Posts

New Open Thread

By Eli Valley / December 12, 2007

Neoconservative males arrived at their political philosophies in an effort to compensate for their obscenely small penises.

True or False?

POST A COMMENT

  • By Abe Greenwald 10/27/09 at 12:35 a.m. UTC

    test

  • By Anonymous 12/13/07 at 12:32 p.m. UTC

    Eli's profile photo clearly shows a man anxious for cock.

  • By Ali Eteraz 12/13/07 at 5:05 a.m. UTC

    Kant didn't have lovers.

    He invented the garter belt for God's sake. 

    He slept in a cellophane wrap because he was afraid of his man fluids.

  • By Anonymous 12/13/07 at 1:13 a.m. UTC

    is up to your lover, as Kant knew. It's up to her or him to judge its value.

     

    All cons avoid knowing this.

  • Joey Kurtzman
    By Joey Kurtzman 12/13/07 at 12:47 a.m. UTC

    In classical Rome a small penis was considered a sign of virtue, of manly self-control. And Leo Strauss was preoccupied with classical values and classical thinkers. Coincidence? Only a fool would think so. I'm going to reevaluate my politics in light of this. I don't want my penis getting any bad PR, its shortcomings are hard enough to deal with as is.

  • Daniel Koffler
    By Daniel Koffler 12/12/07 at 11:53 p.m. UTC

    A small penis is embarrassing, sure, but what's obscene about it?

  • By LY 12/12/07 at 7:20 p.m. UTC

    Paul Wolfowitz has bigger penis than you.

  • By The Professor 12/12/07 at 6:09 p.m. UTC

    That is, the idea that men with obscenely small penises become Neocons. The "men" above can confirm this.  Booyah!!!

  • By Ismail 12/12/07 at 4:24 p.m. UTC

    What penises?

  • By Anonymous 12/12/07 at 3:10 p.m. UTC

    No. Simply enormous case of tribalism.

Wanna post your own comments?