spoonfedkitty01
spoonfedkit
spoonfedkitty01

Isn't she almost as conservative as he is?

I know, right?! It's why I can't help but laugh every time I hear that song. I just keep thinking that the guy singing this song is Dr. Seaver's son.

Apparently, Alan Thicke raised both his fictional and actual sons to be giant douches.

Every time I like a song that is, even at its best, a sh*tty song glorifying misogyny, I find myself quoting Chris Rock: "If the beat's alright, she'll dance all night".

Word.

Why not? Can you please name some of the negative consequences you think would result from a blanket federal declaration that gay marriage is legal? Besides "bigots being angry?"

Have a kitten hug! There's no such thing as ugly.

wtf? Your feet are fine. And I can tell you as a one time cosmetologist, the people that should not get a pedicure always do while people with lovely feet refuse to go.

She looks ten years younger when you aren't looking up her nose!

I actually posted and shared the other picture because I am honestly baffled as to: 1. How such a lovely woman took such an awful picture. She hardly looks like the same person between the two pictures. 2. Why they would choose one of the worst pictures available of her to use with the article. Pretty much any other

It makes me feel like such an old that that's a nostalgia movie. I remember buying the VHS when it came ou— oh, wait. That's why it makes me old.

Dear Jezebel,

Uh, Master Chef isn't an advertiser. I'm just fucking obsessed with Master Chef.

This is such an . . . odd thing to get so worked up about.

No, but we aren't exactly feeding the world doing things the way we are now. We are over farming and over fertilizing our lands, which has enormous environmental consequences. Like the way we get our energy, we go for cheap and easy with the mentality of dealing with the consequences later, rather than looking at

Where I am from in Western New York the farmers south of us have been successful in complimentary planting and crop rotation to a degree where they are not adding agents to the soil to kill or fertilize. It does not yield high crops that will feed a nation, but it does well enough to feed the surrounding areas. I am

We are just going to have to disagree. I think that the costs of allowing corporations this much leeway is far higher than the cost of a sticker. And, though I don't buy into the sort of wild eyed governmental conspiracy theory, I am well within the boundaries of intelligent skepticism to be uncomfortable with the

Okay. But what about the thousands of Americans who don't have smartphones or internet access. Not labeling GMO foods makes it much more difficult for people to choose to not support corporations like Monsanto. I think it's terrible that a few vocal people have whipped up a frenzy of fear around things that aren't

I agree with you. The anti-science bent in this country is unforgivable(I just wrote up a little thing myself about science television and mermaids.) But, be that as it may, I am still for labeling GMO food, if only because I can see what foods Monsanto is part of, and I can choose not to buy those foods. The same way

because cocaine used to be safe. heroin used to be safe. mercury used to be safe.