cali j Why are you intentional why are you intentional I said why are you so intentional
You say its easy
A game that you play
Is what you say
But I don't play games I said
It's just a waste of your time
which you will find in time
What's mine is mine and yours is yours
I said why are you so intentional?
Don't you see
it's a waste life
Why do you enjoy strife?
such a waste of life
Who put your blinders on
You can take them off now
Its ok
Its safe
You don't see them you said
Your vision is blurred
Too much too little too late
You have CHOSEN your fate!
minnesota_chris today I told a woman (a potential love interest) that I was going to do something today. And she said that that is good, it's good to make plans and do them.

I thought about that, and I think that that is one of the things that women are drawn to the most, the man who decides things and does them.

I think it's one of the reasons that acquaintance rape goes so unreported, because there's something so sexy about a man who decides what he wants and goes for it, even if what he wants is to violate your vagina.
pobody "I think it's one of the reasons that acquaintance rape goes so unreported, because there's something so sexy about a man who decides what he wants and goes for it, even if what he wants is to violate your vagina."

I'm seriously hoping that somebody is screwing about and playing with your post name Chris, because otherwise i take a whole hell of a lot of offence to that above statement.

Speaking as a female who has always had a fear of just the *possibility* of being raped, i can't tell you in words how incredibly insulting that statement is to myself and likely most (if not all) women.
There is NOTHING sexy about a man who selfishly forces himself on a woman so he can get what he wants, while leaving her to try to pick up the pieces of her life afterwards.
In highschool i wrote a report on rape victims in one of my classes, and part of my research materials included a book filled with several victims' stories (including many who had known their rapists). I cried so many tears reading their stories...

The aquaintance rapist is the most disgusting of all, because he's someone the woman knows...and thinks she can trust. Someone she thinks is a "nice guy", and he betrays that trust.
And since he's someone she knows, she may have to see her rapist in everyday situations. Plus, our laws are pretty lax about rapists... you can be caught with a certain amount of drugs 3 times and be put away for many many years, but if you change a persons' life FOREVER (by violently taking something that isn't yours to take) you could possibly just get away with it.

Just think about that Chris. Imagine if someone changed YOUR life forever by say...shooting you in the balls, and you had to see them walking around as free as a bird because the (mostly male) lawmakers didn't feel it was criminal enough. You'd likely be terrified. And enraged. Kind of like i am at you right now for making that dumbass statement. Fuck, if you were right here in front of me, i'd grab the nearest hot beverage and spill it where you'd damn well remember it. :P
minnesota_chris I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying that women like qualities like that in a man. 080225
minnesota_chris and when I say "women like" I mean "many women like", since it's a bad idea to generalize. 080225
falling_alone i would rather my man have some impulse control 080225
stork daddy Marked by a persecution complex and uncommon fervor, right wing pundits are legion and have made a cottage industry out of misleading the populace into voting against their self-interest by misplacing it with an arms race of rhetoric and buzz words. By manufacturing outrage, both calculatingly and naively, they have helped to create a more clearly defined bi-partisan america in post-cold-war america. Who are the worst amongst this slanderous breed? In determining this, I will not argue over who was most effective at pushing conservative agendas, as there are respectable conservative arguments to be made from a purely political standpoint. Instead I will focus on those in the media who have pushed the dangerous rhetoric of fear and hatred in advancing their agenda, and their varying degrees of culpability. Without further ado, I present the 6 worst right wing pundits and talking heads.

6. Michael Savage - In a word: wacky. Effete and histrionic, Savage, the self-proclaimed intellectual, shows the same tendency towards apocalyptic and whimsical thinking that likely led him to identify with the far leftist fringes of the counter-cultural movements in his youth, now that a revisionist galvanizing of traditional values is his guiding philosophy. With a voice and comic timing that seems to emulate Lenny Bruce, the highly aesthetic quality of the man's imagination and story-telling ability cannot be denied. This precisely is what makes the man so dangerous. The man's life seems a study in contradictions, with his stated hatred for "San Fransicko" and the homosexual agenda contrasting with his established dalliance with the beats of north beach and the evidenced erotically charged correspondance he had with Allen Ginsburg. For his part, he seems disinterested in how he's received, and conducts his broadcasts with a temperament that seems more melancholy artist than serious political commentator. His rhetoric seems prone to idealizations of an imagined past american character that come off as overly saccharine and fawns over these re-creations in a way that even Walt Whitman would likely find inappropriately seductive. His philosophy, mirroring the changes in many artists, whether they're actually good at art or not, seems to vacillate wildly, and the truth is more likely in the aggregate. Such a detached view is what he seems to possess, though he'd never admit it. The danger, however, is that he reaches out to people who do not see him as an artist pushing extremes, but rather as a journalist pushing accuracy.

5. Rush Limbaugh - The grand old man of right wing punditry, Rush Limbaugh presents a down to earth, common sense conservatism to his middle and lower class workers, while himself having been caught up in the decadence of an upper class lifestyle in more than one way, in the form of multiple divorces and painkiller addiction. Himself undistinguished in academics, he eschew privilege and presents himself as an everyman, despite having a family filled with lawyers - perhaps some of which were the very lawyers he so often blames for the decline in the free market and entrepreneurial spirit. Still his bombastic voice and over the top presentation is compelling theater. Popularizing the use of shorthand propagandistic terms for his positions, and using creative editing and sound bites made his show a refuge of comfort, where the like-minded could hear their positions presented by Rush with a confidence usually associated with truth. Rush's show was, and remains, a place where you didn't have to argue carefully over the facts, because you knew you were right, and that's all that matters in the end. How does a supporter of a woman's right to choose argue with the term "pro-life" and the sound effect of a vacuum "aborting" callers that Rush employed to the amusement of himself and his listeners? In fact, it could be argued that much of the strategy in modern times centering on which words to choose for any political position, while certainly not new to politics, has been indelibly changed by Rush's quick and dirty word associations. Why is he only 5th then? Because Rush seems to call it in lately. Rush seems to be an individual who wanted to be a radio star, wanted his voice to boom across the mountains, had some conservative beliefs and got caught up in his own machinery. One need only listen to the slight embarrassment Rush has in his inflection when responding to callers who thank him for raising their children or for being as courageous as the troops in the ground in Iraq. Obviously Rush supporters will write this off as humility, and he knows that's what must be perceived if he is to continue. But Rush knows the fervor he inspires is often overblown and dangerous, and he often cuts callers off before they make an ultimately racist or sexist point that he has in many ways goaded them to and provided ammunition for. His is the embarrassment of the bar owner who sees, inevitably, that amidst his customers who enjoy recreationally, there are also those who are vulnerable to the poison and go off into the dark night loaded with it, to dessicated and destructive existences.

4. Ann Coulter - Delivering the most clearly theatrical performance of those in this list, she is also one of the least dangerous, in that her caustic and amoral humor, rivaling the darkest comedy available in the liberal elite bastion that is hollywood, comes off as so overly vitriolic as to be insincere. Channeling the offensiveness of Sarah Silverman, without the strange attractiveness, she is such a caricature of her positions that most commentators on the left avoid attacking her positions, for the fear of wasting time on strawman arguments. While for a while conservative hosts gave her a platform, even they are beginning to see her rhetoric as more appropriate for a pro-wrestler than a journalist. Still anyone that can rise to her level of prominence and sell the amount of books she has is reaching some audience, and her career owes itself not to the irony crowd, which largely dismisses or hates her, but rather to the dangerously sincere who find some truth behind her over the top rhetoric. Additionally anyone who refers to a presidential candidate, while addressing a large crowd, no matter how indirectly, as a fag, deserves a decently high spot on this list.

3. Sean Hannity - By far the loudest and most direct of the bunch, Sean Hannity is also the least likely to engage in blatant hyperbole. The two main reasons for this seem to be that he is not only not clever enough to pull it off consistently as the others are, but also that he seems to be the most sincere of the extreme right wing pundits. Sean Hannity doesn't engage in rhetoric for rhetoric's sake, as some of the other commentators do, but seems to actually hold the positions he espouses. If he is really pulling one over on America, he is by far the most subtle (as far as extreme commentators go). While he of course engages in much of the cult of personality that the other pundits rely on, and loves himself sufficiently, it somehow seems less desperate and his show seems to rely on other talkers and guests he uses as sounding boards for his interruptive and unresponsive arguments. Hannity seems to love himself as a warrior of truth, rather than merely loving the sound of his own voice. Sean Hannity also actually has worked as a bartender and in construction and has a veneer of blue collar credibility often manufactured by other right wing talking heads. Using a less clearly mocking, and so twice as disdainful tone, he accomplishes more change in the hearts and minds of independents than most on this list, and seems to accomplish this by at the very least presenting the voice of a man who believes what he's saying and believes in the importance of saying it. That said, he seems largely only clever enough to be good at rhetoric, rather than deep analysis of the issues. This leads to his style being a collection of logical fallacies presented in such rapid order succession that the average listener or guest can rarely get a word in edgewise or respond satisfactorily to all of the flaws in his reasoning.

2. Michelle Malkin - Exhibiting the Stockholm syndrome of many second-generation immigrant americans, Michelle Malkin is fervently anti-immigrant and is defensively, reflexively for all things American, whatever she's told they are. Having gained notoriety for defending the internment of Japanese citizens during the war, she has continued to take outlandish positions, attempting to make them tenable. In doing so, she allows others in the right wing machine to seem moderate, through use of a door-in-the-face negotiation tactic that makes anything less than internment seem reasonable. Whether she's conscious of such tactics and their deleterious effects is unascertainable, but what is known is the damage she does by allowing the rich-white-male privilege of the commentators and viewpoints she has a parasitic relationship with to be masked by the authenticity of her status as a woman of color.

1. Bill O' Reilly - The blatant lies and misstatements by Bill O'Reilly have been well cataloged and have indeed seemed almost singularly responsible for spawning a similar demagogue on the left in the form of Al Franken. What makes Bill the worst isn't simply his complete eschewing of fact checking, or his propensity, like Sean Hannity, to talk over and down to guests the moment they attempt a response to his questions. Rather Bill O'Reilly seems, out of the listed commentators, to be the most self-loving of the bunch. Where others seem to possess a modicum of sincerity in their beliefs, however strained the beliefs may be, Bill seems to combine the worst of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. He combines the cynical trolling of Ann Coulter in his war on Christmas segments and the like, with the blowhard tactics of Hannity. Where Hannity seems a true believer, O'Reilly seems to at first only hold positions because he loves contention. Unlike Ann Coulter, however, O'Reilly loves his own mind enough to convince himself of the truth of positions in the process of arguing them. O'Reilly is also largely responsible for the success of Fox news, and has used his "no-spin" zone to buoy the estimation some registered republicans have of Fox as being "fair and balanced." O'Reilly considers his arguments to be more important than facts, and yet claims the mantle of truth at every turn. He is by far the most post-modern of the pundits, and relies on the constant bombardment of the american public with new media and new words to erase their memories of anything he has said in the past. He does this not just in the span of months and weeks, however, he does this in the span of minutes.
stork daddy oh frightfully embarrassing that i posted on here when there was sensitive matters being discussed.

how unintentional
falling_alone perhaps intentional for the sake of being unintentional...? 080225
Syrope as the bad dreams continue, pulling their themes and reoccurrances from the worst and lowest points of my life (and the nightmares that went with those points), i find the mood shifts as the night goes on. in the first dreams of the night i'm paralyzed with dread...with the worst kinds of terror...a desperate kind of fear. as the dreams progress (i suppose, after each time i wake up in a sweat) i begin to notice that my dreamself seems to accept that this is just what i get. what i deserve. my heart still pounds, and panic still grips me, but under it all...even as dead flesh and poisonous creatures and disturbing screams fill my head... there's a "well. what did i expect? good things to happen to me, even when my subconscious is in charge and the normal rules of my life don't *have* to apply? hah! no, no, this is about right, about what i expected"

to me, that's sicker than most of the content of the nightmares.
what's it to you?
who go