On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:30:01 -0500, HarryK
wrote:

On 12/17/10 1:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:34 -0800 (PST), "Jack."
wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:42 am, I am wrote:
In article72cf45fd-f2a5-44be-a93e-
, says...



Yuo didn't make it he

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/...iberal_women_i...

Nor he

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...calendar-vo_n_...

Sorry, maybe next year, Ms. D'Plume

Oh my God.. Garafolo?? Dowd? ewwwwwwww, I just threw up a little in my
mouth...

I like how in some of the captions, they make excuses like, "this
isn't the best picture of her"... ya THINK!?!

That had to be an attempt at humor. After all this is one of the
captions:

"Chelsea Clinton: Poor Chelsea had the misfortune of growing up in the
limelight and having everyone judge her by how she looked when she was
younger. She's actually pretty foxy these days."

Actually, she's pretty bow-wow. Coyote. Not even closing time. :-

Wow... even for an OT post, something you're not supposed to be
replying to or fueling when it involves insults, you're slimes really
hit a low mark.

Actually, I kinda look like Garance Franke-Ruta.

So Wayne, where's the outrage or have you blocked these guys?


Uh, Chelsea Clinton is my kind of gal. Smart, educated, attractive,
well-mannered, accomplished, and unlike the daughters of the president
who succeeded her father, she avoided being drunk or under the influence
of drugs.

Of course, we liberals prefer smart women.

I wouldn't hold anything against Bush's kids. They have a good mother
and seem to have at least a modicum more grace and manner than their
dear papa.