Cruzin2Fold

I am buying my first Vanity Fair. For her to be this vocal they must have some good stuff on her.

I do too. I have a vibe of when Joaquin Phoenix when he was pretending to be crazy. Something is just a little "off" in Charlie's offness.

She is on my personal deadpool.

Al and Laurie's next film: "An Inconvenient Wife".

Amazing how we assume she should have her freedom of speech bought for and paid for. She holds all the cards. I would refuse to sign a confidentiality agreement too. If you do not want your dirty laundry aired....stop soiling your pants. I agree that I have no problem with her writing a book, shouting it from the rooftops, whatever makes her feel good. I am sure she has the good sense to figure out what is best for her kids. She is not the one with a horrible sense of judgement here. She OWES him nothing, especially not a strip of duct tape across her mouth.

You and me both :(

Someone forgot to tell me it was National F*ck with Brooke Sheilds month. I need to put my prank caller voice on.

The words "Jesus Christ" did come to mind whilst looking at the Easter treat.

He's no Emile Hirsch.

Really? Because I thought there was a blind item that was pretty much pegged as Hugh hating his costar Drew. But it was a blind item...and I do not think it was definitively solved.

I just saw this on the pay channel the other day and it reminded me of this thread. Dan in Real Life, starring Steve Carrell. From the moment I guessed she would say Anna Karenina in the book store to the improtu excercise sequence I could not take anymore. As she<Juliet Binoche> bent over, I stood up and walked out.

No, not at all. She was at UCLA when I was, although I didn't know her and she left fairly quickly. I always kind of watched her career with interest because she's a "peer" age-wise, and she had such a charmed rise to fame. But I figured she was pretty screwed up when she married her SECOND rocker bad boy. My heart goes out to her on this one. It's not just getting caught, it's the backstory about the sunglasses and the Nicole-Ritchie-esque choice of parking spaces. Pretty humiliating. I missed the backstory on the sunglasses and parking spot. Care to elaborate? Look at Pitt-Lovers post about six above mine. Thank you Anna. I think I just misunderstood. I thought the reason was known why she was backing up over the sunglasses over and over.

No, not at all. She was at UCLA when I was, although I didn't know her and she left fairly quickly. I always kind of watched her career with interest because she's a "peer" age-wise, and she had such a charmed rise to fame. But I figured she was pretty screwed up when she married her SECOND rocker bad boy. My heart goes out to her on this one. It's not just getting caught, it's the backstory about the sunglasses and the Nicole-Ritchie-esque choice of parking spaces. Pretty humiliating. I missed the backstory on the sunglasses and parking spot. Care to elaborate?

yeah, and I hear gang banging anal causes you to age THREE YEARS at a time. whew! Then she looks good for someone 286 years old. lolol But that last group were midgets so shouldn't it be 284 and a half?

Do you mean around the eyes generally, or under them? My child often has dark circles under his eyes, and sometimes I do, too. Our allergist says they tend to run in families where allergies are present ... can't remember why or the medical term for it. But we're def not anemic. Also, that girl is incredibly pale, so any circles are going to stand out like crazy. Maybe it is just that. She just looks very unhealthy to me.

I understand what you are saying Soho. My real concern though, has this little girl been tested for anemia? I am no expert, but isn't she awfully dark around the eyes? My son had a short bout of anemia as an infant, and her eyes look worse than his did.

I agree with golden girl ~ I think Barkin was saying Scarjo will only get more beautiful with age. Yes, it seems that way. I only skimmed it when I read it on the DListed blog but now that I've read it properly, I think he's misinterpreted her comments. I agree, although I do admit on first read over I thought it was an insult. After reading it again, it is obviously a compliment. By the way Leaviory, who is the person in your avatar??

I could be wrong...but It seems like you may have some anger about this board having a strong liberal slant. You are entitled to your opinion(not saying you are wrong, I'll respond with a resounding....duhh! it's an entertainment board which is overwhelmingly liberal). My concern was you initially asked how it's not okay to slur minorites and homosexuals and open season on blondes, christians. That's not cool...where is it open season on blondes and christians? According to Rosie? Where are the blonde, christian slurs? I mean I do know that conservatives aren't pretty popular in this country now for various political reasons(we are in a globally unpopular war initiated by people who call themselves...men of God). Also keep in mind...Elisabeth is working in a liberal industry..it does take guts for her to stand up..so I give her props to an extent....her views are a little extreme(like Rosie's) but she should be allowed to share them...but she's got to be prepared from a public backlash(since the war and conservative movement is pretty unpopular at the present time). Now...ok, you're christian, white, conservative. Please share your views more. You also have to realize that our posts reflect diverse segments of our society, regarding the entertainment industry, it seems to me that conservative viewpoints aren't very popular at the present time in many public forums(I'll give you that). But please express your opinions and trust that a majority of us are fair individuals that can agree or disagree without getting ugly(bear with a few that haven't learned that). I've personally mixed it up with conservatives and liberals here and other boards...but eventually we had to leave it to agree to disagree....I'm not trying to change peoples minds...maybe open them? Snark on! As someone who has debated both public and in PM with Bobby, I can attest that he debates in a manner that is respectful of views that are different most of the time. I do however agree with annabeast in that some of the liberal crowd thinks it's OK to throw out the word "Christian" disdainfully as if it were an insult but would never do the same to other religions. It is also seemingly easy to refer to the conservatives as stupid, blind, etc and have that stand as a factual component to the arguments. I say this as an agnostic and as someone who used to be one of those who held disdain in a similar fashion for Christians but would defend others rights to express their non Christian beliefs. I have to admit I did this when I was a liberal and it was never called out by my fellow idealogical compadres. It should have been. As the years went by, I really came to realize that I could not uphold my values of everyone treated with respect regardless of race, religion, sex, etc. when I did not include Christians in that same vein. Its like being an ex smoker, now I notice when it is done by others probably moreso than most. As for this board, it does have a liberal slant by a wide margin it appears. A lot of the posters here are passionate liberals and express their views very openly. There are just a few who go so far as to almost state if you had the opposite view in certain instances than they do, you join a group of people they find to be idiots, religious nuts, Bushies, etc. I notice they never get called out for it, and often get a rah rah from the group. It makes those who hold those differing views probably very relunctant to express them in a place where they are the minority. I can not speak for anna, but I know what she means in her inference that people agree but do not want to do so publicly for fear of attack. I would not characterize it as attack though. I would say what you get is a few posters who will give you a public cold shoulder should you debate them on politics or hold views they do not like. At least that is what I have felt from a few. Its OK, it's their right. It's a little chit chat Alicia Silverstonish but hey.....live and let live. I still love this board though, and find that unlike a lot of other boards, the people do not attack the poster with the views but debate the views itself.

annabeast, you and I have a lot in common. Does that really matter? I mean those of us that have similar beliefs of Rosie's don't support her tactics...and those of us(myself included) who are both liberal and conservative minded, still think it's an ugly incident regardless of personal beliefs. I totally agree. I am not of the belief that it has to be so black and white (or blue and red, in this case), and this is a good example of why, because the actual point is getting skewed by political affiliations. I really wish we had a more diverse party system instead of the two, but that is off topic... The actual arguement that Rosie and Elizabeth have had over this war and this administration has been going on for the whole season. In my opinion, most if not all other times Elizabeth has proved only ignorance and/or blind faith, with regards to this issue. In a way its not her fault, and she is a realistic representative of the beliefs of portion of this country, but that doesn't make her any less of a naive fool in a lot of cases. Bottom line, if everyone was as trusting, naive, and gullible as she is, the people in charge would get away with MURDER. Has anyone here heard the term "Sheeple"? It means people who are just mindless, naive, "sheep", to be herded and controlled. I would say Elizabeth won if I had never taken any Philosophy classes and knew about different kinds of Arguements. She uses tactics that, to me, say she can't stand on her stance alone. She had to disarm Rosie on something that didn't really invalidate her arguement, but could hurt her overall credibility. In my opinion it was misconstrued as Rosie isn't stupid enough to believe the soldiers are actually acting on their own accord, its the people making the big calls that she is implying as terrorists. Elizabeth making Rosie sound wrong, will make herself sound right, even though she has shown no evidence of anything related to her opinions on the issue. Except for the fact that Elisabeth never said Rosie thought the US troops were terrorists. I think Elisabeth's point was that she could not clarify Rosie's thoughts and that Rosie was better served doing that herself. I still do not understand why Rosie did not do it herself but instead kept sayin "Do you think I think that". I agree with you that Rosie's INTENT was directed at the administration when she said those words, however by extension you have to also mean the troops that carried out the actions of the dead Iraqi's she was referring to. If I could, I would liken it to saying that the people who were killed in the WTC were killed by terrorists and having it only mean Bin Laden and his top tier people. Terrorists would also be the guys on the ground who carried the orders out. Does that make sense? I think that is why Rosie should clarify her comments because they could be misconstrued quite easily by some people.

http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/05/26/no-ja-hero/ WOW. Just WOW. What strikes me the most is two grown up women in the utmost childishness laugh about Janette drawing a fake mustache on Elisabeth as if it makes perfect sense to do so. It floors me there are women out there this immature. Rosie, this video is doing you NO favors. Elisabeth calling you to discuss and you refusing to speak just speaks ill of you. If I were Rosie, I would lay off drinking and blogging.

I agree with you totally!

The bold above is exactly my point about Rosie. She framed the argument as big fat lesbian Rosie against poor hetero christian Elisabeth. She could not debate the point at hand. She had to make the debate about how SHE would be perceived versus the actual point at hand. In addition, she tried to belittle Elisabeth by mocking her and her beliefs as infantile and quaint. If Rosie wants to debate an issue, she should start with the issue itself....not the lifestyles of the participants.

Huh? I'm trying to figure out if this is a dig or a compliment or a joke....? A compliment.

Just proving annabeast's point... I know. Played perfectly.