Comments on: How Deep Is Your Love Disciplining Her?

By: crystalclearconservative

crystalclearconservative — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:54:15 +0000

Modest Mouse will be doing her first guest post on CCC starting tomorrow on a topic of her choosing.

By: B!tchzilla

B!tchzilla — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:39:34 +0000

Like all mysogynists, 200 Grande is just afraid of a strong woman disciplining him. More Modest Mouse!

By: Crystal Clear Conservative

Crystal Clear Conservative — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:21:02 +0000

Rihanna is an airbag, who has seen her 15 minutes of fame diminish. Her music stinks.

BTW, who kills the messenger? In fact, I love the messenger (gives me time for my daily rants, provides the opportunity for some liquid libations…you get the procedure).

Awaiting Modest Mouse’s response…she is truly providing tonight’s post if she comes out with a comeback.

By: 200 Grande

200 Grande — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:23:57 +0000

Don’t hate the player, hate the game. And to add another cliche for good measure: don’t kill the messenger.

Depending on how you define “violence,” this in no way, advocates “domestic violence.” That is, unless the reader really needs it to.:)

You would think more people would be upset with Rihanna.

By: Crystal Clear Conservative

Crystal Clear Conservative — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:04:11 +0000

Several times…c’mon Modest Mouse, give me a break. You never emailed me and no, you will not get a guest post. If you continue the attacks, I will ban you from commenting plain and simple. This is not being subserviant, but you came on here a couple of times to simply attack my contributor, which is against CCC blog policies. I allowed it a couple of times before, but you are beginning to wear out the welcome.

200 Grande is entitled to have his own opinions, and yes, I sometimes disagree with him. I will not resort to foul language to drive across a point unless someone really pisses me off.

By: Modest Mouse

Modest Mouse — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:42:46 +0000

Same milquetoast reply, CCC. I would think you were merely trying to gain sympathy points with your response. I have emailed you several times offering a guest post to counter 200′s sexist responses with no response. Are you woman enough to let someone counter him or are you going to be subserviant?

By: Modest Mouse

Modest Mouse — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:50:02 +0000

200 Grande,

You are an @$$hole. Plain and Simple. I wonder if any woman will put up with you, as your advocacy and support of domestic violence just proves to show what type of husband you will be.

Perhaps, it is time for me to come aboard and do a guest post. CCC, being the ONLY female on this site and being the owner, what do you think of this? I can contribute a post and add a more balanced perspective to the jack@$$ry of 200 Grande. CCC, you should also speak up about 200 Grande. You are losing readers due to these posts, and as a female, it is only expected you defend our honor.

Modest Mouse

By: crystalclearconservative

crystalclearconservative — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:48:03 +0000

Your advocacy of domestic violence makes me sick, 200 Grande.

Normally, I would not write this, but I think this crosses the line. As a woman, the first time a man hits me, he will end up in jail (either that or he will be tasting the nice cool taste of cement from the ground).

Whatever happened to advocating for love instead of hate?

Like I said, forgive me for the outright complaint session, but this post is sheer advocacy for domestic violence.

By: GoBob

GoBob — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:30:54 +0000

Women attracted to the thrill of high risk types tend to be materialistic and detrimental to the family when lacking a man’s strong steady hand.

By: Not Too Conservative

Not Too Conservative — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:29:23 +0000

If the GOP wants to win elections, it must triangulate between risky wife-beater types and wimps by promoting men that are defiantly subservient to their wives. And to triangulate between traditional and non-traditional types, just substitute “significant others” for “wives,” which should also allow some degree of triangulation to the non-heteronormatives.

Now that’s a three-way of tautological triangulation!