Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« A hearty welcome to the 'sphere | Main | We Now Mispronounce You... »

Tuesday, May 12, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Just a couple of nits to pick, what with you being men and easily distracted by yellow frillies and such . . .

First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On a physical level, Ms. Obama is not a gargoyle. I guess she could be called attractive.

Secondly, the arms . . . was there ever such a silly concentration of stupidity? For all you men, does it matter to you if your Mother or Grandmother's arms are flabby? Can you forget all the love and hard work they did? If your wife suddenly develops turkey necks in her axillary/brachial area, has she suddenly become unattractive to you?

I really don't care about how Michelle Obama looks. That's the shallow boot-licker opinion.

I'm more concerned with her INNER beauty or lack of it. I'm more concerned that she and her husband do not properly love the country they are trying to lead, and are leading it straight for destruction. I'm more concerned that she feels she's entitled to tell other people what to do instead of encouraging them to be their best.

And that's just my 2¢.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

“But why is this lie being promulgated with such urgency and to such absurd lengths by the liberal media?”

I think it’s a mixture of an over compensation via white guilt and a cult like adulation bordering on worship based on nothing more than an overabundance of political correctness. It’s the same as someone praising a slow child for being so “smart”.

She’s Black, in decent shape and now the First Lady, she’d have to look like Rosie O’Donnell to NOT get this much praise, though even then…

As far as the arms obsession it basically proves my point, what else are they going to admire? Not to be cruel but she doesn’t have anything that stands out as above average so they must focus on something as basic and idiotic as her arms. It’s rather telling and sad. It’d be like someone being adored for their shoes…oh, wait…they’ve done that. No one notices a truly beautiful woman’s arms; it’s only brought up if there’s nothing else to say.

Same, same with the label “brilliant” on her husband, I’ll give him smart just for what he’s accomplished but “brilliant”, no, not so much.

Conversely and as an example of “let’s consider the source” on this crap, “they” also told us for 8 yrs. how dumb, stupid, etc. Pres. Bush was and not a lot of talk about how well dressed or classy Mrs. Bush was and she’s someone who I and others admired and found quite attractive.

Liberals; full of crap and very willing to let everyone smell their rancid breath to confirm it.


James Brown in drag, baby!

Judy Dee

This woman is anything but beautiful. At best she's a bow-legged amazon with a lower jaw so big it must require a crane to lift it high enough for her lips to close. Her clothes are so tight wrinkles form in 2 minutes, she slaps on weird biker belts that ride six inches higher than her waist and regardless of the outfit, she never forgets to add a too small cardigan and a huge pin or tasteless brooch. And how about those $540 sneakers that make her already big feet look like whale boats?

No matter what the media and the lefties are working so hard to sell, if the mean, America hating Michelle is the new standard for beauty and a fashion icon, we've hit a new low.

The best joke continues to be seeing the media struggling to convince us she's the new Jackie Kennedy. C'mon. That's like comparing a diamond to a chipped marble.


What offends me the most is hearing this beast being compared to the lovely and stylish Princess Diana.....

It is merciful that Diana doesn't have to endure hearing herself being compared to the likes of the Chicago Missuz!!!

Morgan K Freeberg

I find her physical appeal to be just one among several aspects of her that are continually lauded as extraordinary, but only in safely vague terms.

This weekend I was reading a poll that said Michelle was "classy." It worked like...out of a thousand people, 11 used the word "mother" to describe Laura Bush and 6 used the word "classy"; 3 used the word "mother" to describe Michelle Obama and 7 used the word "classy," therefore, more people thought Michelle was classy than Laura.

Something like that.

And yet who, conservative or liberal, would fasten what remains of their good reputation to the statement "I think Michelle Obama is classier than Laura Bush"? Very few really would. Such an argument can only be made to look appealing in a roomful of slobbering sycophants who already buy into it. Why, just in the "How many times a day does she talk about herself" contest, Michelle would quickly weigh herself down. That sound clip of her talking about foods she likes...all the cetera. Priceless! Laura Bush wouldn't do that, because classy women don't talk about themselves that much.

But there's another trend taking place here -- one in which straight men are not asked for their opinions about which women are alluring. I've been seeing this go on for a very long time, ever since Andie McDowell was scoring some impressive roles as a leading lady in movies; roles that were clearly meant to be filled by an attractive woman. Instead, they went to McDowell. A woman was doing the casting -- or a man who was trying too hard to please women.

I really think, sometimes, those two planets are way, way, far out of orbit on this issue and I notice some sexually experienced females find it to be an enormous shocker what men do & don't find attractive. Jane Seymour, for example. Her teeth are straight. That's fantastic. But in her prime, Kathleen Turner had a wonderful pair of gymnast's thighs, and that beats Seymour's teeth any day of the week. Turner loses out in the voice department, they say? Jessica Rabbit would never have been Jessica Rabbit without Turner.

Back to the subject at hand: Agree about the arms. Very best case scenario, the verdict on arms is "she doesn't lose any points here." They do not, by themselves, make a lady spectacularly appealing -- ever. Other parts can and do; these don't. That's just the way things are.


I'm with Mommynator on this one. And Rick, I do not want to think about your wife's underwear... And I would think that you would not want me to!

tim aka The Godless Heathen


"Andie McDowell was scoring some impressive roles as a leading lady in movies; roles that were clearly meant to be filled by an attractive woman."

Ya' lost me dude, I got a thing for Andie McDowell. She did model for what it's worth.

Mike B

Okay, here's how I see it; Michelle is marginally attractive. A bit better than average but one of those people that sometimes look good and sometimes not. In her case she can sometimes look almost scary. Clearly she looks much better with her mouth closed. It's the Jaws' overbite that's frightening. And her arms, they're nice, toned and give her a fit look. But as many have already pointed out arms are not at the top of the list for physical attributes admired in women. I think all the comments about them are due to the fact that she rarely wears sleeves and is constantly showing them off.


Sure she's good lookin, if you find piranha attractive. With the cold black eyes, protruding lower jaw and serrated teeth, the comparison is unavoidable. The arms bit reminds me of what we would say of unattractive girls when I was a kid, "Nice wrists."


My eyesight is not what it once was. I watch how people move before I take in the details. Mrs. obama moves like a football player while her mate flounces like....well, you get the idea.


This is one of the most sexist statements I have heard.....Where are the feminists?...where is the ACLU and WHERE IS HER HUSBAND TO TELL THESE CHAUVENISTS TO STFU!??


I'm with Mommynator on this one. And Rick, I do not want to think about your wife's underwear... And I would think that you would not want me to!

Mommynator... I, and dare I say Gagdad Bob, am less focused on Michelle and her looks and more focused on liberals, especially in the media, who are making more of the woman's looks than is deserving. It is The Left here that are objectifying her, something I thought The Left, particularly feminists and feminized men, find abhorrent. The hypocrisy is as thick as... Hillary's ankles... but I digress.

And Pastor Ken... Pastor Ken... I want to believe you're attempting to make a funny (which is what I was clearly attempting when I mentioned my wife)... I want to believe it... but I can't... so...

Forgive me Pastor Ken, for I have 'sinned'. I have 'lusted' for the woman I've been with now for more than 30 years (nearly 28 of them in a state of wedded bliss) and I've done so publicly... and in so doing, I have placed 'sinful' thoughts (apparently) in your mind and so I'm responsible for your 'sinful' thoughts.


I have 'sinned' by pulling a Song of Solomon Chapter 4 on my beloved and this, in your eyes (and in many of those eyes owned by those religious people who desire for me to stop making them think evil thoughts) is egregious.

And we wonder why too much of organized religion is going the way of the horse and buggy.

Let's do this Pastor Ken... let's get this outta the way...

I find my wife to be sexy man... and I don't think, for a freakin' minute, that stating so, privately and/or publicly, is something God bred in me not to do, that in fact He created me to desire my wife and that perhaps she, in some way, appreciates it.

And if you, or anyone else, has a problem with it, then I suggest you have a big talk with the person who groggily stares back at you while shaving in the mornings and take it up with him.

And then get some damned help. Seriously.

If I, who have a license to lust after my wife, am told by a man of God that I can't do so, then that Pastor can head, at a full trot, to the nearest door and not let it hit him in the arse as he makes his exit.

I'm hoping this is clear and that I've not been too nuanced in my answer.

Double sigh.


Rick, you misunderstand me. NOTHING in my comment suggests that you should not 'lust' after your wife. I was suggesting that perhaps it is ungentlemanly to share intimate details of your relationship with others. If I am a prude, I will take correction. Help me see it.

But it seems to me that when Clinton told us that he usually wore briefs, that was too much information. It was unseemly. So, telling about one's wife's underwear should be seen as, at least (probably more), going in that same wrong direction.


I agree that Michelle is attractive but not a beauty queen (with a lot of potential) ...but I wonder with all of the criticism about her...I wonder what all of you white folks look like...I mean really what do you look like?



This is seriously ridiculous man.

When did I share intimate details of my relationship with my wife with others? Would you go back and read what I said and tell me what intimate details of my relationship with my wife were shared... please.

I shared that my wife wears underwear and that I think she's hot. Period. Anything else you've apparently projected, surmised, guessed, made up, whatever. And that is what is unseemly Ken.

I'd think the Freudians would have a field day with this.


Freudians might. I realize your comment about "bright yellow underthings" was a joke. Still, the words create an image. The image is quite tame by popular standards but I'm convinced popular standards need much revision. For example, why do we care that The Donald decrees that Miss California's photos were OK? Now, there's a joke!


I'm convinced Ken that your mindset is the deathknell of the Church.

You do nothing here but put God's people in bondage to ridiculousness which does nothing but make valid moral arguments seem moot.

You're dying on a hill here not worth dying on... in fact, you're making a mountain out of it...

Absolute foolhardiness... and it's the wider church and it's effectiveness that is in the end impacted by the foolishness...

Sad day here at Brutally Honest.... terribly sad...


"I agree that Michelle is attractive but not a beauty queen (with a lot of potential) ...but I wonder with all of the criticism about her...I wonder what all of you white folks look like...I mean really what do you look like?"

you white folks?...again, and again...enough with the racist card being played! What, you have to be black to have a worthy opinion on whether a black woman is beautiful or not...or you have to be beautiful to have a worthy opinion on whether a black woman is beautiful or not...or you have to be a beautiful black person to have an opinion on whether a black woman is beautiful or not?

The media is trying to type cast Obama as brilliant (even though he takes 15 speech writers and a half a dozen teleprompters with him on a trip and flip-flops depending on the mood of his minions and has policies that endanger the nation?!?!?!?) and Michelle as tasteful, beautiful and graceful (when she needs a session with What-Not-To-Wear, Jenny Craig and a personal trainer, and throw in some ballet lessons or something to even be in the ballpark!?!?!?!?!)

Not swallowing the media farce and certainly no swallowing the race card farce! Want to know what's wrong with race relations...people like you who use the failsafe foul over race when someone hits a homerun on truth! I'm tired of the black colleges, the black churches, the black caucus, the black tv the black separatists this and the black separatist that! You people can separate yourselves in the name of black protectionism when in reality what you practice is pure racial prejudice! If white folks set up a white church, a white caucus, a white tv, a white college in the name of protectionism and promotion of our "race"...we'd be called white supremists!

So, so, so sick of the hypocracy...white folks are way over the race's time for the black folks stuck in the past to get over it, too! That goes for the LaRaza crowd, too. This is America, the melting pot! You need to join the rest of the races and break down the separatist walls you worship and hide behind! The rest of us aren't going to bow down to those walls, we are getting mighty sick of having to walk around them, and we can see right through them, they are glass!

tim aka The Godless Heathen

“I wonder what all of you white folks look like”

Ah Carol, nothing like some racism thrown in for good measure. What exactly does being White or Black have to do with this, other than your obvious bigotry? We shouldn’t critique or criticize Michelle Obama because she is Black? Or because we are White we are not “allowed”? Are you too ignorant to understand the hypocrisy, discrimination and yes, racism involved with that way of thinking?

No where amongst these comments do I see anything remotely racist, excluding your of course. While some may be harsh or even offensive to some you are the only one to bring race in to the discussion.

I’m tired of Black folks like yourself (unless your playing some kind of game) injecting race into every effing discussion. It is you who needs to look in the mirror and change that person before you start looking for racism everywhere you look.

Saying Michelle Obama or any Black woman or White woman for that matter, is not attractive, stating our own opinion, is NOT wrong, it’s actually what is so beautiful about our country-a little thing called Free Speech. Too bad you can’t understand that basic principle.



I am dying on a hill; making a mountain out of it? I am making a mountian? ME??!!

Let's recap, shall we?

I say that talking about your underwear (or specifically YOUR wife's bright yellow underwear) is probably not appropriate in a public forum.

YOU rant for about 10 paragraphs on the joys of married sex. And YOU suggest that I might need professional help for saying things that I never said, wouldn't say, and don't think.

I point out that I never said anything like what you attribute to me and I specifically request instruction if I really am being to fussy.

YOU say I'm being ridiculous and that the "bright yellow underthings" must be MY projection or guess or surmize or made up.

I point out that words mean things and create mental pictures. And I suggest that our popular culture is filled with rude, crude, lewd images which make the crass, pass for the norm. I hope that will change.

YOU claim my attitude is killing the church. (Why is the church even entering into this? I didn't bring it up.) You claim that ALL I am doing is "putting people in bondage." And that bondage "makes valid moral arguments seem moot."

WOW. All that from suggesting that talk of underwear is better kept private. Maybe next Sunday I'll preach on underwear and see if my attendance goes up. (Now that really would be ridiculous!)


You're right Ken.

I'm clearly in the wrong.

I'm being Clinton-esque, I've placed nasty images in the minds of my readers, I'm crass and I'm leading my readers down a treacherous path of lower standards, and in fact am nearly if not already, rude, crude and lewd and making mountains out of hills.

However, I'm sure if you pray for me, given time and God's miraculous working in my life, if I repent of my ways and become more like you, I might just be seen once again as a respectable human being.

And in fact, inspired by this conversion and your moralizing, I'm sure that atheists and agnostics will be moved to join the church where these standards of behavior are preached and where correction, by people like you, can take place when breached by people like me.

Got it.

Another sinner saved, another notch in that salvation belt.

Hallelujah. Praise the Lord.


Ken and Rick...a woman's perspective...I agree American culture can be rude and crude, especially when it comes to talk of women, and as Christians the scriptures instruct us not to be crass. I have zero tolerance for men discussing or treating women in crass, rude, crude, deameaning ways. I appreciate men who don't tolerate it on our behalf or their behalf, I've had to work in environments where men delighted themselves in making the women around them uncomfortable. I talked to them and when they didn't comply, I filed complaints and had their behavior put on tolerance.

However, as Christians, we do have an example of how we should discuss these matters, in the Song of Solomon, husband and wife, celebrating their love and marriage and all the perks. Now, Solomon ran into some problems later in life with too many wives and unfaithfulness on several levels but at that time, his song was pure of heart and left as an example for us.

Young unmarried people need to hear us faithful wedded Christian folks discussing the joys of being in love and a respectful discussion of the perks the way God intended that relationship. The world paints a picture of sex that is contrary to his intentions, crude and rude and its attracting our youth, maybe, because its the only picture out there, there's little contrasting it. The church has been afraid or unwilling to paint the picture of sex the way that God intended it, like marriage, beautiful, romantic, and passionate.

It may make us straight laced Christians a little uncomfortable but I've come to realize we have to show that contrast to our kids. They need to hear what they have to look forward to. It needs to be celebrated, not so hidden and hushed.


While I understand the point of those who object to "criticism" of Miz O, I think what's being criticized is not the lady Herself, but rather the unwarranted adoration directed her way.

In any other context, her looks wouldn't buy her a backstage pass.  She's just a gal.  You know, "woman, generic, each, one" in the lingo of supply sergeants.  Fawning over her looks borders on idolatry, only without the actual idol.

In my opinion, it's less about Herself and more about the gleeful disconnect from reality.

A media that can look upon Herself -- a clear rendering of the ordinary -- and contort its imagination to the degree that it believes it's beholding beauty brands itself as a propaganda organ, not an instrument of factual reportage.

Alternatively, they seek approval through lavish image enhancement.

I'm not sure which bothers me more, the idea that the media belongs to Obama and does his bidding, or the idea that the media feels it needs the love and approbation of "those in power."

Of course, it could be worse:  it could be that the media sees itself as the beacon of all things "fairness and socialist," showering praise upon anyone preaching that to which they subscribe, and heaping derision and disdain upon any who say them nay.

Unchecked, that tail could wag a pretty large dog.

~~ G


Great stuff Garry, I appreciate your posting them here.

Renee... are you also of the opinion that my reference to my wife's bright yellow underthings was crass?


I agree with Rick - you are right, Garry.

renee - I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm always slamming men back when they start in on that whole crass ugly thing (in my own brutally honest, sarcastic way - I may turn into a female, believing version of House one of these days). I work in a hospital and things get pretty dicey which I either ignor or jokingly answer, but there are some things that are intolerable.

I don't think Rick's bright yellow underthings comment is in that category, though, but in this day and age, it may not be the wisest thing. Amongst sane people, the fact that after so many years he finds his wife desirable is something to be celebrated. The fact that my husband still gets "that" look in his eye after almost 31 years, multiple medical stupidities, the rough and tumble of life in general, and physical changes - and that in "those" terms, I only have eyes for him - again is something to be celebrated.

Somehow, though, it's not the bright neon thing that SEX gets in the press and movies and TV programs that Garry talked about - the cheap neurological thrill that is leading many to depression and disease.


Thanks Renee. I'll consider yours the last word on this exchange.


I'll consider that you BroKen are dodging the real issue here.

The Right's constant moralizing on innocuous and inconsequential things has a dramatic negative effect on why moralizing on the more important things fall on deaf ears.

The moralizing on my comment here leaves me with a most lingering nasty taste... one I've been exposed to time and again within the church.

Ignore this all you want Ken but if you think I'm a lone voice, then understand that it's proof that you can't see the forest through the trees.


Rick, no, I thought it was endearing of a man that is in love with his wife and maybe blush material as one of those that need to unloosen my laces a bit but if it had been crude, crass, stuff, I would have been repulsed and mad.

My husband says things that make me blush, even after 27 years, I'm not used to it but none of it's crude, it's his adoration and appreciation of me, what I'm wearing or what's beneath what I'm wearing. I'm not sure that all women or all men are comfortable hearing things about others or ourselves in these ways.

I do think there is a disconnect in the church in discussing love in marriage and what that relationship looks like. My husband and I requested to teach the teens in our church on purity and relationships, separating the boys from the girls so as not to cause any uncomfortableness. It made the leadership very uncomfortable worrying that parents might get offended or their children might get offended if what we had to say didn't line up with their opinions or that they might feel such topics are private.

They reviewed the materials we wanted to use, had us send a letter outlining it to the parents, waited for any response and then they allowed us to do it. I'm glad they carefully considered everything and took these steps but there were moments when I wasn't sure we'd get approval. I think it was a blessing. We encouraged the parents to continue the conversation with their teens at home and hopefully it opened some doors rather than shut them. We've asked for a speaker to come do a seminar on purity in our relationships for adults and teens because we think its so needed. This society has adultrated what God gave us, we need to paint the contrast, not just wave our brushes in warning.

I think the church has been too quick to shut the door on the fact that God made us sexual beings with desires that in the proper relationship are beautiful, good and pure. We talk about rejection of the bad context of sex but do we talk enough about the good context of sex? It shouldn't be such a tough subject for the church, it should be a natural part of what we do. When studying such topics from the perspective of what God wants for us, one has to decide what is pure and what isn't. Reminding your readers that you are married and very attracted to your wife (and her yellow underthings), might be blush material for some of us, but such talk is pure and God certainly seconds that opinion in Solomon.


Sure, Rick. You've got a point. How's that?


I think Renee now has had the last word... and I think you should take a step back before jumping on the holier-than-thou train...

How's that?


Political leanings aside--after all, we're talking about physical beauty here, if she's considered "hot" then the bar has definintely been lowered.


Yeah, Rick, that's me. Holier than thou. Sheesh!

I know I hit a nerve with you. I guess I should have known better, by now. But I can be pretty dense sometimes. Maybe all the times.

But, is calling me "holier than thou" an expression of your being "holier than me"? Just askin'.


No Ken... it's an expression of my rightness and your wrongess on this issue... and my disgust with your handling of it... and my continued disgust with your attempt to change the subject and not take responsibility for your wrongness and my disgust with your dodging the relevant points I've made that were frankly echoed by Renee though perhaps less brutally.

How's that? Just askin'.


Well, Rick, if you made relevant points, I couldn't see them through the insults and, quite frankly, blather. Renee's comment was helpful and let me see things from a different perspective. As I said, I am grateful to her for that. And as I said, I was willing for her comment to end this foolishness. (Yeah, sure, my foolishness.)

But calling someone "holier that thou" is NOT an "expression of rightness." If you really think it is, then start searching for the plank in your eye.

Here, Rick. You were right. I was wrong. (But there's plenty of disgust to go around.)

Are we done now?


Interesting... were the insults only flying in your direction Ken? Who insulted who initially?

And blather? Your entire premise was blather pal...

I'm willing to forgive (not forget)... in fact, I'll go so far as to apologize for the insults... meaning that I take ownership for them and am accountable (despite the clear fact that I was doing nothing but reacting to your insults and your blather).

The attempt to paint a picture here that only one of us was engaging in untoward behavior is the biggest problem left to deal with. Once it's dealt with, then maybe we'd be done.


Ahright, let's deal with it.

Here is how I see this incident. It is as if someone (me) said, "Hey, your fly is down." to which comes the response. "These are my pants, you creep! Mind your own business. Why are you looking at my crotch anyway?"

"Um, I just meant your fly is down. Trying to be helpful, maybe? No need to get all psychological about this."

Upon futher investigation, it is determined that said fly is/was NOT down. "Fine, my bad. Sorry. I shoulda never brought it up."

Now it seems to me that an insult presumes an intent to defame or injure. I want to assure you that injury was not the intent of my initial comment. Can you say the same about your response?


That analogy sucks... and doesn't come close to describing what happened.

You, with forethought, clearly implied that I was responsible for thoughts placed in your head, thoughts you apparently think to be less than wholesome. All I did, in the context of who is or isn't hot, mentioned my belief that my wife is. You took that down a thought road you didn't need to go down, and blamed me for the trip. That's a crock of crap. You're the one thinking the thoughts. You're the one taking the trip. Be a man and own your thoughts and the trip.

You then decide to compare me to Clinton, an incredible comparison, especially since you and he seem to think that accountability is anathema. Again, my training suggests you're projecting, that you're feeling some guilt over where you took my innocuous comments, but instead of taking responsibility, you're suggesting I'm the one who needs to have his behavior corrected. Crock of crap part deux.

An insult by the way is more than simply words used to injure or defame. An insult can be used to communicate contempt and insolence, especially toward those engaged in pious hypocrisy. Brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs come to mind as insults used by that crass guy many of us know as the Son of God.

Look Ken... let's understand each other... the majority of the time, we're thinking similar thoughts but you crossed a line here... and it's a line made all the more egregious when we consider that you're a Pastor. You sir are responsible for your thoughts. If the mere mention of my wife's yellow underthings make you think thoughts that make you uncomfortable, that, again, is your problem... you're the one thinking the thoughts, not me. Take responsibility for your problems Ken. To not do so, and to continue to equivocate here, is to engage in seriously unseemly behavior.

To close... did I insult you? Damned straight I did. I would again. But it was a reaction to your insults. Does that excuse my insults? No. Why are you continuing to excuse yours?

Hmm... Pastor?


I think you have attributed to me things that are not in my head. But I see your side, and I apologize.




Oh, thank God! I was wondering if we were going to need to take you two outside and knock your heads together.


Me, too, Mommynator...I couldn't come up with the right phrase, "take you two outside and knock your heads together." I'll have to remember that one.


Ladies, you have a standing invitation to "knock me upside the head" anytime you think it appropriate. :)


I thought I had...



Well, Rick, I didn't think you needed an invitation! :)


I've always thought Michelle looks exactly like her brother in a fright wig. Seriously, her brother, the basketball coach for Oregon State, could easily dress up like her at Halloween. Now, she looks OK on magazine covers, even pretty. But that's with a lot of makeup and a professional photog. I could handle her looks though, if it wasn't for her mannerisms and voice. Both are just grating as heck.

Steen Hove

Well now. Michelle Obama doesn't do a whole lot for me, looks wise - but she certainly is more attractive in all respects than than the unfortunate Sarah Palin. That ludicrously anally-retentive, puckering-sphincter, sexless shell, you can keep to yourselves, thanks. What "leftist" there is in me tends to think the socially-authoritarian repressed types are more into young boys behind closed doors, in general. Yeah Orwell had something to say about those too,


Steen - an appointment with an opthalmologist is long overdue.


That is, before Obamacare makes blind people of us all.


I'm gonna go back to one of the original questions of this post and tackle the "why" the left is so very insistent that all bow before the grace, elegance and beauty that they claim is Michelle Obama.

It's kind of simple really....have you ever seen a comparison of the women of the Left vs the women of the Right? They're jealous....totally. Well, that and the 3 hetero leftist men are depressed at the comparison....

We've got Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter, Elizabeth Hasselbeck....and did you happen to check out any of the Tea Party photos? Our "grassroots" conservative gals ain't nothin to sneeze at.

Their "A-list"? Uh....Hillary, Whoopi, Helen Thomas, Susan Sarandon....and their "grassroots" efforts......unless you've got a thing for hairy-pitted vegan militant lesbians, or ghetto hoochy...fuhgeddaboudit!

So there you have it....biting analysis by Shifty.

Oh yeah..and "liberal" actresses' and hollywood types don't really count, being too empty of head to really be considered women.....


Oh and for the record...

Mrs Obama looks like a Klingon War bride....and is just as "classy" as one I'm sure!


Michelle Obama dresses true to her heritage, like a hoochy mama

chuck aka xtnyoda

I think there is one really good reason for all the attention to her dress and presentation... if it would encourage many in our nation to pay just a little more attention to making a better presentation of themselves then it could be a good thing?


Rick and Ken, having read the posting I'm now ten mintues older and all I can think of are yellow panties.


Personally, politics aside, she is the hottest first lady we have ever had. Remember when old Barbara Bush would waddle her turkey neck out into public, goodness, put it away Barb.


Son...seriously?!?! Well if tall, klingon-esque, wide-beamed and possessing mor emanly arms than her hubby do it for ya...
Seriously dude, put those little forehead ridges on her and she's straight outta TNG!


I give her the respect of the "first lady" but Mrs. Bush had CLASS.


Drop the first two letters of that particular characteristic Bernie, and Mrs. Obama has THAT in spades!


I would seriously bet my whole life savings that not one of you looks even half as good as Michelle Obama. I haven't been brainwashed by the liberal media, I just happen to think Michelle is absolutely gorgeous!!! By the way, I'm a heterosexual, white, Christian, male. You conservatives would love me

P.S. You're just jealous because you guys are stuck with Ann Coulter and that adam's apple of hers


I'm years late, but I really enjoyed this. But to put Michelle and Laura in the same sentence - no, no, no! Laura Bush was/is one of the classiest ladies ever. What floored me was the press trying to pass Michelle off as a fasion icon. Yikes! Well, as some wag said, it's all in the eye of the beholder!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Tip Jar

Plainly Offsetting Costs

Search Brutally Honest

  • Google




Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable