Just for Fun

[Mr.B]

farts on dog

[rstrong]

Miss Canada is prettier.

The glitter bomb Miss USA isn't bad at all.

And to give the Transformers Miss USA credit, they didn't just put here on ridiculous elevator shoes that would be enormously difficult to walk on. They wrapped her in other hardware that would make it much harder to do the quick movements needed to regain her balance. AND THEN they put that thing on her back that would her center of mass off balance. (Granted, there's enough makeup on her face to bring it forward). And it's towering over her head, which would make her top-heavy and throw off her balance even more.

AND THEN they put her in front of a crowd and TV cameras, knowing full well that if she toppled it would be more spectacular than a Michael Bay movie. Her accident would go viral on the internet, and for the rest of her life it's what she would be known for.

So while her smile isn't the prettiest, understandably it's mixed with grim determination not to fall over. It's also the scary smile of someone making a list of people to kill after the show.

[Mr.B]

"Miss USA 2015's costume may be glitter-goofy, but it doesn't achieve the glory of WTF status."

I suppose there's something to that 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder' thingy.

I've never been a fan of beauty contests. I can't really see the point in these goofy costumes, so I would have to agree with the assessment of the article's title. What are they supposed to accomplish? I thought a beauty contest was supposed to be all about charm, poise, intelligence, character, and of course, looks. (I do remember a few past pageants where intelligence went out the window;

Miss Teen USA 2007, S.C. for example! )

[O Really]

Yeah that girl was on "Amazing Race" a couple of seasons ago - still trying to live down that answer and demonstrate that she isn't as dumb as everyone thinks.

[Mr.B]

"To be fair, we're not discussing the contestants' charm, poise, intelligence, character or, for the most part, looks. In that regard the goofy costumes succeeded."

Fer shure, none of those costumes fell under any of the aforementioned catagories!

[rstrong]

More of the costumes:

2015 Miss Universe National Costumes: An Asshole's Review (Part 1)

[Mr.B]

More of the costumes:

2015 Miss Universe National Costumes: An Asshole's Review (Part 1)

One can't help but wonder the vocabulary capabilities and education level of the idiot who wrote the article and reviewed each photo.
A*shole is putting it mildly; a demented one at that.

I couldn't find any info on who/what the idiot is supposed to be; I did find there's an Ari Schwartz in Winnipeg.........

[rstrong]

One can't help but wonder the vocabulary capabilities and education level of the idiot who wrote the article and reviewed each photo.

It's a Gawker Media site. Vocabulary capabilities and education are not required.

[rstrong]

Apparently the competition does not have a "fit through a doorway" challenge.

[Mr.B]

"Why should we demand that a reviewer of demented a*shole Donald Trump's goofy Miss Universe pageant and its goofy costumes have a high vocabulary and education level?"

No one was "demanding" anything. It was only noted that the author had a limited vocabulary and a back-alley mouth.

The whole idea of a beauty pageant is demented as far as I'm concerned; displaying women like they're farm animals is degrading, regardless of who owns/sponsors/pays for them. I'm sure that if anyone other than someone of Republican persuasion were the owner/sponsor/bankroller of the same pageant, you'd be falling all over yourself praising him/her.

[O Really]

That would be "Donald Trump [was] a demented a*shole [when] he was a Dem" back before 2009.

[Mr.B]

Says the poster that called him an "A*shole".
Ahem.....rstrong's link: 2015 Miss Universe National Costumes: An Asshole's Review (Part 1)

".....can you think of any issue where I've criticized a Republican but given a Dem a pass for the same thing?"
Not especially; you do seem to hold Repubs in higher disdain than Dems.

[O Really]

Any rational person would hold the current crop of what claims to be "Republicans" in high disdain. Why? (a) Because they focus on issues not significant to the country as a whole, and on which most of the country is way over; (b) because they don't offer proactive solutions to anything, but are against everything; (c) because they let the loonies occasionally drive the train; (d) because they keep giving the loonies credibility and gravitas; (e) because they focus only on reducing taxes, without regard to what those taxes might be used for; (f) because they set as their sole agenda in 2009 to abort Obama instead of trying to get anything whatsoever done; (g) because their entire agenda is based on lies and fear-mongering among the less educated...and (h) through (z) they still think Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckaby, and Donald Trump matter.

[Mr.B]

That's why I find politics despicable.

[O Really]

That's why I find politics despicable.

That's like having a bad experience at, say, Bi-Lo and saying you find grocery shopping despicable. The current crop of what calls itself Republicans are different from Republicans in the past, but "politics" is how those who run the government are selected in the US. Do you have another, less despicable, alternative?

[Mr.B]

Yes...staying the heck away from it.....

[neoplacebo]

That's why I find politics despicable.

That's like having a bad experience at, say, Bi-Lo and saying you find grocery shopping despicable. The current crop of what calls itself Republicans are different from Republicans in the past, but "politics" is how those who run the government are selected in the US. Do you have another, less despicable, alternative?

Maybe if all citizens bought lottery tickets for Congress and our representatives were chosen that way would be better. Sure, there would still be a wingnut here and there, but I don't think it could be much worse than what we have now. Or maybe members of Congress could be picked at random like jury duty or something. At least in either of the above, the ones with the most money would not automatically be "selected."

[O Really]

Yes...staying the heck away from it.....

That's a reasonable plan - individually. Collectively, however, probably not so much. What was the old quote about evil wins when good does nothing? Truth be, I'm not that concerned about the loons. I know they're a dying minority. What figuratively keeps my awake at night are the regular, decent, mid-American people - the "Presbyterians", soccer moms, Chamber of Commerce people, PTA members...who might consider themselves Republican but say nothing while the extremist part of their party runs amuck. Reminds me of the other old quote about "when they came for the (somebody), I did nothing because I wasn't a (whatever)". Ends with "and then they came for me..."

For example, there are still lots of KKK members, lots of Aryan Brotherhood and other white supremacist terrorist groups, but they have no power because everybody else publicly and loudly disavows them. The "Michelle Bachmans" should be booed from every Republican stage they appear on and the "disdain" for extremists should be loud and clear. That it's not is what's scary.

[O Really]

That's why I find politics despicable.

That's like having a bad experience at, say, Bi-Lo and saying you find grocery shopping despicable. The current crop of what calls itself Republicans are different from Republicans in the past, but "politics" is how those who run the government are selected in the US. Do you have another, less despicable, alternative?

Maybe if all citizens bought lottery tickets for Congress and our representatives were chosen that way would be better. Sure, there would still be a wingnut here and there, but I don't think it could be much worse than what we have now. Or maybe members of Congress could be picked at random like jury duty or something. At least in either of the above, the ones with the most money would not automatically be "selected."

I agree it wouldn't be worse, but I'd rather see higher requirements for those who run. Right now the only real criteria is minimum age and how much money you can raise. I think somebody who want to apply for a job making laws ought to have some education/experience in government or law.

[neoplacebo]

That's why I find politics despicable.

That's like having a bad experience at, say, Bi-Lo and saying you find grocery shopping despicable. The current crop of what calls itself Republicans are different from Republicans in the past, but "politics" is how those who run the government are selected in the US. Do you have another, less despicable, alternative?

Maybe if all citizens bought lottery tickets for Congress and our representatives were chosen that way would be better. Sure, there would still be a wingnut here and there, but I don't think it could be much worse than what we have now. Or maybe members of Congress could be picked at random like jury duty or something. At least in either of the above, the ones with the most money would not automatically be "selected."

I agree it wouldn't be worse, but I'd rather see higher requirements for those who run. Right now the only real criteria is minimum age and how much money you can raise. I think somebody who want to apply for a job making laws ought to have some education/experience in government or law.

Speaking of minimum age, I've seen a few stories lately about kids who have come up with ideas and inventions that exhibit remarkable innovation. Maybe we should put a bunch of smart kids in Congress and have a maximum age instead. Kids generally don't like bullshit.