Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Oh, Titus is back.
Titus doesn't know big words like "pulchritudinous".
I had to check the link to make sure that this wasn't an Andrew Sullivan blog post you were linking.Palladian said... Titus doesn't know big words like "pulchritudinous".Or callipygian.
Looks to me as if the commenters have a whole lot more sense than the reporter does.
If it mattered, wouldn't Bruni be the PM, not Sarkozy?
tom, i am interested in the bot. signed,knitting on dislexicon double point needles. I think i may just have two glasses of wine and go to sleep..hiccup
(1) Ms. Knight can’t fool me. She was really writing about Madonna. Right?(2) And gentlemen, don’t bother wasting your time. I already googled teh intertubes images (so you don’t have to), and got nothing but disappointment from “Princess Letizia buttocks.”(3) However, I did find . . . THIS.(4) Palate cleanser.(5)Sorry, my apologies.(6) Still friends?
Yes, I don't know those words therefore I am dumb.But I do have an ass you can bounce quarters off of.Thank you.
TituslovesUandU2 said... Yes, I don't know those words therefore I am dumb.But I do have an ass you can bounce quarters off of.Thank you.7:47 AM.Sadly, it is anatomically misplaced as well.
Excerpt strikingly mimics that breezily declarative, yet curiously analytical "I'd like to know what's hidden behind that closed door" style of Titus's musings.What's missing is the show and tell about what goes on behind his own closed door, for those who may or may not be interested.
Did anyone else think the author undermined her main point –- namely that serious women have better things to do than feel competitive with other women on the basis of their comparative physical charms –- by doing precisely that? And, what is worse, with no apparent awareness of having done so? It’s obvious the author considers herself to be a serious type –- not “so pathetic, so uninteresting, so completely tragic and brain-dead [as to] view all other women through the prism of demented competitiveness.” Yet what else could one call it when she labels Margaret Thatcher as “freakish” and someone “who didn’t strike anyone as being immediately recognisably female”? As far as I'm concerned, she's doing exactly what she claims adult women don’t do: dissing a fellow female on the basis of her looks (or alleged lack of same), according to some tiresome, narrow and, presumably, male-centric standard of physical beauty!Pathetic!
"Yes, I don't know those words therefore I am dumb. But I do have an ass you can bounce quarters off of. Thank you."A quarter is probably the most one would want to waste when lobbing coins at Titus' posterior. It is not known if, for instance, Liberty dollars or the fifty-cent-piece will rebound when hurled at Titus' hind quarters because, thus far, no one has been willing to sacrifice those relatively higher denominations in order to find out.
Give me a big Hug Palladian.
I am a dumb fag.How sad.
I am actually not that dumb. I was just looking for some empathy.I just had Fage Yogurt for lunchy and it was delish. I love showing my Fage Yogurt to bystanders proving my fabulousness. I will open it and lift it a little into people faces so they can see the label. I do similar things with my shoes and clothes. It's important people know what they are dealing with.thank you.
Paul: The author's point was that Thatcher was taken seriously because she was so weird. You need to read the entire article instead of just knee-jerking a response.I'm surprised that the author didn't mention Sarah Palin. Here's a woman who was in charge of the largest state in the Union, and the biggest news stories are about her ass and her uterus. Although she had the bad luck to be a prominent Republican woman in a year when Hillary Clinton was making a Presidential bid.
Post a Comment