Desperate Hillary Makes inappropriate content Star the Centerpiece of Her Campaign(moved from News and Current event)

tatteredsoul said:

Actually, I would say hypocritical drug abusers are worse than inappropriate content stars - simply because they were hypocrites.

(I know you are atheist, but for the purpose of an allusion,) Christ hung out and taught literal "inappropriate content stars" from His time, and scolded (and even physically disciplined) the "law-following" Pharisees hypocrites.

A hypocrite is, to me, on par with an unrepentant person. Sometime, I would say they are even worse.

Click to expand...

I am an atheist, but have Christian parents, and am somewhat versed in the teachings and actions of Christ. From my understanding (limited as it may be), the OP and those supporting it deviate far from the teachings of Christ. But that isn't really for me to judge...

Sistrin said:

How about the hypocrisy of someone posting the charge of drug-user against another person with complete disregard to context or fact? But I understand you are just doing what is expected of you.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting there is some sort of context or fact that would indicate that Rush isn't a hypocritical drub abuser?

Belk said:

Well obviously the correct response is to subject her to public condemnation until she kills herself.

Click to expand...

An obfuscation. You are attempting to portray my comment as a call for dragging people to the public square for open humiliation. I am not. I am advocating that children be taught the moral, physical, and emotional dangers associated with sexual promiscuity. The liberal approach to sexual education is embedded in the presumption that no one can ever talk kids out of having sex with each other so just hand them free condoms. But as I said to you in another thread in regard to another issue, when liberal policy is implemented the death toll always goes up.

Your first three links did not work, but I am assuming the point of linking the stories is an attempt to blame me by association for the deaths of teenagers who kill themselves as the result of someone making crude or insulting comments. Suicide is a tragic affair, but it only seems to be raised as a concern of the liberal/progressive crowd when they want to use the issue as a means to attack their political opponents. How much has Hillary Clinton actually done to provide help for US combat veterans suffering from post-deployment issues which have and continue to result in suicide? As a veteran I can answer that question. Not a thing. Except perhaps mention the issue in order to score a few political points.

My position is as opposed to only being concerned with the act of shaming someone who has engaged in highly questionable behavior, make some attempt to prevent the underlying act. I found the Jezebel article, and from it quote:

"According to fellow students at Tottenville High School, Garcia was the target of bullying and ****-shaming because, according to the NY Post she had sex with four football players at the same time at a party the previous weekend. Repulsively, the football players were allegedly doing quite a bit of that bullying. I'd really like to know exactly what went on there, I can guess, but I know the entire story will be beyond heartbreaking."

From the NY Post article:

Bullied SI teen who killed self 'tortured' by classmates after sex at party: Sources

"A Tottenville High School student jumped in front of a train after she was bullied for having sex with four football players at the same time during a party after a game this weekend, sources said."

The impression I get from reading your comments is in regard to the death of 15 year old Felicia Garcia the only people who bear any responsibility are those who made crude comments to her. That is certainly the point of the Jezebel article, the author of which openly states her only concern is the repulsive nature of the comments made. But my question is why is a 15 year old girl having sex with four different guys all at the same time? Who is hosting parties where kids that age can willfully engage in such promiscuity?

15 years old, Belk. Don't you have any feelings about that?

What is going on, that a society is perfectly willing to accept the ideal of 15 year old children engaging in sexual promiscuity and only voice any concern if someone subsequently makes a crude comment about it. But that is the way it is. The liberal/progressive crowd in general promotes sexual promiscuity, encourages it by implementation of policy, and as a result children such as Felicia Garcia pay the ultimate price. You want to blame someone, blame yourself.

Belk said:

By your criteria we should best tell all those wanton hussy's exactly how little their lives are worth huh Sistrin?

Click to expand...

We should tell them the value of their lives is not expressed via indulgence in sexual expression or in what someone else may say about them. Isn't that the ideal? That a persons sense of self-worth should not be defined by what someone else may say or think? If you bother to ask the question why a 15 year old girl would agree to have sex with four football players, one perfectly logical answer is her sense of self-worth was already tragically skewed, and she thought by going along she would be accepted into the fold. The most effective preventative measure to avoid having a 15 year old girl from either engaging in such sexual promiscuity and subsequently throwing herself under a train would have been to teach her a sense of self-worth defined by the proposition her sense of value comes from within, and is best formed by embracing a few moral and common sense principals of life. Specifically, you never have anything to gain by allowing four guys to use you as a plaything.

Belk said:

That was certainly what Jesus would of called for.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is.

Belk said:

By all means Sistrin, list out the types of human sexuality you personally find OK and lets let everyone know they must abide by your rules.

Click to expand...

What consenting adults do in private is none of my business. When they video the entire affair and post it on the internet they make it my business by default. I have children, and the last thing I want them to see online is someone's inappropriate content video.

Belk said:

Oh, obviously. It is not like anyone has ever killed themselves after being raped, filmed, and shamed for it.

Click to expand...

Rape is an entirely different issue. Interjecting it into this conversation is another attempt at obfuscation.

Belk said:

Well obviously her claims are unbelievable since she is such a bad person she had the temerity to have nude photos taken of her. Obviously this destroys her credibility since we all know what type of woman she is. I'm certain this type of thinking will convince women that Trump is really on their side.

Click to expand...

It speaks to her credibility, whether you want to admit it or not. But tell me, why do you believe Hillary supporters have flooded the internet with images of Melania Trump?

civilwarbuff said:

The thread is not about Trump....FYI.......

Click to expand...

Right. It's about an obnoxious Trump supporter lying about someone Trump mistreated in the past in order to attack the person who Trump is running against for President... but it's not about Trump.

Sistrin said:

Ah, guilt by association. You admit Limbaugh never used that word but he is still guilty because you know what he really meant.

Click to expand...

You apparently don't know what guilt by association or soot shaming is. Again, soot shaming is an action, not particular words.

Sistrin said:

inappropriate content stars are not very high on my list of admirable people.

Click to expand...

Problem is she's not a inappropriate content star.

Sistrin said:

Having done inappropriate content is itself shaming. Pointing that out only provides context in regard to someone making a claim the only supporting evidence for which is their own word.

Click to expand...

Problem is she hasn't done inappropriate content.

civilwarbuff said:

So, you don't think performing in the inappropriate content industry is shameful?

Click to expand...

Since Ms. Machado never performed in the inappropriate content industry I don't see how that's germane.

Uncle Siggy said:

Speaking of stinkers I'm wondering why Progressives are so worried about her having a reputation as a inappropriate content queen?

Click to expand...

I'm wondering why some Conservatives are immune to correction and just keep repeating the same debunked garbage over and over and over.

hmmm looks like of the two people under discussion here? Only one of them has actually appeared in a inappropriate contento:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ate content-cameo-after-he-tweets-of-sex-tape

The Republican Party includes a statement in its official party platform about inappropriate content: "Its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being."

Click to expand...

tulc(noticed: "Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately return calls for comment.")

I was going to point this out earlier. If someone making a doppelganger inappropriate content makes Ms. Machado a inappropriate content star that would make Sarah Palin a inappropriate content star as well.

Sistrin said:

Such has happened before:

Click to expand...

They resemble the women in the softcore inappropriate content Trump appeared in. The pink bunny insignia on the wall behind them is twinsing the Playboy bunny one in his video.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...priate content?utm_term=.vqbROL2nQ#.khLwb65vz

tulc said:

hmmm looks like of the two people under discussion here? Only one of them has actually appeared in a inappropriate contento:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ate content-cameo-after-he-tweets-of-sex-tape

tulc(noticed: "Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately return calls for comment.")

Click to expand...

But this is completely different, don't you see?

And this "difference" is the linchpin of this whole topic... the different worldviews of the two candidates.
On the orange side, women are meant to be eye-candy. Trophies for "successful" men to acquire. Getting "fat" is a big no-no for such women... it destroys her value! Doing inappropriate content is only showing such women for what she is... a cheap sex-object for men. Such women's only value is measured by men, in a very limited way... they don't have any value of their own.

Men, on the other hand, can be old, fat, ugly... if they can show of their conquests and achivements with "beautiful" women... they are winners by default. They can buy and sell the goods "women", because they are the masters and makers.

So, girls starring in a playboy flick shows that they are cheap harlots who'd do anything for wealth and fame. Donald Trump starring in a playboy flick shows that he is a man of distinction who can surround himself with beautiful women everywhere he shows up.


Personally, I don't agree with the extreme prudism of US culture, where a "nipple slip" is a national catastrophy. But the bigottery of the conservatives in this regard is simply... deplorable. (What a nice word!)

USincognito said:

I'm wondering why some Conservatives are immune to correction and just keep repeating the same debunked garbage over and over and over.

Click to expand...

They don't care about ethics and truth when it comes to politics. Or probably any other subject...

I'm not sure I can participate in this thread without tripping the obscenity filters.

Rush is a festering cesspool of swine excrement and poison. There, that was me gritting my teeth and being nice.

-CryptoLutheran

Desperate republicans make playboy republican nominee!

For the sake of argument let's say Ms. Machudo did "do inappropriate content"--just for argument's sake.

Perhaps someone could share with the rest of the class why that would make Trump's comments acceptable? And why would it lessen pointing out how Trump's comments are unacceptable and wrong?

I think it is remarkable that for someone having done something in the inappropriate content industry would somehow make the mistreatment of women okay.

But I suppose the idea is now that my morality is supposed to be appealed to, after all, a woman engaging in the adult industry is supposed to make me believe she's little more than a two-bit harlot and thus not not a person worthy of respect--and, I suppose, that means that when a presidential candidate refers to this woman as "Miss Piggy" and calls her fat, and shames her for having put on the tiniest bit of weight, it's okay because she "shames herself" by being part of an industry that is morally objectionable. Because apparently I'm supposed to find inappropriate content stars more morally objectionable than misogynistic, womanizing bigots. Well guess what, I don't. Because I follow and worship Someone who was friends with and ate with prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners--and whose condemned the self-righteous, the powerful, and the hypocritical. My moral compass is not determined by the values of contemporary culture, my compass is determined by the teachings and actions of the God-Man who set forth the example of love toward others, the acceptance of the undesirables, and the reality of a cross-shaped humanity emptying itself in kindness and grace toward a world of sinners, rejects, losers, and dropouts.

If someone wants to appeal to my Christian sense of morality, then they would do well to to appeal to the Christ I worship and follow; not to the Antichrist of American conservative culture.

-CryptoLutheran

There are lots of issues with children who aren't old enough to consent having sex, and as a parent, I would not be happy to find out my 15 year old was sexually active. However, there is nothing shameful in my opinion about adults engaging in fully consensual sex with other adults...outside of perhaps violating an agreement with a partner to not have sex outside that relationship.