I just realized I put up two posts about pants this morning! Uh-oh, now it's three. Cue the Althouse-is-obsessed-with-the-body fiends:
Althouse doesn't seem to be able to deal with the fact that men have legs! Remember how she went insane over the weekend when Bill Clinton showed one inch of shin? I can't believe that woman is a law professor. She probably went to law school because she was thought "legal" meant having to do with legs.
२८ सप्टेंबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५ टिप्पण्या:
Pull our leg once, shame on you - pull our leg twice, shame on us - pull or leg thrice and deal with gooey hands.....I'm sorry, that just came out, and no darn pun intended either!
I don't know which is worse, Ann's horrific legal pun or Goesh's I-don't-know-what, but both made me laugh. Thanks!
of course she's obsessing about pants and legs - it's in her jeans.
You guys are fun-knee
Speaking of pants, I'd rather they show some leg than the all too common these days, butt cracks.
I won't hem and haw -- let's waist no more time on this.
For those panting for more: It doesn't matter if you get on your knees to pleat your case. This thread is the worsted ever, and you haven't got a leg to stand on. So zip it.
Do think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while you're wearing these bad boys?
Forget about it.
It seams I'm late to your pun-a-thon, so I'll be left with knits to pick. Perhaps I can selvage something for this discussion.
[crickets chirping]
Nope.
Baste-ards!
She probably went to law school because she was thought "legal" meant having to do with legs.
I'm going to start telling people this when they ask me why I went to law school.
Don't forget Ann's description of Feministing's defenders...something to the effect that they had their pants around their ankles.
Well, if you blog, I suppose you're just flying by the seat of your...
Wait'll The Manolo hears about this.
Stephen B (1:30):
And a pair of hot buns to go with that?
Actually, every time I've seen a female lawyer (which I saw a number of them when I was on a grand jury earlier this year), they always are wearing a skirt, nylons and heels, not once have I seen one in pants. Is there a reason for that? Like is it against some kind of legal code for a woman presenting a case to wear pants?
Ann, sometimes you leave me panting.
Ann, wait right there, let me put on my fornication pants.
Word verification: ccdiwlo
Meaning: Oh, no!, I've outgrown my fornication pants!
I recall the days when this blog regularly used to display pictures of Ms. Althouse's feet. For someone so taken with her own feet to decry the male pride in one's legs is a stunning manifestation of feminist hypocrisy.
Forget pants.
Don't try to skirt the real issue...
...of why women refuse to wear the tight, knee-length skirts, with a good pair of nylons.
Not the smart women, though, who know who butters their bread----those women are always in skirt and hose!
Peace, Maxine
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा