Tag Archives: lesbian

Joslyn James And Her Slutty Teammates

Just to show Tiger Woods that they really will do anything, here are Joslyn James , Violet Kowal and January Gessert at some party celebrating the fact that it’s been a year since they were discovered to be a few of the whores Tiger was banging on the side. Good for you ladies, way to really class things up and clear your names. I didn’t really want to give any attention to these sluts, but then I got distracted by the second less ugly one’s big fake boobs and forgot all about it. Enjoy.

Lindsay Lohan Shows Off Some Skin

Here’s Lindsay Lohan continuing her rehab hotness in a nice little sundress the other day. I don’t know what kind of program she’s in, but it seems to be pretty chill, my parents just duck taped me to my bed for a week. Whatever she’s doing, it seems to be working because she’s looking a lot better. Don’t get me wrong, I loved drunk Lindsay, but I like a woman who’s going to remember me in the morning. There’s nothing worse than trying to convince a chick you just spent the night with that you didn’t just break into her house to steal her collection of Beanie Babies .

Lindsay Lohan’s Got Back

It’s pretty rare that I do a post about Lindsay Lohan’s ass, I tend to focus my attention on her meaty front meat, but today I thought I’d mix it up a little. Here she is having a smoke outside her halfway house or rehab cell or whatever you want to call it, giving us a nice look at her tasty derriere. I think I could get used to this. Next time I want to see her doing some pilates or yoga… Whichever one involves something called downward facing dog.

GOP Politician: Girl Scouts Are Lesbian Atheists

A candidate for the Washington State house of representatives said the Girl Scouts of America is a hotbed of lesbianism and atheism. Hans Zeiger, the 25-year-old Republican nominee for Washington's 25th district seat, once wrote on a conservative website that the Girl Scouts organization has been spared the same scrutiny of the Boy Scouts of America has faced regarding its rules against gay inclusion because the group allows lesbians and atheists, Change.org reports. He also charged the Girl Scouts with being a “pro-abortion, feminist training corps.” The blog where Zeiger has made many similar statements is being swept of some of his more offensive posts, according to the report. Zeiger, who was an Eagle Scout, is the author of two books, Reagan's Children: Taking Back the City on the Hill and Get Off My Honor! The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America. added by: TimALoftis

Hand Dancing

I don't even know where to begin… added by: Almibry

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

(AP) At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal. The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997. The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members. “I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'” state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. “Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party.” Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook. But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the “Crime” section of the GOP platform. It states: “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.” Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana. Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said. “There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court,” Greenwood said. Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position. “To me, that statement legally is hollow,” said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. “The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass.” Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent. “It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party,” Abbott said. “It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is.” Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents. “I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it,” he said. “Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?” added by: TimALoftis

GLAAD Gets CNN Poll Spiked, Finds It ‘Troubling’ That an Opponent from MRC Allowed in CNN Story

The gay left hates debate – especially the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. They’re furious that CNN Headline News offered balance and came to the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute for a negative opinion on homosexuality. That’s apparently beyond the pale. Mediaite reported that GLAAD succeeded in pressuring CNN into spiking an online poll that asked the question “Is the surge in gay TV characters ‘bad for society’?” On the GLAAD blog , Aaron McQuade found it was “troubling” for CNN to allow dissent: The report then goes on to give a troubling amount of airtime to anti-gay activist Dan Gainor from the Culture and Media Institute , who does believe that it’s “bad for society” to offer authentic depictions of the lives of LGBT people. He remarked that, “Hollywood has done a great deal of work causing acceptance in American culture for homosexuality.” Why would you object to this sentence? This happens to be as factual as asserting that the sky is blue. It also acknowledges GLAAD’s power to pressure Hollywood. The only answer is that Gainor seems to disapprove, and disapproval is not allowed. It’s a false “dualism” to allow debate: But CNN’s offensive poll and its attempts to manufacture controversy by granting a platform to so-called experts like Gainor follows an alarming trend of media outlets creating simplistic, predictable “pro-gay”/”anti-gay” dualisms that do a great disservice to viewers who are seeking information on the diversity of opinion and experience within our community. We will continue to challenge this type of coverage. That is, the “type of coverage” that allows anyone to disagree.

Here is the original post:
GLAAD Gets CNN Poll Spiked, Finds It ‘Troubling’ That an Opponent from MRC Allowed in CNN Story

Sophie Monk in her Bikini Is Alright of the Day

I am not sure what’s going on with Sophie Monk’s tits, but they look deflated and sad. Maybe that’s what happens when a bitch can’t afford to eat cuz she doesn’t get work, or maybe it’s just the stress of being a bottom feeding hollywood whore who can’t even land bottom feeding work is making her try harder to look good….I just know that there’s something about her muppet looking face, and pretty hot, eager body that makes me want to fuck her with my tongue, I just don’t know what that something is, but I can tell you one thing, it’s definitely not her Paris Hilton herpes pussy that she got from her lesbian relationship with the Good Charlotte sister who cheated on her with Paris Hilton cuz his twin ran off with Nicole Richie and wouldn’t fuck him anymore…leaving him lost and confused…. Here she is in a bikini, doing what bottom feeders trying to get noticed do. To See The Rest of the Pics – Follow This Link GO

See the original post:
Sophie Monk in her Bikini Is Alright of the Day

NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report

On December 8 of last year, at some point before hitting the “print” button, someone at the New York Times decided that a story about what has since become known as the Ground Zero Mosque needed to be reworked. Earlier that day, the Times published an online powder-puff piece by reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Sharaf Mowjood about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s GZM plans. The pair’s story was revised before it went to print, and the online version was changed (“Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero,” with a web page title bar that reads “Muslim Prayers Fuel Spiritual Rebuilding Project Near Ground Zero”) to mirror it . It’s even puffier. Several bloggers posted about the pair’s online original when it appeared. A few, including Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Ben Muessig at The Gothamist , excerpted some or all of the key paragraphs shown on the left below (bold in the third paragraph is mine). On the right is how that segment went to print on December 9 (link is to hard-to-read enlarged scan of that day’s front page, where the story’s opening paragraphs appeared near its bottom right), and how it currently appears online: Putting aside the issue of whether previous online versions of subsequently revised stories should be retained and kept available to readers for future reference (I think they should; the Times, the Associated Press, and others clearly disagree), and even giving the paper the benefit of the doubt on the need to fit available print edition space, there’s plenty of reason to question the paper’s editing choices. The most important one is: “Why did the third paragraph disappear?” That disappearance raises at least these points: The imam describes the location as being “close to 9/11,” as if the fallen towers represent some kind of event and not an actual place. Is this imperfect English, or a slip of the tongue? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background might be tempted to think he’s referring to something positive, especially given that he describes being so close to them as being “iconic.” Expanding on the Rauf’s use of “iconic,” the word “icon” in context means : “a person or thing regarded as a symbol of a belief, nation, community, or cultural movement.” So if the GZM’s proposed location is indeed “iconic,” it’s far, far more than a nice community center, isn’t it? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background have legitimate cause for wondering what he believes the GZM really symbolizes. It’s also interesting how the phrase “a longtime critic of radical Islamists” fell off. It’s not like ” Islamists ” is a forbidden word at the Old Grey Lady — or even (though much more rare) ” radical Islamists .” Perhaps Blumenthal or Mowjood found some contradictory information, like that 60 Minutes interview where Rauf told Ed Bradley less than three weeks after the 9/11 attacks that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” It seems a bit more likely, at least before the GZM idea sprung up, that Rauf, based on his own words, had really been a longtime sympathizer with radical Islamists. Finally, it’s more than a little odd that the Times denied itself the opportunity, after originally claiming it, to brag about getting a scoop. Did the paper back away from seemingly valid bragging rights because of nervousness about being accused of proactively helping the project move along? Given the facts and attitude clues washed out, the Times made some interesting editorial decisions indeed. When done, the presentation of Rauf is on balance became much more favorable, and there were no direct alerts that something might be amiss. Imagine that. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report

Dr. Laura Schlessinger Folds Her Radio Show; Who Will Liberal Censors Target Next?

On CNN’s Larry King Live last night, talk-radio star Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced that she’s leaving the talk-radio racket after her contract expires in December. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart, and what I think is helpful and useful, without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates and attack sponsors.” All three TV networks jumped on the story last week that she’d used the N-word repeatedly to a caller in describing how black comedians can freely use the N-word, but others cannot. Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer sounded the alarm that this scalp might not be the last:   In the wake of Dr Laura Schlessinger’s sudden departure from broadcasting , Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and dozens of other talkers could be next to face the axe. Sadly, the far-left parasites at Media Matters have won this battle by default as conservatives strangely chose to sit out the fight . Now, with champagne corks popping, they can celebrate as major contributions from billionaires fill their coffers…. It’s a strange sight after the liberals have been waving around the First Amendment for radical imams for days. Media Matters ripped Don Imus out of his cozy chair at MSNBC for saying the words “nappy-headed hos” on TV at 6 am. Now they’ve gotten Dr. Laura’s appointment canceled over this exchange with a black woman caller with a white husband who felt her in-laws were racially insensitive:  SCHLESSINGER: I think that’s — well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply ’cause he was half-black. Didn’t matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That’s not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says — we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here — the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, “White men can’t jump; I want you on my team.” That was racist? That was funny. CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word’s been thrown around — SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger. CALLER: That isn’t — SCHLESSINGER: I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s affectionate. CALLER: So it’s OK to say “nigger”? SCHLESSINGER: — and not enough sense of humor. CALLER: It’s OK to say that word? SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it’s said. CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word? SCHLESSINGER: It’s — it depends how it’s said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it’s OK. At least Imus actually insulted the Princeton women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.” Schlessinger didn’t use the N-word against anyone. She discussed the social taboos around the word without applying it to anyone. (Black academics write whole books about it — with an N-word title .) You can certainly say that she didn’t need to take this detour or use the actual word if a Media Matters monitor is listening in. But it cannot be said that Dr. Laura is some sort of white supremacist who just put on a sheet. Media Matters weren’t listening to her show to expose her as a racist. They object to her social conservatism, her pro-life, pro-marriage stands, and were looking for a way to silence her. This is the second time Dr. Laura has been censored by the Left. Her TV show was killed and buried (almost before it aired ) in 2000 by gay-left censors with the website StopDrLaura.com. Media Matters was joined in their Shut Her Up campaign by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in a campaign to pressure advertisers — as well as by UNITY Journalists of Color , an alliance of four different minority-reporter groups: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association, and the Native American Journalists Association.  Maloney added: From here, “progressives” now have more than one way to skin a cat: they can wait for the next Gotcha Game opportunity to pounce on individual talk hosts, knowing conservatives have shown they aren’t ready for battle. The second approach toward censorship is internal: with station managers typically on the left, lineups can be slowly watered-down until all traces of right-leaning programming have gone missing. For an alarming example, just look to Tuesday’s news that the Air America radio exec who saw the lefty network through to its demise has just been hired to run WMAL / Washington, a key affiliate for Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin in the nation’s capital. Already, one influential regional broadcast industry site is calling on the programmer to remove conservatives and add failed libtalkers to the lineup. Some left-wing media watchdog groups (like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) have touted their “anti-censorship” stance as superior to conservatives, even when they didn’t live up to it. But Media Matters has been quite explicit in pounding Dr. Laura’s sponsors to quit her show. For months, they’ve been mocking any advertiser who spends money on the Glenn Beck show on Fox. They are clearly not an “anti-censorship” group.

Follow this link:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger Folds Her Radio Show; Who Will Liberal Censors Target Next?