According to the latest on the material whore's pending divorce to Guy Ritchie, their marriage began to fall apart after a horse riding accident Madonna suffered back in 2005.According to the Sun:
“If you can pinpoint an exact event or incident which spelled the death knell for them as a couple, Madonna’s horse-riding accident was it. Every other row the couple had following that boiled down to what happened that summer.”
The family friend said: “Madonna was in a huge amount of pain and expected Guy to drop everything to be at her bedside. In her mind that is what every husband should do to support his wife when she has been through a traumatic, possibly life-threatening, experience. But Guy approached the whole thing in what she now calls, ‘A very British way’."
...Pals say Madge .... now blames her man’s “no-nonsense” approach to their marriage on his British public school upbringing.
She says he was “typical of emotionally-stunted British men” and refuses to ever date another Brit.
Hah, I was right! As I said in the comments on the last post, Madonna is divorcing her husband and kicking their children's father out of their lives, because in her mind, he failed to emote enough like one of her gay dancer pals!
5 comments:
I thought that Brit men were supposed to be good catches? Suave, well-dressed, well-mannered, a nice accent. Just have to look past the bad teeth.
I guess it just goes to show that there's no pleasing the average American woman who expects her men to act like a gelding.
This reminds me of why Palin infuriates so many lefty women. Palin represents a 'harder' woman, a frontier woman, someone who can be tough when times are hard. This includes not being emotionally fragile.
The truth is out. It turns out that the Ritchies did not have Sex for 18 months before the Divorce. She was "too Tired" from working out 4 hours a day to try to stave off the effects of her Skanky lifestyle, and aging. Women age faster than Men.
Guy was and is virile and got fed up with No Nookie and her insane, lifestlye and weirdo Friends. Her own Brother who is Gay. Has flatley stated she is incapable of loving anybody but herself.
I find this ironic since Camille Pagalia the Feminist Icon has stated that Female Feminist Sexual Empowerment was defined by Madonna in the 1990s. It turns out that the whole Sexuality edge to her image is a scam.
She is asexual due to her extreme fitness regime. Too bad that the reality is different than the Dogma of Feminism. Women who are self absorbed use Men like Shoes, discard them when they are bored and move onto the Next Sexual conquest.
Khankrumthebulgar
This reminds me of why Palin infuriates so many lefty women. Palin represents a 'harder' woman, a frontier woman, someone who can be tough when times are hard. This includes not being emotionally fragile
Palin is a liberal and an embarassment. Tolerating her and her fans gives a headache to a lot of traditional conservatives Christians.
Here is the whole unadulterated truth:
The media is so far-left that it paints or sincerely believes liberal conservatives as far-right.
A lot of bloggers didn't care about and still don't care about her. Only leftist bloggers are obsessed with her and continually misinterpret her positions.
It's sad how you have bought into the misinterpretations about her ElusiveWapiti. You're better than that.
From a conservative blogger:
With Palin we get the worst of both worlds. We get the tinny appearance of a hardline right-winger, with the gun rhetoric, the lust for killing animals, and all the rest of it; and we get the concrete actuality of a feminist liberal who has allied herself with the homosexualist lobby. On the level of symbols, Palin is a rightist; the right loves her for it, and the left hates her--and hates all conservatives--for it. On the level of reality, she's a social liberal. All that right-wing excitement, all that left-wing fear and loathing, all that passion tearing our political society apart, and it's all about nothing, it's all about an illusion.
Why do I say that Palin gives us the worst of both worlds? Because with her we get the redoubled liberal demonization of conservatives as dangerous extremists, and we get the actual transformation of conservatism into social liberalism.
A discussion on Palin from amnation.com/vfr:
LA replies:
Yes. The liberal mainstream media sees the statement "Islam does not belong in Germany" as horrible and wicked, while serious opponents of Islam in the West see it as inspiring and hopeful. But both groups are operating under an illusion, for the simple reason that Friedrich didn't say it.
How many of our controversies today are just like that? Take Sarah Palin. Many conservatives absolutely love her, because they see her as a "real conservative," while people on the left absolutely loathe her, for exactly the same reason. But both sides are wrong, because in so many ways Palin is not a real conservative. For example, the left thinks that she's a Torquemada on abortion, when, in reality, she has never proposed any restrictions on abortion and has always expressed her opposition to abortion in terms of her personal beliefs while indicating tolerance for people with different beliefs.
Similarly, many liberals, amazingly, have called Palin a white racist, while some race-conscious conservatives have considered her at least a representative of whiteness. In reality, Palin has never emitted the slightest hint that she opposes the current liberal racial order or would do anything as president to undercut it.
Thus the whole passionate, hate-filled fight between left and right over Sarah Palin is based on illusions, driven by overcharged but misleading symbols rather than by anything real.
In the same way, every time some European political figure issues some patently equivocal statement criticizing multiculturalism, the left reacts in panic, and the right reacts with joy, both sides believing that the rule of multiculturalism has been rejected and is imminently threatened, when in reality, multiculturalism is deeply ensconsed in Europe.
What is the underlying reality that creates the susceptibility to these and similar illusions?
The left psychologicially needs a conservative enemy who threatens to defeat liberalism. The right psychologically needs a conservative champion who promises to defeat liberalism. In reality, no such conservative leader exists today; in reality, there is nothing on the scene today that poses an immediate threat to the reign of liberalism. But both sides, for their own internal reasons, need to believe that the reign of liberalism is threatened, and so they believe it.
Daniel S. replies:
I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. The way liberals spend their every waking minute attacking and demonizing "conservatives" like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'reilly as if they were some sort of real threat to the reign of liberalism. In turn, the bulk of self-described conservatives rally around these same figures as if they were the saviors of America who would, like a sort of modern Republican St. Patrick, drive the snakes of liberalism from our shores. The truth is that Palin, Beck, and the rest are not any sort of threat to the dominance of liberalism, because they are themselves infected with a mindset very much shaped by liberalism.
Post a Comment