ADDED: Film clip, if you don't get the picture... and (especially) if you do.
October 10, 2006
Howard Dean sets the standard...
... for hotness over at Above the Law. I mean, really. What a picture! No wonder he has so much otherwise inexplicable confidence. And those other people you're comparing to him? Well, they just underscore how great he looked. And also, what's with the title "Deputy Dean"?
ADDED: Film clip, if you don't get the picture... and (especially) if you do.
ADDED: Film clip, if you don't get the picture... and (especially) if you do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Heh. I can see it now: "All The President's Men", a gay porn title about a secret romance between a Presidential candidate and his running "mate".
OK, calm down. Perhaps you missed that I posted a serious response to the rational basis thread which has been completely ignored. I was excited to see such an active thread, but I guess I got to it too late?
I didn't recognize Howie without the "YEEEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
HaloJonesFan: Why, when you mention homosexuality, must you immediately go to the salacious, such as porn?
I’ve got nothing against porn per se, but what the gay community really needs is a mainstream hit that shows the fullness of love and romance within a gay relationship.
As a matter of fact, straight America needs to see such a film a lot more than gay America does. Straight America still has plenty of distorted notions about what gay relationships are like.
In fact, I can think of many contributors to the Althouse threads whose world view would be greatly improved by seeing such a film.
I would propose a lighthearted gay (meaning homosexual) romantic comedy such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary” or like the many romantic comedies that Hollywood produced in the 1930s and ‘40s.
You could still call it “All the President’s Men.” It could be about a single (meaning unmarried) gay American president – in fact, the first gay president ever elected – and his humorous search for a husband while juggling his many responsibilities as commander-in-chief. It could be like the 1995 film “The American President” with Michael Douglas and Annete Bening.
A lesbian version of such a film would be perfectly fine, too. Why not make one of each?
Judging from his absurd ideas about rational basis, John Howard would benefit from seeing such a film.
And so would Mark Foley.
OK, finally a comment, thanks edward. Why do you think it is absurd? Same-sex conception is being researched, and there are people that want to attempt it. It will be absurdly unethical to attempt it, it is unnecessary, it is a huge, foolish waste of resources. Love makes a family, right? What does claiming a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same-sex say about same-sex reationships today, and probably forever, given that same-sex conception is not available today and probably never will be? It would be better to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and unnecessary, and give up the right to attempt it.
PS, you should probably respond in the rational basis thread, if you care to take on the challenge.
"HaloJonesFan: Why, when you mention homosexuality, must you immediately go to the salacious, such as porn?
I’ve got nothing against porn per se, but what the gay community really needs is a mainstream hit that shows the fullness of love and romance within a gay relationship.
As a matter of fact, straight America needs to see such a film a lot more than gay America does. Straight America still has plenty of distorted notions about what gay relationships are like.
In fact, I can think of many contributors to the Althouse threads whose world view would be greatly improved by seeing such a film.
I would propose a lighthearted gay (meaning homosexual) romantic comedy such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary” or like the many romantic comedies that Hollywood produced in the 1930s and ‘40s.
You could still call it “All the President’s Men.” It could be about a single (meaning unmarried) gay American president – in fact, the first gay president ever elected – and his humorous search for a husband while juggling his many responsibilities as commander-in-chief. It could be like the 1995 film “The American President” with Michael Douglas and Annete Bening.
A lesbian version of such a film would be perfectly fine, too. Why not make one of each?
Judging from his absurd ideas about rational basis, John Howard would benefit from seeing such a film.
And so would Mark Foley.
OK, finally a comment, thanks edward. Why do you think it is absurd? Same-sex conception is being researched, and there are people that want to attempt it. It will be absurdly unethical to attempt it, it is unnecessary, it is a huge, foolish waste of resources. Love makes a family, right? What does claiming a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same-sex say about same-sex reationships today, and probably forever, given that same-sex conception is not available today and probably never will be? It would be better to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and unnecessary, and give up the right to attempt it.
PS, you should probably respond in the rational basis thread, if you care to take on the challenge. "
what
I feel sad that no one cares about Deputy Dawg.
Hello, 911? I'd like to report a thread hijacking...
I don't get it. He looks just like any guy with his shirt off in the backyard.
What women think is sexy always mystifies me.
Men, we're simple.
I thought you were talking about Deputy Dawg.
"I feel sad that no one cares about Deputy Dawg."
I'm sorry... If we're talking cartoon animal peace officers, I always felt more of an affinity for Quick Draw McGraw.
Nothing against Deputy Dawg, you understand...
I thought you were talking about Deputy Dawg.
His attraction I understand.
Animal magnetism and all that.
It's the attraction to the other bowwow that I don't get.
Tibore: I didn’t hijack anything. To begin with, it was HaloJonesFan who started the discussion about gay cinema, not me.
If, however, my lighthearted gay romantic comedy (“All the President’s Men”) were ever made, the gay president could select his husband from among three handsome men whom he knows well.
One could be a studly young law dean who looks just like Jed Rubenfeld.
The second could be a recently retired but still young out-of-the-closet former boy band member who looks just like LC Chasez.
And the third could be the gay governor of a small state who just happens to bear a striking resemblance to Howard Dean (as he looked a few decades ago – let’s hope).
Then, by the end of the film we’d discover which one he chooses to marry. It very well may be the handsomest one (which would provide the answer to Ann’s question), but the lucky man would also have to have a great personality.
And the gay president could also be a big fan of Deputy Dawg cartoons.
I didn't "start a discussion" about anything, I made a smartass remark about a man with his shirt of and the punnish nature of porno-movie titles. Sense of humor, motherfucker, do you speak it? PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT I AM USING THE TERM 'MOTHERFUCKER' IN AN ENTIRELY NON-SERIOUS WAY, IN THE CONTEXT OF WITTILY REFERENCING A PIECE OF POP-CULTURE, IN THIS CASE A QUOTE BY SAMUEL L. JACKSON AS SEEN IN THE MOVIE 'PULP FICTION'.
To Ann Althouse: Yesterday you deleted a post from Doyle that merely called one of your comments “stupid”?
Will you retain a post from HaloJonesFan that calls me an MF?
He says he’s only being humorous, but it’s abundantly clear from his tone and excessive use of capital letters that he’s being extremely aggressive – far too aggressive, inappropriately aggressive for a blog like yours.
Do law profs call themselves MF, even when they’re just relaxing?
Damn, Edward... what makes you think I was singling you out? I was making a joke about how no one's comments before the Professor's dealt with Deputy Dawg. It was a joke about the whole thread up till that point, not any one individual.
Tibore: I'm not at all offended by what you wrote. I'm offended by what HaloJonesFan wrote.
I was simply replying to you earlier, because you had definitely included my first post (along with all the other early ones) in your remark that we had gotten off topic.
You had every right to make that obeservation, and I had every right to reply to it. Neither you nor I used any inappropriate language.
The post by HaloJonesFan was different, and a lot worse.
Motherfucking this. Motherfucking that.
Whatever!
Let's get to the subject at hand. Howard Dean WAS hot. Oh my god. Who knew he had so much in common with Marlon Brando . . . .
Can we get a baseline here? Will you, Ann, post a picture from the same year?
A picture of what? From what year???
Miss Althouse, are you purposely ignoring the rational basis i offered? How do you respond?
I respond that I'm going to start deleting your off-topic contributions.
To Ann Althouse: I apologize for my last post, because I now see that you were threatening to delete John Howard’s comments, not mine.
Did you see my earlier post complaining about HaloJonesFan calling me an MF?
To Ann Althouse: You could easily avoid this kind of confusion in the future simply by specifying who you’re addressing at the very start of those posts of yours directed at one particular person.
I and other posters do this all the time. It facilitates communication and eliminates any chance of confusion.
He was sooooooooooo good-lookin'!
John McCain is another example of someone who looked pretty fine when they were young and became well, not so much, as they got older.
Edward: "You could easily avoid this kind of confusion in the future simply by specifying who you’re addressing at the very start of those posts of yours directed at one particular person."
And you could easily avoid this kind of confusion in the future by thinking. Don't be such a hothead.
When did Ann start running a daycare center?
Post a Comment