from grace. Spitzer was never a moral hero. He was an unscrupulous prosecutor who threw his power around to ruin people, even when he didn’t have any case with which to convict them of anything.
Because he was using his overbearing power against businesses, the anti-business left idolized him, just as they idolized Ralph Nader before him as some sort of secular saint because he attacked General Motors.
What Eliot Spitzer did was not out of character. It was completely in character for someone with the hubris that comes with the ability to misuse his power to make or break innocent people.
After John Whitehead, former head of Goldman Sachs, wrote an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing Attorney General Spitzer’s handling of a case involving Maurice Greenberg, Spitzer was quoted by Whitehead as saying: “I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done.”
When you start thinking of yourself as a little tin god, able to throw your weight around to bully people into silence, it is a sign of a sense of being exempt from the laws and social rules that apply to other people.
From Gateway PunditAnother Prostitution Ring Busted… Tehran Police Chief Caught in Bed With 6 Hookers
Player-Player… The Tehran Police Chief, Reza Zarei, was caught in a bed with six- Yes SIX -hookers. AKI reported:
Tehran’s police chief, Reza Zarei (photo), has been arrested after he was found nude in a local brothel with six naked prostitutes, according to report on the Iranian Farda News.
On Rush’s website he had the transcript from some talk shows with Cokie Roberts from ABC and Dee Dee Myers expressing their displeasure over the sexism that is killing Hillary’s campaign.
ROBERTS: The only group she still really has is white women, and I do think that there’s some possibility that you will see a sort of reaction among white women. I had the opportunity –STEPHY: Like New Hampshire.
ROBERTS: — to interview Billie Jean King this week. And she said, “You know, I feel like everything I’ve worked for all my life is going out the window,” and there is that sense. I mean, here is this woman who worked hard. She’s done it all the way you’re supposed to do it, and then this cute young man comes in and says a bunch of sweet, you know, nothings, and — and pushes you out of the way. And a lot of women are looking at that and saying, “There goes my life.”
ROBERTS: The truth is, is that for a Republican running against him he can put him, you know, just squarely on the left of the Democratic Party. You know, he’s got a very — very much, you know, ADA, Americans for Democratic Action-approved voting record. He, unlike Hillary Clinton, oddly enough, given the rhetoric, has not reached across the aisle and worked with people in the other party to get things done, which she has done.
***********
MYERS: Hillary Clinton’s options are limited in many ways because she’s a woman. It’s difficult for her to get angry; it’s difficult for her to be sarcastic; when she gets tough, she sounds like a scold; and I think we have a different standard for how women, umm, can approach going negative, getting tough, and making their point than we do for men.
MYERS: The public has different expectations for women, and I think the press has covered her different as a woman. I think one of the things we’ve learned in this campaign is that the playing field still isn’t level. I don’t think you can separate the fact that she’s a woman. I think it’s still easier to be critical of a woman. I think you can say almost anything about a woman, even if it’s based in gender stereotypes without much penalty, and I think we’ve seen that throughout this race.
Oh Boo fucken hoo!
I’ve said this before and will keep saying, I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A WOMAN PRESIDENT, IN FACT I BELIEVE A WOMAN IN MANY WAYS WILL DO A BETTER JOB.
My problem is the same problem millions of Americans have, Dee Dee, Cokie, we HATE Hillary!! She sucks; she is a socialist big gubment nut! The only reason she was a “major” candidate was because her husband was president and he screwed around on her and more than that she believed that she was entitled to the job and America is rejecting her.
I don’t give a fuck what race or gender a candidate is, for me political ideology will always trump a candidate’s race or gender.
If I had my own business, or ran a corporation, anything having to do with employee, departmental, cabinet hiring/selection, all things being equal, nine time out of ten, I’ll select a woman over a man.
Women are more loyal; I would tend to trust women more, and in many cases will work harder.
Message for Hillary; we don’t like you. Deal wit it!
A swarm of biographers in miners’ gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde’s prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary’s harsh, domineering father.Hillary’s feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm’s length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham’s abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage — the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.
Hillary’s willingness to tolerate Bill’s compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause — which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.
It’s no coincidence that Hillary’s staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary’s rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let’s not forget Hillary, the governor’s wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
Hillary’s disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem’s fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
He didn’t plead guilty in court, but unlike Craig, he openly admits he broke the law and solicited prostitutes. Others serving in Congress at the moment have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors of more import than disorderly conduct without being forced to resign.
If morality and credibility are at issue, why isn’t Vitter being held to that standard? It’s either that Louisiana’s Democratic governor would appoint a Democrat in his place, or that Vitter’s transgressions involved heterosexual sex and therefore are less objectionable.
Craig will depart soon, and these questions will fade away eventually. However, people will wonder whether the GOP decided to argue for standards in public officials, or whether they just found it easy to use Craig without endangering their political balance in the Senate.
The Post got thousands of angry letters and calls last week — the vast majority from women — in response to a July 20 Style column by Fashion Editor Robin Givhan, commenting on Clinton showing a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor. A note from Ann Stingle of Fairfax echoed others’ complaints: “Robin Givhan’s story is sexist and demeaning of both women and the seriousness of issues needing to be addressed.’’
Ann Althouse had a little fun responding to some of the letters Howell reprinted, including this letter, which I’m going to address (emphasis added):
I can’t decide what horrifies me more: that The Post, which I have often touted for its intelligent reporting, would publish such a sexist, dated article, or even worse, that the author was echoing a common viewpoint still prevalent in society.
As a mother and a professional analyst for the government, I have always believed that my colleagues have respected my work, my mind and my opinions, not whether my cleavage was showing. I dress as I believe all women should: with the ability to choose clothes that represent who they are, be they feminine, nurturing, intelligent, sexy or fashionable. But I do so with the hope that clothes represent my style — not how much skin is exposed.
Althouse’s response:
So women should wear clothes that “represent who they are,” but it’s wrong to analyze this self expression? Your “clothes represent [your] style — not how much skin is exposed”? What does that mean? The style of your clothes obviously includes the way it covers some parts and not others. Once you concede that clothes express the inner self, it follows that we should try to understand the meaning of the clothing worn by a person who seeks political power. Why would you censor this valuable line of inquiry?
Exactly. As a woman, and knowing many women, I can tell you from first hand experience that when professional women dress, nine times out of ten they’re dressing to impress, I don’t care where they’re working. They also expect to get noticed for how ’sharp’ and/or ’stylish’ they’re dressed and, shocker of all shockers, they actually like to receive compliments for what they wear. Now I can guarantee you that if Givhan’s column had been more flattering about the way Hillary dresses, i.e., if she was wearing red, how the color and style she was wearing was a symbol for power, or if it was along the lines of “Hillary is showing some cleavage and leg in a Congress that traditionally shies away form overt displays of skin. You go girl! Break down those walls!” the reactions to that column would have been totally different - especially amongst the liberal woman responding to what was written.
Goodie, goodie we get to mix the raunchy talk of politics and boobies together.
I swear, if I had not read news articles about this “controversy” if I had been watching her speech on the floor live I would not have thought anything about it.
I frankly don’t see a problem with what she wore on the floor or in the pic I have above.
Now if she were falling out of the power suit with triple D’s then well…BUT I would not be here as a right wing blogger saying HOW DARE SHE!
I can hear some of you saying, “Sure, any excuse to post crude pictures on your blog,” I don’t NEED an excuse to post what some may consider crude photos, because as I have said numerous times I don’t give a shit what y’all think.
Now speaking from the male pig perspective, if a women is wearing a really well tailored “power suite” you don’t have to show any cleavage to look hot, c’mon! If you women don’t already know this then you need to get a clue.
Just like a couple of year ago as folks were shocked by Secretary of State Rice’s boots and her “Matrix” suit, I was like damm, I liked that. Some took issue but it quickly faded.
Remember what was written about back then.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine’s dress uniform or the “save humanity” ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in “The Matrix.”
As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy.
Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American women on the world stage. She was not wearing a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps. She did not cloak her power in photogenic hues, a feminine brooch and a non-threatening aesthetic. Rice looked as though she was prepared to talk tough, knock heads and do a freeze-frame “Matrix” jump kick if necessary. Who wouldn’t give her ensemble a double take — all the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?
Snoop rants fairly often about inter-personal things, usually involving the stupidity of someone that results in repeated doses of them experiencing pain of some sort.Often, his remarks are aimed at women who (for a myriad of reasons) are involved with a male who is treating them badly and/or is going to eventually end up hurting them badly. He therefore questions what causes an otherwise sane or desirable woman to seek, stay, keep or otherwise maintain contact with males who are not acting respectfully or kindly towards them.
He has also been known to state that all men are pigs, and advise most women to therefore treat all members of that gender as potential suspects.
So I thought I’d throw my two cents at that topic, and him.
The topic appears to have two components or issues: (1) Why do women with lots to offer settle for relationships with men who have a lot less to offer and (2) If all men are pigs, then should any woman really trust any man to treat her well, long term?
So, let’s address the first issue first.
Why do women settle? For a lot of the same reasons men settle. They are lonely. They have low self esteem. They are too trusting. They think they see potential or can change bad behaviors with enough love.
They love a challenge. They want to help. They need abuse. They are rebelling against someone or something. They are re-living their mother (or grandmother)’s life, trying for better or different outcomes.
Whatever the reason, most people do not hook up with someone who is exactly like them. Many people do not like themselves well enough to want a mate who is their exact clone, in the other gender. So they are attracted to people who have different attitudes or behaviors. And any time there is any kind of disparity, there is the potential for friction on those points of difference.
The one thing that could save a lot of future tears is an insistence that no matter what disparities or differences exist, mutual values and a high degree of respect be present. If a couple has similar goals in life, and each respects the other, that increases the chances they will not end up wanting to escape (or being beat down to an emotional pulp).
But what about a situation where mutual goals or respect existed (or appeared to exist) but things later change? What do you do when someone is such a good pretender that he (or she) fooled you on even those
points?
This brings us to the second issue. Should any woman ever completely trust any man (or to put it more broadly, should any person ever completely trust any other person)?
If in fact all men are truly pigs, as Snoop often states, then why would any woman with half a brain ever fully trust that any man will be true and stay true? How can any woman who doesn’t implant a listening device on her man’s body believe that he is not wanting to cheat, at the very least? How can she ever trust him to love her, and not hurt her, forever, if his pig nature is always there, urging him to hurt her?
A SNOOP TIMEOUT FOR A VIDEO CLIP……
The relationship pundits are pretty uniformly united in stating that trust is a vital element in any healthy union. Without a lot of trust, few people would be able to relax enough to be themselves and feel truly safe and loved. Trust is a fragile thing; it can be lost forever if abused too often or badly. But without some trust, it is doubtful that any relationship of any kind could ever begin, let alone flourish.
So the basic answer is that trust should exist, and be given, by anyone wanting to be friends (let alone mates) with another human.
But whom should we trust? And why? And when to withdraw that trust? Those are the real questions.
It is a very bad idea to completely trust someone you do not know very well. Just as any prudent parent would not hand their beloved child over to a complete stranger, so too should a mature woman be wary of giving their full faith or whole heart into the hands of someone whom they have not even met face to face yet. It takes time, lots of quality time,
to really get to know someone else. Especially if they are adept at hiding their true nature or motives. So the best advice is for all adults to keep in mind that just because someone tells you something (anything) it is not necessarily the complete truth.
The main things are to pay attention and to talk all kinds of things out, a lot. And don’t just talk to the other person. Also talk with and to the people involved or who care about you. As long as there are two or more human beings, there are bound to be misunderstandings. But some people are just better or more habitual liars. They may not be out-right lying, but the chances are high that there are facts that are omitted. It takes a lot of time for most people to truly “come clean”
and be themselves, all the time. Some people never do it! So you need to have more then one set of ears listening to him. Use your trusted friends or family members, people who are guaranteed to be honest with you about what they think or observe (then listen); they may not be as
blinded by other things (like lust or loneliness). And if you find that your new sweet heart has lied about minor things, the chances are better that he also lies about major issues!
In choosing whom to trust, using just your heart, or your head, or your gut will not insulate you from being conned or misled. You must use all three, and lots of time, to get “to the bottom” of someone else’s psyche. Meet his friends and family; get to know them all, in their familiar setting. If the guy can’t let you into that part of their life (very far) there is definitely something rotten in Denmark!
And take time - a year at least - before making any firm commitments. If you haven’t seen someone when they are truly in ill health, you do not know them all that well! Don’t rush to make judgements, good or bad. But don’t waste a ton of time trying to reform someone. If they treat you badly, at first, their behaviors are not going to get better in the future!
But even with all of those traps set, and run, and all tests passed with flying colors, it is still possible for a woman to trust a man and get badly hurt by him. Sometimes she just gets fooled. He was a good liar, she was too naive to see the truth, etc. Sometimes he just changes. People do change. It happens. Move along.
But people also sometimes let themselves in for a world of avoidable new hurt by making excuses for bad behaviors. If he is rude to you and/or to others, or lies to you or others, right from the start - chances are that is his true nature. Pay attention. Leopards do not change spots. They just manage to hide them from some people. Don’t be stupid. Unless you like pain!
So, if someone has proven to you that they cannot be trusted, what then? When is conduct an act of betrayal or a breach of trust, as opposed to a stupid mistake? Those are the hard ones.
Betraying someone whom you love or who loves you, for purely selfish reasons, is one of the most hurtful things anyone can do to someone else. Everyone is going to do dumb things that disappoint or hurt their loved ones. But an act of betrayal, something that shows your beloved thinks that your well-being is not very important (when compared with theirs) that is harder to overcome or ignore. It becomes a cost benefit analysis. What do you stand to gain by working through the betrayal of trust, versus what would you lose. Is how you are or were treated not so bad, all things considered? Or are you just hanging onto hope out of habit or fear of having nothing else in the wings?
The longer you’ve been together, the harder it is to throw in a towel (for many people). They don’t want to have wasted all that time and energy, without having a lot to show for it. So they hang on and make more excuses. But the larger and more serious the betrayal, or if it’s a repeated conduct, the much more likely it is that the relationship is irrevocably broken or reduced to an unimportant one.
Whatever you do, do not lose your own self-respect. If you do not respect yourself, it is almost impossible to get respect from anyone else. And without respect, no relationship can be happy or healthy.
At some point, the only healthy and loving thing to do is to escape from certain kinds of emotional abuse. And someone who betrays the trust of a loved one is indeed abusing them and the relationship! So don’t put up with a pig and then complain about being in a pig pen mess!
If you put up with enough pain, you may eventually grow to like it, or at least tolerate it.
So the safe thing to do is pay attention, right at the start. If he (or she) is not treating you like you want and need to be treated, the chances are real good that there will not be some big change for the better in the future. Walk away soon and early, while you still haven’t expended too much of your time and heart. Do not settle for a pig.
And if you find yourself hooked on someone who treats you badly most of the time, the only things you can do are admit you alone can control how much longer you will tolerate that treatment and then walk away when you have finally had enough. There are far worse things then being alone.
Besides, no truly great woman is ever alone for long, unless she likes it that way!
I’m the one you asked about to whether or not I would do the testing on the manhood in the future to see if the dude has a small penis and smelly nut sack. I take it that you did not read the ENTIRE profile I had written on Archie Coban. It also stated that I did not know this pig blower personally, meaning that I never met the low-life sack of shit.
If you are complaining as to why I would post someone having a small dick and a stinky crotch and not know him personally, well you men are guilty of doing the SAME thing to us for YEARS! ….You would always say that a woman has crabs or a stinky crotch, whether it was true or not. I’ve heard you men say that about MANY women, including myself and my friends.
So don’t act surprised and dumbfounded because it’s now happening to you men. Looks like your bar room gossip has caught up with you now. Archie Coban was on DDHG talking trash about women he didn’t know too, calling us all slags and sluts. How would he know that for a fact? So if he dishes the shit, he can expect the shit to be given back to him. To the rest of you manwhores out there who talk trash about women…don’t run crying if the same thing happens back to you.
I’ll try to make this brief, I SAID I’LL TRY!!
First I don’t go to bars, they suck and they smell, now… I don’t give a shit about women spreading bar gossip on DDHG or and other particular site.
Unfortunately relationships have deteriorated to small dick and smelly women parts for years now.
Dating and relationships are now unfortunately pissing contests. Both assume the other sucks so civility and pleasantness are out the window.
“Do I want to screw him or not?”
My point in this post or frankly any other post I have about women is y’all get pisssed off and bent out of shape because too many of you women have the mental capacity of a doorknob when picking these losers and then bitch and complain to your girlfriends that all men are fucked up.
I bet there are women on DDHG with several profiles of men, all dumped some idiot bitch because of various reasons but Nooooooo they were the ones who were cheating, demanding, mean, cheap, abusive, disrespectful whatever so therefore all men are jacked, forget linking the common thread YOU!
Like I said if you constantly have drama in your life and your relationships are always fucked, the problem is like likely with YOU!
So I’ll ask you, getting on this site and spreading shit about some loser fuck is doing exactly what or accomplishing what. Now that you have a website where you can do it officially does it make you tingle all over? Shit I thought that was what a vibrator was for.
#########################ORIGINAL POST############
Luckily folks are on vacation and enjoying the summer and not reading blogs, so nobody will see this, LOL!
Trying to kill time, still hung-over from the 4th, having a holiday in the middle of the week is fucked up.
Anywho I’m scanning blogs and various sites and I pay a visit to the Don’t Date Him Gurl site I talked about awhile back.
Recently I have seen loved ones and friends’ process relationship issues, deciding which relationships are worth keeping, worth entering and others trying to get up the nerve to end which are frankly hopelessly futile and destructive relationships.
I like scanning through some of the profiles funny shit, it was amazing how amazingly similar they are, dudes who are either bums, woman beaters, disrespectful, clueless, smelly and or liars.
I’m thinking duh, what man isn’t to some degree. Most men are narcissistic, selfish fucks and women already know this but pretend that when fucked up relationships end that it was a shock and surprise.
Take a look at some comments from these profiles, can all men be this fucked up, sure they can. However women keep forgetting that they are the ones who do the choosing.
Men don’t just become liars because you were in the relationship with them.
Whatever screwed up tendencies they had was taught to them. For example….
Layne Brown
36 yrs old with salt-n-pepper hair (more salt than pepper) cut in a military style. He claims to be a military man or a cop and a single father. He is none of those things. He is a liar and a cheater. He sleeps around and does NOT use condoms. I dated him for almost 3 years; he’s hit me (broken bones), cheated on me countless times, and told everyone I was his “crazy ex-girlfriend” so they wouldn’t look down on him for cheating. Do NOT believe anything this guy says.
Article Link - Every elected dude in DC has a hoe on the side, big deal! Clinton had one under his desk!
WASHINGTON (AP) - Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called “D.C. Madam” accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a “serious sin” and that he has already made peace with his wife.
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
What choices to women have? Hell if I know, y’all are screwed, cause I’m taken, lol!
Friday, July 6th, 2007
Here is a response to my post: (The obligatory “Men are Pigs” post) below…
How many women do we know that are with men who (either with or without the woman’s knowledge) cheat on her or in general treat her with disrespect?
How many men do we know that are in the same “boat”?
So assuming that one gender is more likely to act badly then the other - what other choices do women have??
They can (a) be lesbian; (b) be celibate forever and do without a mate or (c) go through men like they were disposable razors (i.e become just like the pig-men).
None of these options are all that appealing to a woman who wants a stable healthy relationship with a male.
And what about the men who start out decent/nice - but later on morph into a cheating lying pig? It happens (all too often)?? How much “rope” do you think an intelligent woman who believes in commitment should give her mate, before she hangs him out to dry?
Well this clip shows a good measuring stick…
It is indeed a mystery to me why so many good looking smart women find (and stay) with men who do not deserve their love. But I have no answers to the mystery of how they can “do better” next time if all the males in the world (are all but 5%) are born losers..
On top of all of the talk about screwed up men folks Misty sends me this link
to Sugar Daddy For Me, sounds like the place for skanks to flash some tits and ass while at the same time find some horny rich dude to buy them a few gifts.
Yes skanks need lovin too. There are more than enough shallow ass women out there searching for her physical opposite, so she can give HIM the joy of treating her like a lady, shower her with gifts and enjoy their scheduled booty calls between gifts.
It just goest to show you that no matter how fucked up men are women are the driving force behind it.
Let’s take a look at the “so-called” feature profile shall we.
SugarBaby Age: 29
Marital Status: Single
Race: African American
Income: $0 to $100,000
Body & Height: Cuddly 5′5″ 165 cm
About Me:
I am 29 and I am a black woman, I am a sweet and loveable person just been done wrong so many times… Just looking to have fun with a special man guys… Someone that is looking to enjoying life… There ready not that much I can say that you probably have not heard before… So if you like what you see or read holla back at me….
What I’m looking for
I want a sugerdaddy that can be understanding and realiable, smart-minded, no childish stuff, well leave that for the lil kids to deal with… I want a man to be real and I will be real with you, no games will be play…You tell me what you need from me and I”ll tell you what I need for you… We don’t have to rush just take the time out and take a chance to get to know me, what will it hurt…
Conveniently what she leaves out is how many bad ass kids she has.
I love the line: “I want a sugerdaddy that can be understanding and realiable,”
Ding, ding, ding, ding, let’s see you are on a site where supposedly rich dudes are looking for booty calls and you think a dude you will find on this site will be “understanding”.
Oh God you can’t make this funny shit up.
Oh if you were such a sweet and loveable person, you would not be single! Also why do women say I want a man to be real?
To some women being real is farting at the dinner table and finding it amusing. Another is tattooing undecipherable cryptic crap all over their bodies for amusement.
Another could be men who play dress-up with his wife’s high heels. “Keeping’ it real!”
The daily downsides of women who engage in cloudy thinking leads to so many bad things that can be seen on the news daily but no matter how many times we see the tragic results of bad choices they get ignored.
Here is the latest, and you know it won’t be the last.
Contrast the selfish obsession of women searching for a dude to “buy her stuff” (picture depicts that well I think) with that of someone just looking to hook-up and taking the huge life risk for supposed companionship.
You can see from the Dateline video men don’t want 20 something’s they want 13 YEAR OLDS. But more than that, they are predators, hunters, but women don’t process it in that way.
Unfortunately you see the results , from Aruba to Santa Monica folks refuse to learn from others mistakes.
“Station hires bathing-suit model, WWE diva to anchor news, turn tide on low-rating woes”
She wants to be the next Katie Couric, oh really??
I swear men are such pigs!!!
Some might say KYTX president and general manager Phil Hurley has decided to pull his station’s news ratings out of the toilet by stepping into the gutter.
The Tyler, Texas, CBS affiliate will premier its latest news anchor next week – Lauren Jones, an actress, bikini model and former World Wrestling Entertainment wrestler with no journalism training or experience.
While Hurley admits his decision to hire Jones will attract criticism, he sees it as a smart business move.
“We think this will accelerate our growth and that people will see this as entrepreneurial,” he told the Longview, Texas, News-Journal.
Jones’ 30-day contract is a tie-in with the new Fox reality show, “Anchorwoman”, scheduled to broadcast in August.
Fox is paying KYTX to film the five-episode “comedy/reality hybrid” in its studios. KYTX news ranks behind the regional leader, KLTV.
“It’s not about the money,” Hurley said. “We want our newscast to grow.”
Lets get to the point shall we…
As WND reported, bikinis and newscasting seem to go together at Fox.
Fox News Channel, frequently criticized for focusing on glitz and sex, hired swimsuit model and host of “World Poker Tour” as a substitute anchor and host of “Fox & Friends Weekend.”
Fox’s Jane Francis told the entertainment trade paper Variety the show had mapped out a basic storyline and a wish list for camera scenes, but beyond that, she wants the action to be as spontaneous as possible.
“We agreed internally that we don’t want to rig anything, or overproduce it,” Francis says.
“Anchorwoman” director Mark Jacobs is sold on Jones as the inexperienced novice suddenly thrust into the news environment.
“She is serious about this,” he said. “She wants to be the next Katie Couric.”
Having “the next Katie Couric” may not be enough to pull Hurley’s ratings out of the toilet.
According to Media Life Magazine, CBS’s “Evening News with Katie Couric” was third for the week ending June 3, with another all-time low of 5.50 million total viewers. ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” was No. 1 among total viewers for the sixth straight week with an average of 7.86 million tuning in.
Read the full story here, but why bother.
Hey I’m not gonna bitch about having a hot news anchor, as long as she can read and does not say “like” every other fucken word.
Frankly I’m tired of hearing the news from graying old white dudes.
The people bitching about the mixing of serious news and a little cleavage coverage are the same people with annual subscriptions to the Spice or Playboy channels. Shut the fuck up!
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")