What’s that supposed to be, anyway? A guy hitting fungoes at a nudist colony?
The dress should have been blue.
Oh, wait, maybe that’s the change we’ve been waiting for!
Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.
What a friggin hick.
But Kermit, she’s The One Who Won… or one of them, anyway.
“Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.”
She wanted to show off her new Brazillian wax job for his Holiness.
AC –
No a fungo bat’s bigger than that thing.
Oh wait.
I mean a fungo bat’s smaller than that thing.
(Sorry. Was looking at the wrong thing there.)
Are any of you sure that that statue was actually in the Vatican? Your comments are way off base if Mrs Obama was standing in a museum.
A class act
Huh?
Mom, did you stop taking your pills?
Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.
The photograph does not show Mrs Obama in the Vatican.
Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.
Don’t you mean Ad Mominum?
May I direct you to the “Humor” tag on the post?
Mr Roosh
And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary? Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.
And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?
Who told you that?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Hence the label “Humor.”
I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?
Like the Cheshire Cat or Maureen Dowd, our commentary is to be taken as we intend it to be taken. Sometimes it’s serious, sometimes it’s humorous. For the latter, we sometimes add the big capitalized HUMOR tag. We provide this as a public service. You’re welcome.
Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.
At times? Certainly. “All revealing the absolute indisputable truth and shredding liberal lies and no play makes Johnny and Mitch dull boys”.
Back to my original comment….The statue in the photograph was NOT in the Vatican and Mrs Obama was NOT in the Vatican exposing her armpits. She was appropriately dressed at both the museum and , later the Vatican. Funny, how things can be misrepresented isn’t
What’s that supposed to be, anyway? A guy hitting fungoes at a nudist colony?
The dress should have been blue.
Oh, wait, maybe that’s the change we’ve been waiting for!
Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.
What a friggin hick.
But Kermit, she’s The One Who Won… or one of them, anyway.
“Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.”
She wanted to show off her new Brazillian wax job for his Holiness.
AC –
No a fungo bat’s bigger than that thing.
Oh wait.
I mean a fungo bat’s smaller than that thing.
(Sorry. Was looking at the wrong thing there.)
Are any of you sure that that statue was actually in the Vatican? Your comments are way off base if Mrs Obama was standing in a museum.
A class act
Huh?
Mom, did you stop taking your pills?
Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.
The photograph does not show Mrs Obama in the Vatican.
Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.
Don’t you mean Ad Mominum?
May I direct you to the “Humor” tag on the post?
Mr Roosh
And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary? Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.
And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?
Who told you that?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Hence the label “Humor.”
Let me help you out with an apt definition:
And please, call me Johnny.
I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?
Like the Cheshire Cat or Maureen Dowd, our commentary is to be taken as we intend it to be taken. Sometimes it’s serious, sometimes it’s humorous. For the latter, we sometimes add the big capitalized HUMOR tag. We provide this as a public service. You’re welcome.
Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.
At times? Certainly. “All revealing the absolute indisputable truth and shredding liberal lies and no play makes Johnny and Mitch dull boys”.
Back to my original comment….The statue in the photograph was NOT in the Vatican and Mrs Obama was NOT in the Vatican exposing her armpits. She was appropriately dressed at both the museum and , later the Vatican. Funny, how things can be misrepresented isn’t