Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Rush Limbaugh Dated Liberals" video.

You guys are being too hard on Rush here. Yes, he's a dickhead. But I've banged the brains out of a few republican skulls. Were they "bright" women? No. But the key is to avoid that conversation altogether. The fact that she's out on a date with means she's interested in you; dates are auditions of sorts. All that said, Rush is extremely batshit about Weiner's motives. Weiner is just a freak. He's immature too. But people are immature by nature.
1
@chaumont20 That's complete nonsense. Anyone who considers all sex to be rape is not mentally competent. That's not feminism. That's insanity. And your notion that Bill raped Hillary in order for them to have Chelsea is misguided at best. Furthermore, Hillary, a savvy woman to say the least, knew good & damned well that women were throwing themselves at her husband. He's a handsome, intelligent, powerful man. NEWSFLASH: that turns women on. Think man. Think.
1
@chaumont20 (cont'd I) 2) Your notion that Bill Clinton was so desperate that he banged anyone he could is just plain silly. A man who has his kind of power has access to EVERYTHING & EVERYONE. Again, you think that people don't make their own choices. That's a constant theme in your logic. It's a constant, incorrect theme. But most of all you can't speak for his notion of "beauty" because you don't behold with his eye. (cont'd)
1
@chaumont20 No. This conversation isn't going well because you can't discern between a mentally competent feminist & a nutjob. It's also not going well because you think that you can speak for Bill Clinton when it comes to defining terms like "attraction" & "appeal". But most of all, it's going badly because you don't know that there's a difference between the women a guy's BEEN fucking & the women he gets CAUGHT fucking.
1
I don't know that because I prefer to fill my head with actual facts. A "feminist" is a woman who's competent & capable of some reason. The person whose outlook you're depicting isn't competent. As for Bill Clinton's choice of women, you're assuming that he only dealt with women that YOU know about. At risk of making the slippery slope argument, I'd say that your notion of "top notch" lacks data. Also, you're assuming that you both have the same notion of "attractive". Do better my friend.
1
@chaumont20 I gotta append my last comment though. A "lock box"? You're sounding like a TFL guy or someone who's generally not comfortable around women. Exhibit 1, "Feminism can be scary sometimes." No. It's not. Exhibit 2, "... it didn't matter what they looked like." You're evaluating women strictly by their looks and on top of that, you're making a conclusion from an extremely small sample group. Think man. Think.
1
@IntolerantAtheist1 Not so fast. He's a dickhead. But don't think he's without his charm. I know ugly guys, old guys & fat guys that crush their fair share of ass. Rush is no different. What really surprises me is that he actually read a book.
1
I know it's supposed to be satire mixed with seriousness. But I think there's something wrong with Rush Limbaugh.
1
@MrBlemph No. Liberals aren't all supposed to be tolerant. In fact, liberals & radicals are INtolerant of stupidity. Everyone ain't a bigot. But isn't Limbaugh's bigotry pretty well established by now?
1
@chaumont20 Your arguments are getting thinner as they progress. But I'll reprise things for you since you're lost. 1) A person who thinks consensual sex between men & women is rape is NOT MENTALLY COMPETENT. Even if you follow the premise that men are intrinsically at an advantage because of the way our world is ordered, that premises disregards the fact that people have some choices no matter what walk of life they dwell in. Get your head around that. (cont'd)
1
@chaumont20 No. You don't want to see my logic because you don't like being corrected. Aside from that, all you've offered is conjecture while I, at best, have raised reasonable doubt. All you have now is false dichotomies & polarized, conservative rhetoric that has no basis in reality, let alone data. You lose. Thanks for playing though.
1
No. A person doesn't need to have been in a fight to be a "real man". But be honest. How many "real men" do you know that haven't been in at least 1 dust up? Yes. A "real man" does have a certain level of aggression. Must he act on his testosterone-motivated impulses? No. But a "real man" has some fight in him. I say that because "real man" means he has some mettle & fortitude. As for the association with sex, that's kinda tough & the connections between sex & violence are already documented.
1
@chaumont20 (cont'd II) 3) You assume to know about all of his affairs, trysts, dalliances, liaisons & quickies. It's conventional wisdom that a kid has been to the cookie jar a few times before you finally catch him. Again, stop confusing a behavior (practice) with a few acts (the times he got caught). I didn't know LOGIC is "chickified". I guess using fallacies, generalizations & potshots is your idea of "macho". Moron.
1
@chaumont20 Lock Box? Bubba was banging chicks left & right. C'mon.
1