04 Jan 2016

A Fun Potpourri

Humor 9 Comments

==> Hillary Clinton says aliens may have already visited us, and back in 2009 she referred to the New York CFR office as “the mother ship.” I’m not saying she’s an alien, but…

==> Brittany Hunter wants libertarian women to be careful not to go for the cheap tactic of using their looks to get viewers. She holds up Julie Borowski as the way to do it right. Fair enough, but if you think I would’ve done the below for 3 dudes, well… You are mistaken.

9 Responses to “A Fun Potpourri”

  1. Grane Peer says:

    As usual Hillary is stealing her ideas. George Clinton made the mother ship connection when he was with Parliament.

    I didn’t understand Brittany’s post, I mean, did they care what you had to say or were they just hypnotized by your sex appeal?

  2. Yancey Ward says:

    If Hillary’s tongue snapped out and grabbed a poodle, I wouldn’t even flinch.

    • Jim says:

      You would if you were a poodle.

  3. guest says:

    “Brittany Hunter wants libertarian women to be careful not to go for the cheap tactic of using their looks to get viewers. She holds up Julie Borowski as the way to do it right.”

    Julie can’t help but use her looks and quirkiness to sell liberty (and her speech impediment is so freakin cute), and she doesn’t seem offended that guys express their attraction to her. So, she’s a lot of fun for guys to talk with.

  4. guest says:

    Robert Murphy’s got game.


  5. guest says:

    Brittany Hunter said:

    “To make matters worse, these comments were made by fellow libertarian men who would rather look at us than hear anything we had to say. It was extremely disheartening.”

    Men find far greater utility in women as romantic interests than as asexual debate opponents.

    Also, men risk being put into the “friend zone” by arguing with women, and, as a man, it’s never worth going there because other women will notice your reputation and somehow also conclude that you’re asexual.

    It would be nice if we could all compartmentalize well enough to have knock-down, drag-out political fights and then still have a chance at taking that chick to dinner and a movie. But the fact is that women are never going to be that way. And, as a man, it’s important for us to maintain a reputation that’s romantically favorable to the ladies – which can be lost before you ever meet some of them (because they talk, or some such).

    We do not want to treat women as equals, because they’re not. We want to treat ladies like ladies.

    As well, women tend to lack the tenacity to *want* to see the arguments through to completion, so there’s often an arbitrary limit to how far you can take the discussion with women. Men don’t tend to have that problem.

    So, men seem more geared for arguing politics than women, and men, as men, can lose something very valuable by arguing with women; So, it makes more sense to argue with men about politics than women.

    It’s not that we think women are stupid, it’s that they are far more useful as romantic interests.

    (No doubt women are somehow taking that last comment to mean that I think they’re like objects or tools, rather than the more sensible (and charitable) interpretation that I’m attempting to be clinical for the sake of clarity.)

    Aside: Oh, and guys *do* get points for not raping a girl if the type of men they would have actually wanted to have driven them home safely, would have.

    The point is that the women normally chooses to go out with jerks, but this other guy takes care of her. Damn straight we get points for that.

    Thanks for completely misreading our intentions.

    • Dan says:

      You should probably avoid speaking for other men when it comes to women.

      • guest says:

        I wasn’t talking about preferences, but about gender identity. I speak for all men, here.

  6. January says:

    Thanks for stranitg the ball rolling with this insight.

Leave a Reply