According to Wikipedia... "in 1955, when she sued Confidential magazine for stating that she spent her off-work hours with 'Hollywood's weird society of baritone babes' (a euphemism for a lesbian) in an article which claimed Scott's name was found on the clients' list belonging to a call-girl agency".
The Wikipedia entry does not state that she ever confirmed she was gay. It does, however, note that "At least one book has claimed she was a mistress of married film producer Hal Wallis".
Look, can you give me a better lesbian than that, please? I agree that she falls into the category of lipstick lesbian. However, I cannot agree that she is the best of the lipsticks. Angelina Jolie has engaged in lesbian activity also, so why go back in time, back when women wore too much makeup and too much clothing?
John, you must have radar. Every time that I do a chickie-poo post, boom, you're there (yeah, yeah, Angelina Jolie....)!......Ms. Maddow? Let's just put it this way. I'd much rather watch Portia de Rossi do propaganda.
WD is quick to label political commentary that he does not like as "propaganda", using it as a meaningless epithet. I guess since he is not using it for Maddow, it means he likes her propa... er commentary.
You're talking about Fox Nooz dmarks? I wasn't quick to label them propaganda because I "don't like" their commentary. It isn't "commentary" when you reguarly lie.
Back in 2009, Rachel Maddow created a "story" out of thin air. She implied that big pharmaceutical companies were opposing Obamacare and it was absolutely false. The largest pharama (because they stood to handsomely profit from it) companies either supported it or stayed neutral during the debate. Ms. Maddow is always pushing this big government good versus big business bad narrative and it's ludicrous. Big frigging business and big frigging government LOVE EACH OTHER!! I mean, just look at the regulations. Regulations tend to help bigger business at the expense of smaller companies and start-ups, the fact that they have a lot more money for compliance, etc.. To even imply that this woman doesn't do propaganda is absolutely laughable.
BB-Idaho: Lizabeth is not on the LIST. but she is better looking than Marjorie Main.
With the first post in this comment thread I mentioned that her Wikipedia entry doesn't confirm she was a lesbian, it just says there was a rumor. Perhaps confirmation can be found elsewhere on the internet? I haven't looked. Or maybe Will hit on her and she told him to take a hike... and Will, figuring no woman could resist him, figured she HAD to be a lesbian?
Rusty: Wow, mentioning Rachel Maddow is like throwing a stink bomb in the room.
A HOT stink bomb? Remember, you said so yourself (that she's hot).
Will: Big frigging business and big frigging government LOVE EACH OTHER!!
Baloney. Big business loves it when government does "favors" for them, but government being big has little to do with it. Big Business wants government to be small so it can't police their activities (and they can do whatever the hell they please).
If big business wants government to be small, then why do they always seem to favor regulation and big government programs like Cap and Trade and Obamacare and the stimulus? You're just gonna have to face it here, wd, both parties are totally bought and sold (can you say, "Countryside", Christopher Dodd? - I knew that you could).
I'm reading Diana McLelllan's "The Girls, Sappho Goes to Hollywood". No, it isn't exactly de Tocqueville but, still, it's a pretty darn good read. Ms. McLellan seems convinced that Lizabeth Scott was a lesbian and I, of course, am a very gullible person in this regard.
WD said: "You're talking about Fox News dmarks? I wasn't quick to label them propaganda because I "don't like" their commentary. It isn't "commentary" when you reguarly lie."
And when CBS News lied by pushing the "Bush went AWOL" hoax for weeks, you let them off the hook by making up the silly story that Karl Rove gave them the bad information.
Yes, you label Fox News "propaganda" not out of any regard for the meaning of the word, but just because you don't like them.
"Rachel Maddow doesn't do propaganda."
Of course. You are a big fan of hers, so you let her off the hook, and you reserve this meaningless insult for journalists that are just like her but differ only in political ideology.
dmarks: ...you reserve this meaningless insult for journalists that are just like her but differ only in political ideology.
No, it's the lying. And I didn't let CBS News "off the hook". The story was accurate. They had enough proof without the forged documents. By the way, one of the people who was there said what was on the forged documents accurately represented what was on the original documents. She saw them. bush was AWOL.
wd, I gave you an example of Rachel Maddow creating a story out of essentially thin air. Now, is she as blatant an on-air personality as Hannity or Limbaugh? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, though, the woman is far from perfect.
WD said: "And I didn't let CBS News "off the hook". The story was accurate."
The story was fake. A hoax. Yet you insist that it is true. That is letting CBS News off the hook.
"They had enough proof without the forged documents."
There was no proof, or even any evidence. And in contrast there is proof for the other side. Bush never went AWOL. He was never charged with it. He got an honorable discharge (something people that go AWOL never get).
"By the way, one of the people who was there said what was on the forged documents accurately represented what was on the original documents. She saw them."
So now you have one partisan crank who looks at fake documents and says they are true.
"Crooks and Liars" is either lying or they haven't fully examined the story. Here, wd, are the REAL FACTS - Back in 2009, Ms. Maddow made a big deal over the fact that Dick Armey (admittedly, an asshole) and his group, Freedom Works, were opposing Mr. Obama's health-care bill. She also noted that Mr. Armey's law firm, DLA Piper, had done some work for a pharmaceutical firm called Medicine's Company. Her assertion (absent even a scintilla of evidence, mind, you) was that somehow the drug companies were calling the shots here and that Mr. Armey was more than likely shilling for them.........................................................................................Yeah, well, guess what, wd - WRONG! Not only was Medicines Company not opposing the heath-care bill, they actually supported it to the tune of causing a breakup between Armey and the law firm. If Ms. Maddow had done even a modicum of research on this issue, she would have concluded that the health-care bill was actually a bonanza for the drug companies and that Mr. Armey's views on health-care reform were NOT those of his by then FORMER law firm and their big corporate client. Nope, wd, those folks were on President Obama's side. Go figure, huh?.
1940s film noir star, Lizabeth Scott.
25 comments:
According to Wikipedia... "in 1955, when she sued Confidential magazine for stating that she spent her off-work hours with 'Hollywood's weird society of baritone babes' (a euphemism for a lesbian) in an article which claimed Scott's name was found on the clients' list belonging to a call-girl agency".
The Wikipedia entry does not state that she ever confirmed she was gay. It does, however, note that "At least one book has claimed she was a mistress of married film producer Hal Wallis".
Look, can you give me a better lesbian than that, please? I agree that she falls into the category of lipstick lesbian. However, I cannot agree that she is the best of the lipsticks. Angelina Jolie has engaged in lesbian activity also, so why go back in time, back when women wore too much makeup and too much clothing?
and then theres......Rachel Maddow
Rusty: and then there's Rachel Maddow.
So, what you're saying is that you think Rachel Maddow is hot?
John, you must have radar. Every time that I do a chickie-poo post, boom, you're there (yeah, yeah, Angelina Jolie....)!......Ms. Maddow? Let's just put it this way. I'd much rather watch Portia de Rossi do propaganda.
Propaganda? What does that have to do with Rachel Maddow? She does political commentary.
WD is quick to label political commentary that he does not like as "propaganda", using it as a meaningless epithet. I guess since he is not using it for Maddow, it means he likes her propa... er commentary.
You're talking about Fox Nooz dmarks? I wasn't quick to label them propaganda because I "don't like" their commentary. It isn't "commentary" when you reguarly lie.
Back in 2009, Rachel Maddow created a "story" out of thin air. She implied that big pharmaceutical companies were opposing Obamacare and it was absolutely false. The largest pharama (because they stood to handsomely profit from it) companies either supported it or stayed neutral during the debate. Ms. Maddow is always pushing this big government good versus big business bad narrative and it's ludicrous. Big frigging business and big frigging government LOVE EACH OTHER!! I mean, just look at the regulations. Regulations tend to help bigger business at the expense of smaller companies and start-ups, the fact that they have a lot more money for compliance, etc.. To even imply that this woman doesn't do propaganda is absolutely laughable.
Rachel Maddow doesn't do propaganda.
Lizabeth is not on the LIST
but she is better looking than
Marjorie Main.
BB-Idaho: Lizabeth is not on the LIST. but she is better looking than
Marjorie Main.
With the first post in this comment thread I mentioned that her Wikipedia entry doesn't confirm she was a lesbian, it just says there was a rumor. Perhaps confirmation can be found elsewhere on the internet? I haven't looked. Or maybe Will hit on her and she told him to take a hike... and Will, figuring no woman could resist him, figured she HAD to be a lesbian?
Rusty: Wow, mentioning Rachel Maddow is like throwing a stink bomb in the room.
A HOT stink bomb? Remember, you said so yourself (that she's hot).
Will: Big frigging business and big frigging government LOVE EACH OTHER!!
Baloney. Big business loves it when government does "favors" for them, but government being big has little to do with it. Big Business wants government to be small so it can't police their activities (and they can do whatever the hell they please).
If big business wants government to be small, then why do they always seem to favor regulation and big government programs like Cap and Trade and Obamacare and the stimulus? You're just gonna have to face it here, wd, both parties are totally bought and sold (can you say, "Countryside", Christopher Dodd? - I knew that you could).
I'm reading Diana McLelllan's "The Girls, Sappho Goes to Hollywood". No, it isn't exactly de Tocqueville but, still, it's a pretty darn good read. Ms. McLellan seems convinced that Lizabeth Scott was a lesbian and I, of course, am a very gullible person in this regard.
Like I said before....I'm a lesbian....Rusty will dive for an oyster in a heartbeat.
Rustina: Like I said before.... I'm a lesbian.... Rustina will dive for an oyster in a heartbeat.
So you're a woman? I don't know why, but for some reason I thought you were a man. "Rusty" sounds male. How about "Rustina"?
WD said: "You're talking about Fox News dmarks? I wasn't quick to label them propaganda because I "don't like" their commentary. It isn't "commentary" when you reguarly lie."
And when CBS News lied by pushing the "Bush went AWOL" hoax for weeks, you let them off the hook by making up the silly story that Karl Rove gave them the bad information.
Yes, you label Fox News "propaganda" not out of any regard for the meaning of the word, but just because you don't like them.
"Rachel Maddow doesn't do propaganda."
Of course. You are a big fan of hers, so you let her off the hook, and you reserve this meaningless insult for journalists that are just like her but differ only in political ideology.
dmarks: ...you reserve this meaningless insult for journalists that are just like her but differ only in political ideology.
No, it's the lying. And I didn't let CBS News "off the hook". The story was accurate. They had enough proof without the forged documents. By the way, one of the people who was there said what was on the forged documents accurately represented what was on the original documents. She saw them. bush was AWOL.
wd, I gave you an example of Rachel Maddow creating a story out of essentially thin air. Now, is she as blatant an on-air personality as Hannity or Limbaugh? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, though, the woman is far from perfect.
Wd,is Maddow the female in her relationship or the bull?
Google lesbian porn stars and you're likely going to find many hotter than these. A more current as well I would assume.
Samantha Ryan is my personal favorite of the current crop.
Will: wd, I gave you an example of Rachel Maddow creating a story out of essentially thin air.
You're talking about this story, right? That story wasn't created "out of thin air". I believe that it's accurate.
WD said: "And I didn't let CBS News "off the hook". The story was accurate."
The story was fake. A hoax. Yet you insist that it is true. That is letting CBS News off the hook.
"They had enough proof without the forged documents."
There was no proof, or even any evidence. And in contrast there is proof for the other side. Bush never went AWOL. He was never charged with it. He got an honorable discharge (something people that go AWOL never get).
"By the way, one of the people who was there said what was on the forged documents accurately represented what was on the original documents. She saw them."
So now you have one partisan crank who looks at fake documents and says they are true.
"bush was AWOL."
Sorry, you have been proven false.
"Crooks and Liars" is either lying or they haven't fully examined the story. Here, wd, are the REAL FACTS - Back in 2009, Ms. Maddow made a big deal over the fact that Dick Armey (admittedly, an asshole) and his group, Freedom Works, were opposing Mr. Obama's health-care bill. She also noted that Mr. Armey's law firm, DLA Piper, had done some work for a pharmaceutical firm called Medicine's Company. Her assertion (absent even a scintilla of evidence, mind, you) was that somehow the drug companies were calling the shots here and that Mr. Armey was more than likely shilling for them.........................................................................................Yeah, well, guess what, wd - WRONG! Not only was Medicines Company not opposing the heath-care bill, they actually supported it to the tune of causing a breakup between Armey and the law firm. If Ms. Maddow had done even a modicum of research on this issue, she would have concluded that the health-care bill was actually a bonanza for the drug companies and that Mr. Armey's views on health-care reform were NOT those of his by then FORMER law firm and their big corporate client. Nope, wd, those folks were on President Obama's side. Go figure, huh?.
Post a Comment