http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-eu-russia-first-ladies,1,4024648.story
As far as I know the Obamas are still in Moscow, so this is only a day or so old.
Granted, that is a rather unfortunately-placed belt but that would make *me* look like I had a gut.
The rest of her looks as trim as ever.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- How big will she go?
How big will she go?Follow
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
This thread is now about how the elder daughter's hair is some kind of evil organism that will turn her into a mind flayer.
publiusvarus wrote:
bsphil,
They're to busy talking about Palin.
Still waiting for someone to show something more current that the picture that was on drudge earlier. Mrs Obama has gotta be nearing 200lb's.
They're to busy talking about Palin.
Still waiting for someone to show something more current that the picture that was on drudge earlier. Mrs Obama has gotta be nearing 200lb's.
Sarah Palin would call you sexist.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
MDenham wrote:
This thread is now about how the elder daughter's hair is some kind of evil organism that will turn her into a mind flayer.
I would not be that age again for all the tea in China - much less go through it under public scrutiny.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Wandering down sidepaths, my favorite part of Cap & Trade is that Mark Kirk is catching all sorts of conservative shit for voting for it and he's probably the only viable GOP candidate Illinois has to run for governor or senator.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If you say so.
Well, no. Not even if you do. That's a normal looking mother of two, right there.
Go back to ogling coeds. /shrug
Well, no. Not even if you do. That's a normal looking mother of two, right there.
Go back to ogling coeds. /shrug
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Look, I know you desperately want her to be fat. I don't know why you do; but clearly, you do. It's an obsession with you.
The fact is, she isn't.
It's like how you want her to be angry and bitter and all "GRRR I HAET WHITEY" and instead she's photographed smiling and going around charming people.
I dunno. I guess going after his family is all you've got. Kinda ironic, considering how protective you are about Palin's kids - and mind you, I have no beef about Palin's younger daughter or her baby.
I can take issue with her husband belonging to a secessionist political party; but I realize that's not as substantive as calling him fat.
The fact is, she isn't.
It's like how you want her to be angry and bitter and all "GRRR I HAET WHITEY" and instead she's photographed smiling and going around charming people.
I dunno. I guess going after his family is all you've got. Kinda ironic, considering how protective you are about Palin's kids - and mind you, I have no beef about Palin's younger daughter or her baby.
I can take issue with her husband belonging to a secessionist political party; but I realize that's not as substantive as calling him fat.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
Mrs. Obama's health insurance rates would be quite expensive.
Ahh, more Shit from the Sensationalist Republican party.
"She has an angry face! She can show emotions and expressions! Oh noooooo!"
That's less substantive than, say, supporting unwed teenage pregnancy...
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 5:58pm by Debalic
"She has an angry face! She can show emotions and expressions! Oh noooooo!"
That's less substantive than, say, supporting unwed teenage pregnancy...
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 5:58pm by Debalic
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I don't believe we're talking about this again. Or should I say that I can't believe it? I can't believe we're talking about this again and retain faith in the human species. I wish we were having this discussion out loud instead. These words are trapped so that I cannot forget them. I am forced to accept the ghastly reality, to stare into the bottomless abyss of human stupidity. And as I look upon it, I am changed. Yet I retain my compassion, my empathy, and so there is one thing I must do before I go. I must kill as many people as possible, before they come to the same horrible realisation that I have come to. That is the best, the only, gift that I can give.
Seriously, though, words can't express how little I care about Michelle's weight. WHY DOES IT MATTER? WHY?!
Seriously, though, words can't express how little I care about Michelle's weight. WHY DOES IT MATTER? WHY?!
Kavekk wrote:
Seriously, though, words can't express how little I care about Michelle's weight. WHY DOES IT MATTER? WHY?!
It's a time-honored tradition to tear into Democratic First Ladies' appearance. They're considered fair game.
Never mind that Laura Bush killed a man, and forever after sported a chic deer-in-the-headlights expression (in memoriam, perhaps, of the poor guy she ran down). Never mind that Betty Ford and Pat Nixon retreated into the bottle; never mind that Nancy Reagan limited access to her husband from his own Cabinet members.
None of that matters.
Here's the thing: none of it does matter, or did matter, except for the Reagan thing; but whatever, his staff was making the decisions anyway. It's just cheap shots from the Pubbies. Cheap, cheap shots at family members.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Is varus now running a pro-ana blog?
Sweetums wrote:
Is varus now running a pro-ana blog?
SARAH PALIN IS HIS THINSPIRATION! Like the Olsen twins. <3
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Michelle Obama is also about a foot taller than Sarah Palin.
You know why she wears flats and not heels, even though they would elongate her legs and slenderize them a bit? Because when she wears heels, she's taller than her husband.
No, we only get suspicians about her weight when she suddenly stops wearing sleeveless tops. Her 4th of July outfit showed off "Thunder and Lighting" to their best advantage. She still has the sort of healthy muscle definition Madonna tries too hard for.
The first place a woman gets fat is her arms, not her butt. Remember that.
You know why she wears flats and not heels, even though they would elongate her legs and slenderize them a bit? Because when she wears heels, she's taller than her husband.
No, we only get suspicians about her weight when she suddenly stops wearing sleeveless tops. Her 4th of July outfit showed off "Thunder and Lighting" to their best advantage. She still has the sort of healthy muscle definition Madonna tries too hard for.
The first place a woman gets fat is her arms, not her butt. Remember that.
publiusvarus wrote:
As opposed to the racist bigot Obama just nominated? And I'm right alongside Palin; infanticide is not something that should be allowed. To bad I can't say Obama is against that.
Please provide the proof that Obama condones/promotes/supports infanticide.
Are you referring to abortions using the "dilation & extraction" technique (D&X)? The technique that was developed so that a woman's uterus could remain unharmed allowing her to have babies in the future?
Quote:
If this procedure is so controversial, then why was it developed in the first place?
The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated -- and the more controversial -- the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.
Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.
The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated -- and the more controversial -- the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.
Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.
link
Oh, you call it "partial birth" abortion. Not a scientifically accurate name, but a name designed to illicit the desired response in your target of propaganda.
No you'ld rather see a woman's fertility destroyed for the sake of your beliefs. That's so pro-life of you. The reason that there has never been a "health of the mother" exception to bans on these late term abortions is because NOT using this procedure can harm the health of the mother rendering her unable to have babies in the future. That's the dirty little secret behind the fight against D&X's.
So your pro-life as long as it's not a death penalty issue, or if it may save one deformed baby, but not if it would allow the woman to have healthy babies in the future. That's consistency for you.
Personally I don't think that sort of abortion should be allowed short of a case where letting the baby come to term will cause physical harm to the mother.
If you want to have an abortion you should have it as soon as you realize that you are pregnant, otherwise not.
If you want to have an abortion you should have it as soon as you realize that you are pregnant, otherwise not.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Blusician, he refers to all abortions as infanticide. Doesn't matter the reasons or techniques.
(Sorry, I always think of pesticides when anyone says it)
(thought that would thumbnail...)
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 8:58pm by TirithRR
(Sorry, I always think of pesticides when anyone says it)
(thought that would thumbnail...)
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 8:58pm by TirithRR
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Zsarus wrote:
Personally I don't think that sort of abortion should be allowed short of a case where letting the baby come to term will cause physical harm to the mother.
If you want to have an abortion you should have it as soon as you realize that you are pregnant, otherwise not.
If you want to have an abortion you should have it as soon as you realize that you are pregnant, otherwise not.
Oddly enough, I agree. For me (and my wife) personally an abortion is only an option when either the baby has severe genetic/physical/mental abnormalities, or in the case of rape or incest. If my wife was raped we would probably elect to terminate the pregnancy. If I was to get her pregnant, she most likely would have the baby despite the medical fact that it may kill her.
You see though, the last time I looked in the mirror, I didn't see God staring back at me so i don't presume to tell someone else whether or not they can have an abortion. It's not my call. That decision belongs to the pregnant woman, hopefully with some consultation with the father.
I'm not going to jam my beliefs down someone else's throat. In some cultures a baby is not considered human until it is named. Most other cultures don't prescribe any "rights" to an unborn baby. Who am I to judge? If you truly want to stop abortion it's pretty simple. All you have to do is convince people that it is wrong. You can't legislate how someone thinks/feels. When you try all you do is alienate and persecute, and that's not going to end abortions.
Quote:
I'm not going to jam my beliefs down someone else's throat. In some cultures a baby is not considered human until it is named. Most other cultures don't prescribe any "rights" to an unborn baby. Who am I to judge? If you truly want to stop abortion it's pretty simple. All you have to do is convince people that it is wrong. You can't legislate how someone thinks/feels. When you try all you do is alienate and persecute, and that's not going to end abortions.
I also think that given the state of laws in Canada at least, it is not my role to harass people who don't agree with me. I'm horrified by the violent hatred that comes out of some anti abortion groups, especially so as they use Christianity to justify their hate. That is however a separate issue, that I'm not going to get into.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Just an observation:
There's no error in tense here. You also failed to address her claim that "Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won!"
The bolded statement is a pretty clear reference to ongoing future costs similar to those in the past. You're making a silly point, and using silly reasoning.
I think it's quite fair to say that ongoing and future costs to deal with these sorts of attacks had something to do with her decision, and that her own statements absolutely support that assessment. Whether that's the whole reason, or just part of the reason is anyone's guess of course...
And we're back to crying about the president.
Let's be honest here. Promising to lower taxes and eliminate the deficit, and then turning immediately around and raising taxes and creating record deficits is a lot more inconsistent than anything Sarah Palin has done or said, and certainly affects us a lot more than whether the tense in one part of a paragraph matched an implied meaning in another. Seriously? Can you have a bit more out of balance bias?
Jophiel wrote:
Palin wrote:
Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research†– that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction†… Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.
The bolded statement is a pretty clear reference to ongoing future costs similar to those in the past. You're making a silly point, and using silly reasoning.
I think it's quite fair to say that ongoing and future costs to deal with these sorts of attacks had something to do with her decision, and that her own statements absolutely support that assessment. Whether that's the whole reason, or just part of the reason is anyone's guess of course...
Quote:
Quote:
And if this is an inconsistancy then I'd like to hear what you have to say about the President...
Let's be honest here. Promising to lower taxes and eliminate the deficit, and then turning immediately around and raising taxes and creating record deficits is a lot more inconsistent than anything Sarah Palin has done or said, and certainly affects us a lot more than whether the tense in one part of a paragraph matched an implied meaning in another. Seriously? Can you have a bit more out of balance bias?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The bolded statement is a pretty clear reference to ongoing future costs similar to those in the past. You're making a silly point, and using silly reasoning.
I think it's quite fair to say that ongoing and future costs to deal with these sorts of attacks had something to do with her decision, and that her own statements absolutely support that assessment. Whether that's the whole reason, or just part of the reason is anyone's guess of course...
I think it's quite fair to say that ongoing and future costs to deal with these sorts of attacks had something to do with her decision, and that her own statements absolutely support that assessment. Whether that's the whole reason, or just part of the reason is anyone's guess of course...
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 9:38pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Just an observation:
There's no error in tense here. You also failed to address her claim that "Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won!"
The bolded statement is a pretty clear reference to ongoing future costs similar to those in the past. You're making a silly point, and using silly reasoning.
Jophiel wrote:
Palin wrote:
Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research†– that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction†… Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.
The bolded statement is a pretty clear reference to ongoing future costs similar to those in the past. You're making a silly point, and using silly reasoning.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Recent Visitors: 196
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (196)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- How big will she go?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC