See also, Sir Smitty's pre-FMJRA tea party blogging. Plus, at The Classical Liberal, "Amy Acker presents “The Federal Reserve: Engine of Corruption”." And Washington Rebel, "To My Libertarian Friends."
BONUS: Theo Spark, "Just having the lawn mowed ..."
not natural beauty
ReplyDeleteThere is a point when too much of anything is counter productive. It is too bad because she seemed to have a fairly well balanced body and an attractive smile.
ReplyDeleteAlmost no one who would show interest in her would be interested in the whole person. Bronson does have it right.
It is like make up, a woman should use just enough to highlight her natural beauty. Believe or not most of us men do look past these superficial qualities. It may be what gets our attention, but is not what keeps it.
In a heartbeat. I'll leave all those "strong,independent" women to all you guys that like it natural. I used to date women that looked like they had Buckwheat in a headlock, no more college professors for me.Have at it sensitive beta males.
ReplyDeleteTrue story. 10 years ago when the wife was still dancing, we were shopping for boobs.She told her good customers "I'm getting boobs,what do you think?" Most of them said "don't change a thing,you're perfect".After she went back to work, I asked how her good customers reacted. She told me, "they leave more money".
ReplyDeleteCK,
ReplyDeleteMakes my point and you should learn to read. Actually, given your meanderings I doubt whether you noted the underlying faults in your poor analysis of what I was saying.
There are millions of women out there who are extremely attractive as they are and only need to highlight. Besides of which it is not the size of the "boobs" that determine the pleasure.