Change order of comments:  



Comments on:   Perversion . . .


Comments on This Entry (Add your comments in the form below):
online pharmacy  2013-04-07 03:53:00

online pharmacy no prescription us - online pharmacy you can trust



tramadol online  2013-04-05 11:03:00

tramadol online order - buy tramadol us pharmacy



buy cheap antibiotics  2013-04-05 08:07:00

buy antibiotics online - buy antibiotics online in usa



sevhsackb  2013-02-12 09:15:00

MtS4vb utyrsuzfzkpb, [url=http://kbgfqmmjkttu.com/]kbgfqmmjkttu[/url], [link=http://qemuibdbuhag.com/]qemuibdbuhag[/link], http://lktyzmcinqol.com/



RL  2012-11-29 11:10:00

Welcome to Instapunk.



  2012-11-29 10:57:00

@RL

I appreciate your willingness to start over. Thank you.



RL  2012-11-29 05:49:00

Waffle:

That would be welcome. I respect your intelligence too, now that you've bothered to display it. When you come in the door behind a grenade, you're not likely to get anyone's most thoughtful effort. We can start over. Writing well is a credential I accept.

You argue cleverly but not always fairly, and the constant bomb-throwing is a distraction. It never occurred to me to call you a faggot. I did assume based on your rhetoric that you were a conventional lefty in the mold of sixties radicals. You may still be that, but there's more to it than that obviously. Which is where you have me at a disadvantage. You can sharpshoot me for years of writings penned in all kinds of moods ranging from thoughtful to deliberately provocative to tongue in cheek, while I am talking to a phantom who attacks me without stating what he actually believes in. I have to try to figure that out a comment at a time while dodging bullets.

That's why I talk about credentials and experience. No position exists in a vacuum. Everyone is from somewhere and has lived a life rich in some kinds of experience and not in others. Knowing this is helpful not because it provides ammunition, but because it facilitates communication that might be meaningful.

When you're just a nom de guerre calling me names, I'm in the dark. I don't even know what constitutes evidence in your mind.

People who want to talk are warmly received here. People who want a fight get one. I don't ban people from commenting, which I'm thinking is a rarity in the blog world.

So if you want to talk, we'll talk. I can be reasonable. A lot of what you construe as hateful in my blog is me stirring the pot, defying the hypocrisies of political correctness, and thumbing my nose at reflexive lefties. Try to imagine that I'm a sane person who will actually listen to what you have to say if conversation rather than assault is what you have in mind.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-29 03:43:00

And yes, I meant one "t." I suppose that's a sign to stop.

Anyway: I apologize for how heated this has become. While I stand by the points I've made, I do disavow the insults and provocations. For me, trading barbs, no matter how pointed, is part of the fun; but perhaps this wasn't the time or place for it. I don't actually believe you to be a Neanderthal or idiot or whatever; in fact, the only reason I argue with you is because I respect your intelligence.

I'd like to continue this debate, or even start over so as to untangle the various threads that constitute the present conversation. I will, as you asked earlier, cease and desist with the overheated rhetoric.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-29 02:00:00

“Also, your sudden reverence for Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison. Women have always had influence. So did Madame Pompadour. That's not the same as the popular vote.”

*sigh* You truly are too stupid for words. You originally argued that women were effectively irrelevant for thousands of years until either a.) the passage of the 19th Amendment or b.) the arrival of the feminist movement. Now you're backtracking and claiming that they “have always had influence.”

So which is it? Were they completely powerless until relatively recently, or have they always enjoyed a degree of influence over politics and culture?

“Go ahead and try to make the case that it was men who couldn't find jobs who reelected and reelected and reelected FDR. Everyone in the world would just laugh at you.”

Go ahead and try to make the case that women were responsible for the four hilariously embarrassing defeats Republicans suffered at the hands of FDR. Please, show me your statistical proof.

What's that? You don't have any? What a surprise!

I find it amusing, by the way, that you consider women's votes as somehow less real or legitimate than men's. But you're no misogynist. No way no how! You're just “concerned,” right?

“Women didn't elect JFK? Really? Women didn't elect LBJ? When they all knew Goldwater would start WW3?”

Aaaaaand no evidence. Again! You are on quite a roll here, bub. Baseless assertion after baseless assertion, with nary a link, book, or study in sight. This must be some sort of record!

“Now we're all racists and sexists if we recognize that there are serious problems associated with race and sex. Despite all the Democrat "support" black men still go to prison more than college, and women keep winding up as single mothers, mostly unmarried.”

No, you're racist and sexist because you call black people “niggers” and claim women are responsible for the decline of Western civilization. That's why you're considered racist and sexist. And do you actually believe black men are incarcerated more often than whites because of feminism? Really? Because the last time I checked there was a whole host of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with bra-burning and “The Feminine Mystique.”

“Feminists have even destroyed the lives of middle and upper-middle class women. Kick the bastard out if he cheats on you. Hear me roar! Which is an absolutely disastrous financial outcome for women and their children. More single mothers. Much more poverty, because the wage-earner can wait out out the costs of divorce until she can't afford to continue, and now the woman is roaring in a one bedroom apartment while she waits tables at Denny's and her kids have no Nikes and no father. Meanwhile, the MSM tries to convince us the greater loss is the former, not the latter.”

*sigh* Now this is becoming embarrassing. And tiresome. You do realize divorce rates have been steadily declining, right (http://tinyurl.com/5ppbx; the average rate: 3.4 out of 1000)?

BTW: whatever truth the “erosion of the family” argument may contain has been completely subsumed under a tidal wave of arch-conservative horseshit. And while it's true liberals are some times guilty of ignoring said erosion when attempting to explain poverty or violence, conservatives can't even begin to admit the impact of deindustrialization, the War on Drugs, the legacy of discrimination and bigotry, etc., on (especially urban) communities. To do so would undermine their tidy little laissez-faire narrative they've clung to for oh so long. And we wouldn't want to do that, would we?

“Progressivism is calamity. But it speaks soothing words to women, who keep believing those words, the same way a beaten wife believes her husband when he says he won't do it again.”

Yes, because what they need is your “tough love.” Being told that their participation in the political process is destroying America will surely open their eyes. Then they'll do as they're told and return to the kitchen, maybe fetch you a sandwich and a beer. If they done know what's good for 'em, right?

“Waffle, you're the moron. A stone fucking moron.”

And I'm beginning to believe “Neanderthal” was too mild a term for you. Perhaps “swamp creature” or “tumor” would be more fitting. Or maybe even “genital wart.”

“When you say that credentials and experience and age don't matter, you just prove yourself a fool. At best you're naive. At worst you're a cynical ideologue. Either way, you're an ignorant clown. And most likely a eunuch.”

*gasp* Oh no you didn't! Eunuch! How dare -

Really, that's the best you have? I expect better from an insane, right-wing authoritarian. I mean, you have clearly demonstrated that you are capable of adopting the most idiotic and offensive positions imaginable. Why stop with “eunuch”? Why not use the dreaded “f” word? You know, the one that ends with two t's and rhymes with “maggot.” I know you would like to use it, I know it must be so hard to hold back. But rest assured, you can always be honest with me.

And no, your “credentials and experience and age” don't count for anything. I'm sorry. That's not how this works, friend. You can either take responsibility for your positions, past and present, or you can continue playing this game in which you continually dodge and duck everything thrown your way. Or bury it beneath an avalanche of willful obfuscation and fact-free counter-arguments. My guess is you'll take the latter route, as you are clearly wont to do.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-28 11:56:00

“I'll begin with a preface. I'm not advocating repeal of women's right to vote. I'm simply pointing out that it's a catastrophe. But in terms of history, it was the first progressives -- your Wilson and TR -- who put the wheels in motion for the 19th amendment.”

So you concede that women were not, in fact, responsible for the expansion of government? That that trend began well before the 19th Amendment became law? Do you? Or are you still clinging to your ahistorical assumptions?

"Your allegiance to FDR is so predictable it's laughable. He did nothing but prolong the depression with all his government interventions. Keynesian economics has never worked. The depression ended in the U.S. because of WW2, not because the progressives had the slightest idea what they were doing. Discussed not strictly by anecdote and with reference to subsequent Keynesians here."

You once again demonstrate your ignorance of history. FDR didn't embrace Keynesianism until 1938 ("The General Theory of Unemployment" wasn't published until 1936). He was, in fact, somewhat of a deficit hawk throughout his first two terms (http://tinyurl.com/d346q63). He attempted to balance the budget in 1937, after unemployment had fallen by 10 percentage points (http://tinyurl.com/ydvmwol; that graph excludes farm and WPA employment, by the way) and GDP growth had returned to its pre-Depression heights. The result: the U.S. entered a recession. The lesson: austerity rarely, if ever, works.

Oh, and the WW2 argument is my favorite. You are aware of something called “military Keynesianism,” right?

“I may be a mouth breathing Neanderthal, but inflation is coming. Currency collapse is a real possibility given the U.S. government's refusal to rein in spending. When the dollar means nothing, which it will when GDP is falling rather than rising, we'll be carrying dollars in wheelbarrows like the Germans in the Weimar Republic.”

Except that it isn't. The deficit (http://tinyurl.com/d45wku5) and government spending (http://tinyurl.com/c2mysj9, http://tinyurl.com/c7x2eth) are falling. Interest rates remain near zero. The dollar remains strong (http://tinyurl.com/8hykhrr). Much to your disappointment, I'm sure.

“You laugh off the impact of abortion . . .”

You do realize I haven't mentioned abortion til now, right?

I don't know what's going on in that lil' head of yours, but perhaps you should consult a doctor about the voices you're hearing.

“What you libs are really good at, of course, is selective context. Like your reference to all the queens of imperial Europe who prove that women were always up to the challenge of ruling. But if I ask you about the divine right of kings, you'll denounce kings and most likely God too. Unspeakable. Kings were a gang of thieves and thugs. Until you need Catherine, Elizabeth, and probably Joan of Arc to establish provenance for female governance.”

And what you cons are really good at, of course, is cognitive dissonance. You argued in the OP that women were incapable of ruling, that women have never held power until the 20th century. I provided evidence that contradicted that assertion, that women have, in fact, exercised authority over nations and kingdoms before women's suffrage.

You then somehow interpreted said evidence (which was merely a list) as both a.) a qualitative assessment of the aforementioned rulers and b.) a condemnation of divine rule and “most likely God too.” All the while ignoring the fact that I had just knocked a vital pillar out from under your already shaky argument.

I'm not sure how or where you learned your critical reading skills, but someone did you a great disservice.

“You're a sad, sloppy thinker. Waffle is a perfect name for you. You waffle on simple moral questions. You're savage on those who dare to disagree, squishy on those whose ideology is somehow maybe similar. I'll bet you defend Muslims and make excuses for honor killings. I'll bet you pride yourself on your anti-Zionism and favor Palestinians. And feel tremendously righteous in doing so.”

Have you stopped beating your wife, sir?

(And nope. I don't. Sorry)

“I'll bet what you've said to me here is more extreme than anything you've said or thought about the terrorists who killed four Americans in Benghazi.”

Have you stopped beating your wife, sir?

(And nope. It isn't. Sorry)

“Mouth breathing Neanderthal? That would be you. You sponsor more death than I've ever thought of.”

Says the one whose blog endorses nuclear war.



Ralph  2012-11-28 11:34:00

I posted the wrong song. Here is the one I meant to post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dip54axBnIs

The pill changed everything and led to wanna be madonnas and whores. Culture has barely left that particular starting gate.



RL  2012-11-28 10:10:00

waffle:

Forgot that you'll harp on the 1920 to 1960 gap.

Also, your sudden reverence for Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison. Women have always had influence. So did Madame Pompadour. That's not the same as the popular vote.

The last president to stop a depression in its tracks was Calvin Coolidge. After him the rhetoric changed. The first president to implement 90 percent tax rates was Hoover. Didn't work. Then came the fireside chats of Roosevelt.

Go ahead and try to make the case that it was men who couldn't find jobs who reelected and reelected and reelected FDR. Everyone in the world would just laugh at you.

Women didn't elect JFK? Really?

Women didn't elect LBJ? When they all knew Goldwater would start WW3?

And then came the feminists. And the complete redefinition of the Democrat Party in 1972. McGovern lost the election, but he won the war. After him, Democrats were about social justice, identity politics, and name calling. The uterus became a weapon.

Now we're all racists and sexists if we recognize that there are serious problems associated with race and sex. Despite all the Democrat "support" black men still go to prison more than college, and women keep winding up as single mothers, mostly unmarried.

Feminists have even destroyed the lives of middle and upper-middle class women. Kick the bastard out if he cheats on you. Hear me roar! Which is an absolutely disastrous financial outcome for women and their children.

More single mothers. Much more poverty, because the wage-earner can wait out out the costs of divorce until she can't afford to continue, and now the woman is roaring in a one bedroom apartment while she waits tables at Denny's and her kids have no Nikes and no father. Meanwhile, the MSM tries to convince us the greater loss is the former, not the latter.

Progressivism is calamity. But it speaks soothing words to women, who keep believing those words, the same way a beaten wife believes her husband when he says he won't do it again.

Waffle, you're the moron. A stone fucking moron. When you say that credentials and experience and age don't matter, you just prove yourself a fool. At best you're naive. At worst you're a cynical ideologue. Either way, you're an ignorant clown. And most likely a eunuch.

What feminism has wrought.



RL  2012-11-28 09:23:00

At last Waffle awakens. Time to show off his brilliance.

Should I deal with him from last to first or first to last?

I'll begin with a preface. I'm not advocating repeal of women's right to vote. I'm simply pointing out that it's a catastrophe. But in terms of history, it was the first progressives -- your Wilson and TR -- who put the wheels in motion for the 19th amendment.

Your allegiance to FDR is so predictable it's laughable. He did nothing but prolong the depression with all his government interventions. Keynesian economics has never worked. The depression ended in the U.S. because of WW2, not because the progressives had the slightest idea what they were doing. Discussed not strictly by anecdote and with reference to subsequent Keynesians here:

http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1638

I may be a mouth breathing Neanderthal, but inflation is coming. Currency collapse is a real possibility given the U.S. government's refusal to rein in spending. When the dollar means nothing, which it will when GDP is falling rather than rising, we'll be carrying dollars in wheelbarrows like the Germans in the Weimar Republic.

You laugh off the impact of abortion. I'm guessing you're fairly young. Things you haven't thought of. Links you can prove to yourself without trusting me: more minorities obtain abortions than middle class whites. So how is it that pro-life Christians are racist? More black and brown babies are being aborted than any other. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had precisely this in mind. She was an advocate of eugenics. Now eugenics is the proud policy of progressives. By all means, let's abort all those unwanted black babies. Free the moms to be hip-hop stars. 800,000 abortions this year. You like kids? Sure you do. Just not disadvantaged kids. If they don't have swings and Fisher-Price toys, they don't deserve to live. Why? Because you know better. And I'm the entitled asshole.

To my mind, it's something like ethnic cleansing if two out of three abortions involve black mothers. But I'm the racist, of course.

What you libs are really good at, of course, is selective context. Like your reference to all the queens of imperial Europe who prove that women were always up to the challenge of ruling. But if I ask you about the divine right of kings, you'll denounce kings and most likely God too. Unspeakable. Kings were a gang of thieves and thugs. Until you need Catherine, Elizabeth, and probably Joan of Arc to establish provenance for female governance.

You're a sad, sloppy thinker. Waffle is a perfect name for you. You waffle on simple moral questions. You're savage on those who dare to disagree, squishy on those whose ideology is somehow maybe similar. I'll bet you defend Muslims and make excuses for honor killings. I'll bet you pride yourself on your anti-Zionism and favor Palestinians. And feel tremendously righteous in doing so.

I'll bet what you've said to me here is more extreme than anything you've said or thought about the terrorists who killed four Americans in Benghazi.

Mouth breathing Neanderthal? That would be you. You sponsor more death than I've ever thought of.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-28 08:04:00

@RL

You just don't get it, do you? But if you want a breakdown of your stupidity, I suppose I'm obligated to give you one.

“The United States of America was doomed from the moment women got the vote. Ann Coulter knows it. My wife knows it but won't say it. Mostly, they can't rise above the Family and Friends level of the hierarchy. Everybody should do for them because they have kids. Voila! Obama.”

And you've yet to rise above the first level, you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

“But that's what we celebrate now. Women insist on being both madonnas AND whores. They want to be canonized for the physiological act of motherhood WHILE being granted the exclusive right to be as promiscuous as they want and end a life because they happen to harbor it in their wombs.”

This line of argument rests entirely on an eminently contestable, highly dubious generalization. You provide nothing in the way of examples or evidence. And no, your anecdotes and assumptions don't count.

“No society before ours has granted them the power to rule more than the home. For 5,000 years, civilization has known they possess the power to destroy everything. “

Queens Victoria, Theodora, Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella, Maria Theresa, etc., would beg to differ. Moron.

Though I wonder if you're referring to their latent influence over American politics and culture. Because I hate to break it to you, pal, but that's always been the case. From Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison to the temperance and abolitionist movements, women have always enjoyed a degree of power not explicitly recognized by our political and social systems. The same could be said for most other societies.

This isn't hidden knowledge. This is basic history. Which you would discover if you ever opened a book.

“Within the last 50 years we embarked on a great experiment that not only proves they can, but that they have done it in very short order.”

Again, you provide nothing in the way of evidence for your causal link between women's suffrage and societal decline. And your argument is riddled with contradictions. When, exactly, did this alleged decline begin? Was it, as you argued earlier in your post, when women earned the right to vote in 1920? Or does its origin lie in the feminist movement of the 1960s?

It's probably small change to you, but a.) those events and movements are not one and the same, and b.) that's a forty-fifty year gap you fail to account for.

“Anybody doubt that Michelle can whip Barack's ass? Of course she can. Has she? Of course she has. The result? The insanity of a rejected twerp.”

Now you're just projecting. And you may not have heard the news, but Barack Obama was just re-elected. I don't think “rejected' is an apt descriptor. You, on the other hand . . .

“But the government has grown and grown and grown ever since women decided government needed to take care of everyone. How FDR got elected. Maybe it's the right thing to do. But is it? If it kills our whole civilization? The Catholic Church has been wrong all this time that women need to be especially virtuous? Now that more than 7 out of 10 births are illegitimate. When women are loud, promiscuous, and in charge, civilization dies.”

What a fucking mess. First, government's transition to modernity began with the (Teddy) Roosevelt and Wilson administrations. Their legislative achievements, which expanded the government's role/powers, preceded the passage of the 19th Amendment.

And honestly, the federal government has from its inception “taken care” of people. From protective tariffs to land grants to military contracts, and from subsidized railroads to union-busting to protecting overseas business interests, the state has always provided a safety net of sorts. The only difference now is that the safety net directly benefits a broader constituency .

As for FDR: his election (and re-election, and re-election, and re-election) signified a rejection of failed economic practices. The last time I checked feminism wasn't responsible for the Great Depression.

“That's not a provocative statement. It's the simple fucking truth. What's more, every woman whose opinion you respect already knows this. She just doesn't want to talk about it.”

Every asshole I know sounds exactly like you. I take this as proof that you're a dickhead. Do I win now? Are my anecdotes more convincing than yours?



RL  2012-11-28 05:12:00

Waffle:

Fine. Hang around. You've never made a coherent argument about anything. Never cited a single fact. I can live with that. What dog lover can't put up with the panting of the stray who just has to be close? What's the occasional growl against the broken heart that can't find any home without breaking into it?



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-28 04:51:00

"Denunciation is not debate. I offered you a forum. You persist in hidden superiority."

It isn't hidden. It's self-evident. I feel no need to mince words for the benefit of a deluded lunatic.

And you offer no forum; I've played that game before here, and it inevitably devolves into a pissing contest over credentials and "experience." You have no interest in debate, because you know nothing. All you have are your anecdotes and assumptions.

"Don't come here again."

No. I'll do as I please.

"You're a joke that's been told many times. Go back to MSNBC."

Only if you return to whatever cesspool you crawled out of.



RL  2012-11-28 04:15:00

Dr. Waffle.

Apple corrected my pejoratives.

Denunciation is not debate. I offered you a forum. You persist in hidden superiority.

Don't come here again. You're a joke that's been told many times. Go back to MSNBC.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-28 01:52:00

"Please. You're still anonymous. So far, you're still the coward. Everyone here knows exactly who I am. You? A hit and run smear troll."

Oh, my name it means nothin'

And my age it means less . . .

"I've written at length and specifically about all the subjects you claim I haven't. Search the site (and use the advanced search function) for all the terms and names you declare I haven't addressed. "

I never claimed that you haven't written "at length and specifically" about all your various pet issues. What I did claim is that you rarely ever provide anything in the way of evidence to support your assertions. Your arguments, including the one presented in the OP, rest almost entirely on cliches, assumptions, and generalizations.

"What you'll find: I don't fall into your easy categories. I bash Fox News hard and specifically, as I do most conservative icons, as well as lib filth mongers like Maher, Matthews, and Hollywood dimwits."

Is this supposed to impress me? I was unaware that shooting fish in a barrel merited a Medal of Honor.

"All you've done so far is characterize individual posts without responding specifically to their content or temporal context."

What content? Those posts contain no complexity or nuance. Advocating for the annihilation of an entire country; categorizing blacks you don't like as "niggers"; mocking the victims of terrorist attacks; blaming women for some imagined societal decline: these positions speak for themselves.

"Am I a pseudo intellectual? . . . If the definition is anyone who disagrees with you, I am. If the definition is someone who is curious, engages in debate and has a basic knowledge of science, history, philosophy, religion, literature, and the fine arts, then maybe you should climb off your high perch and engage in conversation rather than invective."

That's wonderful. But I don't care. Your tastes in music and art, the books you read, have apparently had little effect on your thought processes. Because for all your erudition and worldliness, you still traffic in the most vile and base “invective.”

"It's my site and you're a guest here. Did your mother teach you the responsibilities of a guest? If I were a Columbia undergrad throwing pies at Israeli speakers because they're worse than Nazis, I doubt you'd call them the names you've called me. But, you see, that's what your clumsy, nasty entry here forces me to think."

And therein lies the difference between you and me. I don't need to assume what you think. You've laid it bare many, many times. And it is ugly.

As for respect: why I should have any for someone who has so little for seemingly so many? You forfeited any claim to respectability a long time ago.

Oh, by the way: "Keep railing *with* pejoratively and this is my last communication with you."

Your entire argument must be invalid now. Or something. Grammar Nazi.



RL  2012-11-28 12:43:00

Dr. Waffle:

Please. You're still anonymous. So far, you're still the coward. Everyone here knows exactly who I am. You? A hit and run smear troll.

I've written at length and specifically about all the subjects you claim I haven't. Search the site (and use the advanced search function) for all the terms and names you declare I haven't addressed.

What you'll find: I don't fall into your easy categories. I bash Fox News hard and specifically, as I do most conservative icons, as well as lib filth mongers like Maher, Matthews, and Hollywood dimwits.

I argue at this point in time for maximum federal revenue because I am serious about the deficit:

http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=2503

All you've done so far is characterize individual posts without responding specifically to their content or temporal context.

What you've missed is that "decline" is something I've been charting in print for more than 20 years.

http://theboomerbible.com/

Am I a pseudo intellectual? Depends on how you define it, I suppose. If the definition is anyone who disagrees with you, I am. If the definition is someone who is curious, engages in debate and has a basic knowledge of science, history, philosophy, religion, literature, and the fine arts, then maybe you should climb off your high perch and engage in conversation rather than invective.

Note that I'm not calling you names. I don't presume to know if your complexion is sickeningly white or if you have no penis. Maybe you have a vagina instead. I don't care.

Keep railing with pejoratively and this is my last communication with you. Join the discussion and I'll be the judge of whether you have anything to contribute.

It's my site and you're a guest here. Did your mother teach you the responsibilities of a guest? If I were a Columbia undergrad throwing pies at Israeli speakers because they're worse than Nazis, I doubt you'd call them the names you've called me. But, you see, that's what your clumsy, nasty entry here forces me to think.

Dr. Waffle.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-28 11:42:00

@RL

A spelling error. Really. That's all you have? How weak.

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised by your feebleness. You have no ground to stand on, considering your "satirical and irreverent" record.

P.S. There's one spelling error. "Whiney," while used less often than "whiny," is an acceptable alternative.



RL  2012-11-28 10:45:00

Dr. Waffle:

"So on that note: go fuck yourself, you ignorant, entitled windbag. Pastey-faced, dickless pseudo-intellectual. Whiney, irrelevant coward."

You disapprove of rhetoric, do you? You call me a coward. Is your surname really Waffle? Are you really a doctor? Of what? You fly in, dismiss 10 years of thoughtful and, yes, satirical and irreverent posts, and then you expect to be taken seriously.

Explain to us how you are brave. And explain how you feel justified in charging anyone with being a pseudo intellectual when you commit two spelling errors in your arrogant two line denunciation. Not a typo. Same error both times.

I'd talk to you if you made any real argument. But you're more like an anonymous Bill Maher -- all snide assumption of superiority with no substance. So, yeah, you're a libtard.



Ralph  2012-11-28 12:09:00

Here is why RL has a point and what led to married women voting one way and single women voting another. It is also why there are ever more single women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMzSYyjNb74&feature=related



Joseph  2012-11-27 09:05:00

I guess in a civilization that respects the martial spirit and centers around a warrior ethos, men will rule. That was the way it worked for thousands of years, but then someone figured out how to make the machine gun, and we saw that in a world of Industrial Revolution that if you let the men be men, it would require melting down the last strip of rebar and the final church-bell, and that three-hundred thousand men could die in a week's worth of fighting, easy.

Twenty odd years later, the atomic bomb made it official. Generals would never again be warriors (i.e. Patton). They had to be bureaucrats (Eisenhower), or maybe even eunuchs (Petreus).



urthshu  2012-11-27 03:45:00

heh. look - shiny things! and people are wrong on twitter! fly, fly you fools!



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-27 03:06:00

"Let's hope for your sake that it does. Don't see much else in your own comments."

*sigh* Do you want some evidence as to the condition of our civilization? Fine, here it is.

Look outside.

*waiting*

Did you see any black helicopters circling over your house? Was there a lynch-mob waiting outside? Zombies roaming the streets? Ravenous feminists ripping the still-beating hearts out of men's chests?

Did you see anything like that?

No? Okay. It appears things are fine. So calm down, chicken little.



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-27 02:58:00

What I find most hilarious about the Instapunk crowd is how sensitive they are to insult. You cry foul and scold interlopers like myself as if we're the barbarians at the gate; yet you do nothing but denigrate entire groups of people. The OP is a perfect example of this.

I mean, for Christ's sake this blog has endorsed nuking Afghanistan (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=2265) as a solution to the conflict there. It has engaged in the most vile race-baiting (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1306). It has mocked and insulted victims of terrorist attacks (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=2566). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But hey, we libtards are the real uncivilized ones, right?



D.F.  2012-11-27 02:49:00

Really? I wasn't aware rhetoric counted as evidence.

Let's hope for your sake that it does. Don't see much else in your own comments.



Dr. Waffke  2012-11-27 02:34:00

@Dr. Falafel

Really? I wasn't aware rhetoric counted as evidence. Though I am beginning to understand how modern-day America must seem like a hellish dystopia to you and your ilk, what with women and minorities being able to vote and all. Oh, the humanity!



Dr. Falafel  2012-11-27 01:55:00

Now that that's out of the way: are you morons completely incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever of this supposed civilizational decline you're always yammering on about?

Yeah, only a meager 85-95% of the content of this site chronicles said decline, your comment included. I can see how you missed it, "doctor".



Dr. Waffle  2012-11-27 10:24:00

I've made it a tradition to stop in and see if the Instapunk crowd is still spouting awful, deluded nonsense. This visit has yielded an affirmative.

So on that note: go fuck yourself, you ignorant, entitled windbag. Pastey-faced, dickless pseudo-intellectual. Whiney, irrelevant coward.

Now that that's out of the way: are you morons completely incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever of this supposed civilizational decline you're always yammering on about? Not the same-old, tired cliches you trout out about "big gummint" or "dem dere welfare queens and sich." I mean actual, hard evidence not cooked up in the trailer park.

Is it the deficit that irks you so? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Food stamps? Too many of dem evil darkies and women-folk participatin' in the political process for you?



urthshu  2012-11-27 06:13:00

Oh, c'mon the pits of male bones were probably just the remains of some program designed to make war less general.

"These wars leave a terrible mess"

"Yes they do, but what can we do about it?"

"We'll just make it all illegal"

"OK but wars will still be fought, won't they?"

"Well, maybe we could just ...limit them. We'll set up a pit someplace so the boys who want to fight can do so. And we'll make everyone watch so everyone knows what war is about and that'll kill off everyone's taste for it"



Sith  2012-11-27 12:28:00

I'm sorry if I bring up that "male bones in pits" thing during Matriarchies, a lot. But It seems very disturbing to me, especially with what you're talking about.



Winston_Sith  2012-11-26 11:36:00

When I used to be an Occult Fascist (That sounds way cooler than "Satanist" lol), I read some article about how some anthropologists dug up some place where they found that, during a so called "matriarchal society" there were pits of male bones, apparently after some sort of "sacrificial" event.

Gotta love the Matriarchy...?



Winston_Sith  2012-11-26 10:23:00

"When women are loud, promiscuous, and in charge, civilization dies."

THAT is one of the most "incendiary" statements I've heard, like... EVER.

THAT makes that old saw about "Well Behaved Women Don't Make History." look really fucking stupid, like all that "Sugar and Spice" propaganda.

Love it.



Lake  2012-11-26 04:52:00

Ripped from The Naked Woman!

I have more to say about this post, but I am thinking about it. My wife is actually asking why I'm staring off into space. I'm not telling her!



Change order of comments:  


If you would like to post a comment, please complete the following form. Keep your comments on point. Have fun. Thanks.


Post a comment