Playboy and conservative women.

[YukonJack]

Recently there was an article in Playboy Magazine by a fellow called Guy Cimbalo.

Its topic was so saturated in typical liberal hatred and obscenities, that even that piece of journalistic pornographic garbage, masquarading as a magazine, PLAYBOY, had the decency (or perhaps was forced into) remove the article.

The article listed ten prominent women of conservative values. The author expressed desire to rape them all. Of course, he did not have the courage to say so, so he just referred to his sick desires - again, in typical liberal fashion, with obscenity - not as rape, but as "HATE F**K".

I will provide no specific link. I refuse to promote sick, liberal garbage. Just do a google using 'playboy conservative women'.

Some posters here claim that conservatives/Republicans are masters of personal destruction. SirJosephPorter comes to mind. Expect his response to this post
defending PLAYBOY and Cimbalo.

 

[L Gilbert]

Speaking of hate ....
If you don't like the magazine, don't read it.

 

[YukonJack]

L Gilbert responded thus:

"Speaking of hate ....
If you don't like the magazine, don't read it."

I expressed no hate. And I did not read the magazine. I read the article, quoted by an other publication, with post note that the article had been removed by PLAYBOY.

Have you done the google search I suggested? Have you read the article yourself?

I know you don't like me personally, L Gilbert, but don't let that feeling cloud your decency. The article is pure hate that no decent person should or could embrace.

 

[L Gilbert]

You don't express hate?

... that piece of journalistic pornographic garbage,...

... masquarading as a magazine...

...again, in typical liberal fashion, with obscenity...

...I refuse to promote sick, liberal garbage....

Yeah, It's pretty evident you don't have any strong feelings like hatred about liberals, Playboy Magazine, etc.:roll:

 

[YukonJack]

L Gilbert, by now you probably did your google and read the article and you approve.

If you have not googled it yet, do it.
If you googled it, and read even one of the many articles please respond.
If you can only respond with empty personal attacks, go ahead, I can take it. It is only reflection on you.

When I say 'typical liberal' I can substantiate it with posts by many of the posters here, and examples from pretty much all the main stream madia.

 

[L Gilbert]

L Gilbert, by now you probably did your google and read the article and you approve.

Wrong. Usually when people mention an article, they provide a link to the article.

If you have not googled it yet, do it.

No. Usually when people mention an article, they provide a link to the article.

If you googled it, and read even one of the many articles please respond.

Why?

If you can only respond with empty personal attacks, go ahead, I can take it. It is only reflection on you.

Empty? Yeah, there's no basis at all for me to think you have hatred towards liberals, Playboy, etc. :roll: And I should HOPE my comments are a reflection on me.

When I say 'typical liberal' I can substantiate it with posts by many of the posters here, and examples from pretty much all the main stream madia.

Perhaps, it is the adjectives you add besides "typical" that point to the impression of hatred.

 

[YukonJack]

Come on now, L Gilbert, anyone who is too lazy to google a phrase, must have been the bully in grade 2 who demanded a smarter kid to do his homework.

There are about 200 articles relating to the subject. One is more juicy than the other. I did not want any of them to escape your objective attention.

BTW, neither my dictionary nor my thesaurus defines "typical" as a synonym to "hatred".

 

[L Gilbert]

Nope. It's common practise to add reference to claims mde about subjects.
Besides, if you think I ever needed anyone to do my homework for me, then you grossly underestimate me. It's funny.
As I said, it is the adjectives you add BESIDES "typical" that point to the impression of hatred.

 

[YukonJack]

In other words, you still haven't read the article. You still haven't read any of the hundreds of articles and comments on the subject, that you could have read, instead of just ONE, had I provided a link that I happened to like. Among the comments responding to the article there are many that would suit your liberal mindset.

But the bottom line is: You still do not know what the heck you are talking about.

 

[Colpy]

The article is outrageous....this guy needs a swift kick in the nuts.

Simple bad taste.

 

[L Gilbert]

Oh yes, I do. My point is simply different than yours. I guess you can't tell. *shrugs*

 

[L Gilbert]

ok Fine. I did your work for you, Jack. I found an awful lot of stuff expressing disgust with the article. I couldn't find Cimbalo's point of view about what's being said, nor could I find Playboy's POV. Yep. Sure is a balanced playing field.:roll:
And how you could suggest that it is "typical" is beyond me. Most liberals I know are pretty decent people. So, all that does is strengthen my opinion that you are so full of hate you don't even recognize it as such. *shrugs*

 

[L Gilbert]

BTW, if I am going to leap to a conclusion about things said in an article, I'd like to read the article myself. Not judge its content by what everyone else and their dogs are saying.

 

[YukonJack]

L Gilbert you put a sliver of hope in my heart, that the usual "GIVE ME A LINK" expressed by lazy people will be a thing of the past, and people will use their God-given brain to do a bit of research of their own, especially, when a valuable clue for a google search is provided.

Back to the subject: How do you feel about the debasemant of women by Guy Cimbalo? And if you object of my using the word "typical" describing liberals, can you give me an example where a single liberal objected to the article?

How would you feel if a conservative blogger/author wrote a similar article about liberal women?

 

[L Gilbert]

L Gilbert you put a sliver of hope in my heart, that the usual "GIVE ME A LINK" expressed by lazy people will be a thing of the past, and people will use their God-given brain to do a bit of research of their own, especially, when a valuable clue for a google search is provided.

Look, Jack, when a book, a pamphlet, a review, a treatise, an article is written, the author DOES NOT expect all his readeers to go looking through the net and libraries to find his references; he supplies them. THAT would be the lazy person who would write something and expect the readers to do the work. Get a grip.

Back to the subject: How do you feel about the debasemant of women by Guy Cimbalo? And if you object of my using the word "typical" describing liberals, can you give me an example where a single liberal objected to the article?

I don't like debasement of women. But I won't leap to an a$$umption about an article without reading it. I googled and read lots of stuff, but I found lots of stuff where people couldn't figure out if the guy meant "rape", "romance", "jogging", or "playing tiddl5ywinks" when he used the term "hate-f**k". I saw three different definitions of that term alone. So I am supposed to jump on the bandwagon? Sorry. I go by evidence, not hearsay.

How would you feel if a conservative blogger/author wrote a similar article about liberal women?

After reading his article, I'd likely think he was an idiot. I wouldn't start foaming at the mouth and I wouldn't rely on everyone else's opinion to form an opinion for myself.

 

[Liberalman]

Playboy is a hard read

 

[L Gilbert]

lol.

 

[YukonJack]

"Playboy is a hard read"

No one reads it, unless he/she is addicted to pornography, lives in the 50's or read a reference to the filth somewhere else.

 

[L Gilbert]

More uninformed opinion.
Playboy's hardcopy readership base in the US alone is 3 million. That's not mentioning the digital edition. Then there are a pretty good number of other countries that allow Playboy on the shelves: for instance; the Greek Playboy is an entirely different version, as is Brazil's, Netherland's, etc.
That's one huge number of people living in the 50s. BTW PLayboy's target demographic is about 20 to 35. Addicted to porn? I would say the ones addicted to porn have the emotional maturity of 14 yr olds and I doubt there's that many of them.

 

[YukonJack]

That means that there at least 3 million people living in the U.S. who are addicted to pornography. Not to mentionthose who read the digital edition. Or those in other countries who are immoral enough to allow Playboy on their shelves (provided their wives and kids don't find the filth).

If the demography of Playboy readers is in the 20-35 range, I feel sorry for the future generations, and at the same time I am glad I will not be here to see the results. Having the emotional age of 14 at 20-35? Pity.