I have figured out why Coulter acts so mean and agitated

She/it once said she/it only dated republican males. They have large mouths that work overtime. Their other parts are flacid, slow, small, or hardly work, all of which leads to a very frustrated lady.

:shrug: "She/it once said she/it only dated republican males."


That would be MY guess....

not personally (thank GOD IN HEAVEN I'm youngest of 5 boys who happens to be gay, ha)

I know how we can give her an orgasm...


it's a rather rudimentary device I saw in an ad in a naughty book

it's like some type of machine that is like a phallic (sp) shaped machine that pounds away like a stud would... which she's never had dating only republicans. that would give her a mind bending orgasm!

I'll gladly chip in so man-hands get some hot action.

get her a sybian... :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

I know LOTS of bad girls who deserve one first.

It would sound like a small herd of novelty teeth rampaging through the room.

spelled "marinate" wrong though....it's a verb in that context

to assume that the only thing a female needs is a 'good seeing to' to make her agreeable.

If you wish to avoid the labels of sexism and hypocrisy, make sure you apply only the same terminology that you would use to describe your MALE political opponents.

Very few things make me angry, but the assertion that any female, no matter how repugnant her world or political view be, needs nothing but a good fcuk to settle her down and make her more amenable to anyone's viewpoint fills me with disgust.

You good ole boys are nothing but sexist thugs. It is a hallmark of weakness to attack ANYONE'S sexuality in a political context and it embarrasses me even more when you chose to do so on a progressive message board.

:thumbsup:

and what are you doing up?

I don't say much, but when I do it's because something has touched a nerve.

There is absolutely nothing to be said for engaging the same tactics as the opposition then bleating that 'they said it first'. Some may call it taking the high moral ground, to me there are certain things that civilized people just don't do. Appreciate your support.

welcome to DU, and I hope somebody has the attention span to deal with certain aspects of your post, which, of course, is accurate in its overall inferrence, perhaps misreads the entirety of the OP, which seems, to me, to be equally disdainful of the male sex.

have you seen the Limbaugh threads here, btw?

If you read some of them, I hope you'll produce a fiery skewering of the female posters who belittle his apparent pecadilloes, inadequacies, etc. I'm assuming your dislike of sexual stereotyping works both ways.....

I agree that the use of sexuality to impose control on any segment of society is anathema, but does that make any mention of it in a derogatory context completely out of bounds? Especially since she, herself is the one who brought up her sexual habits. Seems to me that it's perfectly OK to comment upon them, especially considering the source. You're right about the needing a good one, but that's your inference, far as I can tell.

I've been here for a sufficient amount of time not to need it. If it's the low post count you are meaning, well.....not everyone choses to spill their guts at a moments notice. But thank you for the greeting.

Limbaugh? Of course I have seen the threads and the same principle applies. How can it not? Am I expected to demonstrate total consistency by reading and responding to all similar threads? I would if I had the inclination and time but unfortunately have neither.

So in the interests of being consistent, I hereby denigrate thoroughly anyone who uses any sexual slur, whether it apply to male or female target. There are enough legitimate reasons to put these people down without sinking to the grubby level of questioning anyone's sexuality, lack thereof or ambiguity.

PS. Don't egg me on, or I will break the magical 100 posts, a position I vowed I would never be in! lol

Edit: sp.

''There are enough legitimate reasons to put these people down without sinking to the grubby level of questioning anyone's sexuality, lack thereof or ambiguity.''

couldn't agree more with that, and I find the constant references to that aspect of Coulter's persona as boring as they are offensive, but....

do you think it's acceptable to make fun of someone's physical aspect, if one doesn't reference the sexual, or does the physical fall under the same description of yours I quoted above?

and if you answer this one, I promise I won't ask you to break into triple digits




and what about this? what's the deal with them, other than that they seem to be another example of messing with mother nature?

http://www.cane-toad.com/

The toads only did what they always did. Unfortunately the humans who introduced them didn't think far enough ahead. Seems the toads are perfect little adapters, have few natural predators and a lively interest in procreation. Not their fault tho!

Living where I do, I'm not subject to the daily horrors of your less endearing personalities such as Coulter, Limbaugh etc. Having a keen interest in world politics I know more of them than most Ozzies. I reckon that they are repulsive excuses for human beings. Much prefer a toad.

I guess we all draw our own personal lines. If I ever go on the offensive, which is rare, cos I'm a very live and let live kind of person, my own personal rules are not to attack sexuality or appearance. Or kids, parents, pets etc. you know the deal.

I figure that those kinds of putdowns are for the uninformed or immature (or maybe for the perfect, cos they are the only ones who can surely make that kind of comment without demonstrating any kind of hypocrisy). So no, I prefer not to lay my credibility stocks in laughing at anyones appearance. It's a tenous thing, appearance. Everyone is someone else's ugly.

I understand that others don't operate this way. I cannot join them in their gleeful denigration of things that I don't consider to be even talking points, much less the source of written venom.

And hey, let's get this 100 thing over, cos it will be 2008 before I reach 200.

tortured and in some sort of personal agony battling wretched demons.

That's no excuse however. Anyone who is unhappy has in some way the power to create happiness in their world... Most bullies actually LIKE being miserable and in creating as much misery and pain and agony around them as possible. And these mean, wretched bullies are driven to making everyone around them as miserable as THEY are.

Responding to them feeds their misery. They love being hated, being called names and in being bullied back. It makes them feel like everyone is as miserable as they are. The only way to cure these people of their narcissistic need for negative attention is to ignore them and treat them with kindess if possible and if not, as in coulter's case, just pretending they don't exist.

Make them irrelevent.

Coulter is mean because it makes her money. If she didn't make money at being mean, she would be nice, or at least reasonable.

As long as folks ask her to be on talk shows and speak at venues and publishers advance her bucks for writing shitty books, she will continue her schtick. The day that her style of hatemongering is no longer in fashion will be the day she shuts up.

K Packer, recently deceased Ozzie TV mogul rode high for many years on the statement 'you will never go broke by catering to the lowest common denominator'. His Channel 'nein' is the right wing cousin of your Fox.

Trouble is, the lowest common denominator tend to be a bit thuggish, thus the appeal of someone like Coulter and her exhortations to division and hatred.

Between the drug abuse and her anorexia, she is very miserable.

....but who would bed that down on a regular basis.:puke:

Hey, :bounce:I just thought of something :bounce: why don't we get Rove and his Viagra together with Maan Coulter??:applause:

From the rules:

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html