Kimberly Guilfoyle

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
According to my wife - who had to have the test - that's not far off. They really go in deep.
I had one last week. Yeah, deep probe, but I've had a lot worse from the ENT probing around up there. This swabbing just made my eyes tear a little bit.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
BTW - just out of curiosity, I did a few searches in Kim a day or two ago. Consensus does seem to point to that she looks different, but I can't find evidence that she had SURGERY or Botox - just that her pictures may have been "enhanced".

When she was on FOX or sat on The Five in the side shot with her legs showing - I always thought she was hot - but that she wore an enormous amount of makeup. It really wouldn't surprise me if the difference in photos is just better makeup techniques.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
When she was on FOX or sat on The Five in the side shot with her legs showing - I always thought she was hot - but that she wore an enormous amount of makeup. It really wouldn't surprise me if the difference in photos is just better makeup techniques.
That's why that chair is called the "leg chair".
 

Tech

Well-Known Member
BTW - just out of curiosity, I did a few searches in Kim a day or two ago. Consensus does seem to point to that she looks different, but I can't find evidence that she had SURGERY or Botox - just that her pictures may have been "enhanced".

When she was on FOX or sat on The Five in the side shot with her legs showing - I always thought she was hot - but that she wore an enormous amount of makeup. It really wouldn't surprise me if the difference in photos is just better makeup techniques.
After watching some reporting from home, learn the proper makeup and get a lighting tech in there.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Anyone that uses the word “pretty” out of context is ignorant, didn’t have enough schooling, or something else is wrong.

Louse, they have dictionaries online now! You can look up the different ways words are used before you post anything. Sometimes words can be confusing because they have different meanings. I think it would greatly improve your understanding of the English language, something you so sorely need.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretty

pretty
adverb
pret·ty | \ ˈpri-tē , ˈpər- also ˈpru̇-; before "near(ly)" often ˈpərt or ˈprit or ˈpru̇t \
Definition of pretty (Entry 2 of 4)
1a: in some degree : MODERATELYpretty cold weather
b: QUITE, MAINLYthe wound was … pretty bad— Walt Whitman
 

Louise

Well-Known Member
Louse, they have dictionaries online now! You can look up the different ways words are used before you post anything. Sometimes words can be confusing because they have different meanings. I think it would greatly improve your understanding of the English language, something you so sorely need.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretty

pretty
adverb
pret·ty | \ ˈpri-tē , ˈpər- also ˈpru̇-; before "near(ly)" often ˈpərt or ˈprit or ˈpru̇t \
Definition of pretty (Entry 2 of 4)
1a: in some degree : MODERATELYpretty cold weather
b: QUITE, MAINLYthe wound was … pretty bad— Walt Whitman

:howdy:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Sure. The disease came to the attention of the medical community as clusters of a type of cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma, which usually only occurs in individuals with compromised immune systems. But almost all of the patients were young gay men. Eventually, the disease was given a name: AIDS. The thing is, there were many medical professionals that had treated these patients before anyone was aware there was a new disease, and none of them had contracted it. One of the first things epidemiologists do when there is a breakout is contact tracing. They try to map the spread of the disease back to elusive "patient zero". They were well aware of the fact that it wasn't likely airborne, and highly suspected sexual activity had something to do with it. The first known cases were sometime around 80-81? By 83, I think, they had confirmed that transmitted by bodily fluids. The fact that SOME people still feared AIDS patients was mostly due to ignorance and the stigma surrounding it, because of its association with the gay community. In 86 or 87, Princess Diana made headlines by shaking hands with an AIDS patient. This was several years after we knew the truth. More people didn't know the truth about AIDS because it wasn't talked about. It wasn't until 1985 that St. Reagan even mentioned the disease, and that was only in response to a reporter's question.

The bolded portion gets to my point... We haven't learned a damn thing. One of the things that is clear to me (and many others) is how the media is using these things to dredge up fear for political and/or social reasons. I'm fed up with all of the 'chicken littles' telling me we're all going to die every time a new virus emerges. It was extremely rare to contract HIV, yet we were told to not touch infected people. Today, in our so-much-more-evolved society :rolleyes: , we have learned so much about more about diseases that we are convinced to lock every human in their homes, wear masks, social distance, etc... in order to combat diseases. And, what's better is, we demand people be punished for not complying with this insanity. I'm fed up with being told what to be afraid of, and how to respond to it by people that can't even decide which way is west. Inform me about the disease, then let me decide how to respond. Don't demand the government step in and do it for me, believing they're so much smarter than I am. Our governments have a role in ensuring our safety, but not at the expense of quashing our liberties.
 
Last edited:

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
The bolded portion gets to my point... We haven't learned a damn thing. One of the things that is clear to me (and many others) is how the media is using these things to dredge up fear for political and/or social reasons.

You have a point. Had people listened to experts in the medical profession rather than let misinformation and fear guide their decisions, many victims would have been treated with more respect.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Our governments have a role in ensuring our safety, but not at the expense of quashing our liberties.

See, but you are apparently in the minority because there are any number of people who are peachy keen with government quashing our liberties under the facade of "keeping us safe". This COVID thing has been an eye-opening experience. We talktalk about how we'd fight for our freedom, then the second government shuts us down we whimper and do as we're told. And those who dare to buck the system and go about their business are attacked and screamed at, if not arrested and jailed.

The media owns us.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
And those who dare to buck the system and go about their business are attacked and screamed at, if not arrested and jailed.

Yep. Newsome saw to it that singing "Amazing Grace" and "Come to Jesus" at church is a felony.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
But neither did I. You're the only person talking about her.

Okay Mr. Biden, here's a reminder.

Perhaps you're unaware of the popular vote tally for the last election

Who else would you be talking about? You libs love to do this; make a statement has an obvious conclusion in it, then claim you never said it. I would ask you to stop being a fool, but I get the feeling it's DNA-related.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
See, but you are apparently in the minority because there are any number of people who are peachy keen with government quashing our liberties under the facade of "keeping us safe".

This has become in-our-face obvious. Everything this country has fought for, wasted.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Okay Mr. Biden, here's a reminder.



Who else would you be talking about? You libs love to do this; make a statement has an obvious conclusion in it, then claim you never said it. I would ask you to stop being a fool, but I get the feeling it's DNA-related.


My god, you are tedious.

Louse's point was that there would be plenty to fear if people like me became the majority. I countered with fact that in presidential elections "people like me" have been in the majority since 1992, with the exception of the 2004 election. See, the words "Perhaps you're unaware of the popular vote tally for the last election" were a part of a sentence, the rest of which read "or every election since 1992, with 2004 being the sole exception". Did you read the entire sentence? Did you you read it in context? I am talking about popular votes for democrats since 1992 in presidential elections. Nothing else. I'm not claiming Hillary won, she didn't. I'm not claiming Gore won, he didn't. I am not talking about electoral college wins. I was responding to Louse's statement. And, in context, it's not just pretty, but painfully clear what I meant.

YOU read into it what YOU wanted to - you biased, unobjective fool.
 

Louise

Well-Known Member
Louse, they have dictionaries online now! You can look up the different ways words are used before you post anything. Sometimes words can be confusing because they have different meanings. I think it would greatly improve your understanding of the English language, something you so sorely need.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretty

pretty
adverb
pret·ty | \ ˈpri-tē , ˈpər- also ˈpru̇-; before "near(ly)" often ˈpərt or ˈprit or ˈpru̇t \
Definition of pretty (Entry 2 of 4)
1a: in some degree : MODERATELYpretty cold weather
b: QUITE, MAINLYthe wound was … pretty bad— Walt Whitman

You spelled my name incorrectly, but thanks for your advice to use a dictionary. .:roflmao:

This is interesting.... https://www.insider.com/words-used-wrong-2018-1
 
Top