The lovely Kelly Clarkson is lovelorn:
Kelly Clarkson, who rails against a former flame in her new song “Never Again,” says she’s never been in love.
“I love my friends and family,” the Grammy-winning singer and original “American Idol” tells Elle magazine in its July issue. “But I have never said the words ‘I love you’ to anyone in a romantic relationship. Ever.”
Clarkson, 25, doesn’t take romance lightly.
“I am very old-school, conservative in my thinking when it comes to relationships,” she says. “Love is something you work at. It doesn’t come easily. There are going to be bad days. You are going to have to work at loving someone when they are being an idiot.”
She sounds like a decent Republican girl to me. Why hasn’t a Brownback supporter scooped her up by now? Why is she having trouble finding a decent man?
My only idea, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, is that decent patriotic American men are intimidated and repulsed by the flagrant sexuality that accompanies much of Miss Clarkson’s music. She is often seen in a state of near-undress, prancing about and singing love ballads. The music itself is excellent, but the performance and portrayal leave much to be desired.
Kelly Clarkson is a beautiful woman. We all know this. Yet, were I her husband, I would not feel comfortable leaving her alone for two seconds. I would know full well that her overt sexuality would arouse sinful passions in every man within a three mile radius. She doesn’t strap her chest down. She doesn’t cover her hair. She doesn’t cover much of anything, in fact. What man wouldn’t try to commit adultery with her, when faced with such temptations?
I’m sad to say that many Republican women I’ve met don’t think of these things. They often express surprise when I share the true state of affairs with them, and many reveal themselves as RINOs by their indignant responses and refusal to cast aside the path of harlotry. The other women, however, the decent ones, modify their behavior to comport with the realities of life in a decent Christian nation. After all, their grandmothers went out in public without dressing like prostitutes, so why should they?
Kelly Clarkson sounds like a very decent, conservative girl. In all likelihood, she’s a Brownbacker. Once she’s learned to dress with the same modesty she expresses in her views, I’m sure she’ll be fighting decent men off with a stick.
I have hope for you yet, Kelly! My wife and I are rooting for you!
Blogs 4 Brownback 
It would really suck if girls strapped their chests down. Probably not too comfortable either.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 5:08 am |
“It would really suck if girls strapped their chests down. Probably not too comfortable either.”
That’s a small price to pay for a moral society, Linus.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 5:23 am |
And when I say that it would be uncomfortable, I mean for them, not me. It would suck for me, for obvious reasons. And probably for them, due to the pain involved in compressing large volumes of flesh.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 5:40 am |
Another thing: If girls covered their hair, that would suck as well. In fact, a lot of things suggested here would suck.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 6:09 am |
Isn’t this Kelly Clarkson from the television show “American Idol”. The Bible forbids the worship of idols. Sorry Sisyphus, this girl’s sluttish behavior is the outward manifestation of ner inner evil.
Comment by dadaclu — June 13, 2007 @ 8:19 am |
Surely her father or husband should be speaking for her rather than allowing her to speak to the press herself. It’s a lack of discipline from the parents that causes this sort of behaviour.
Comment by hoverfrog — June 13, 2007 @ 8:26 am |
Sisyphus, another insightful post. I think that we can trace many of the social problems we see rampant today to the sartorial revolution that preceded the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This sartorial revolution, of course, is that which occurred in the early 20th century during the so-called progressive era. It was in this revolution, a revolution I might note that coincided with the liberal suffrage movement, the rise of Communist Russia, and the farcical Scopes Monkey trial, that women began eschewing bonnets and long-dresses for the sartorial harlotry of the flapper era and beyond. Hemlines rose, hair flowed free, and the lewdness and laciviousness witnessed in Ms. Clarkson’s mode of dress began to bubble up into the mainstream.
Liberals, of course, will try to trace the rejection of bonnets and dresses to the onset of World War I when women were needed to work in factories while men fought overseas. This, of course, is just another liberal lie. Bonnets and long-dresses work quite nicely in the factory setting, and don’t interfere with women’s nimble fingers as they stamp machine parts and load shell casings.
Instead, women began giving up bonnets and dresses because atheists, liberals, evolutionists, helioleftists and assorted other left-wing loonies (like John Dewey) undertook a concerted attack against proper family values. Women became convinced that they had some “right” to vote, that they should have the “right” to own property, and that they had a “right” to move “freely” without the “impediments” of long-dresses.
Sen. Brownback and his fellow Believers, realize, of course, that this is just wrong. He understands the proper role of women in our society, and, when elected President, I’m certain he will work hard to re-institute Biblical governance. Governance under which women will once again devote their considerable energy to raising babies and caring for their families, schools will no longer indoctrinate students in the precepts of atheism and evolutionism, and men will regain their rightful role as the heads of our society. Perhaps, then, women will once again be required to wear bonnets and long dresses and Ms. Clarkson will finally find herself a man.
Comment by Everett Volk — June 13, 2007 @ 8:28 am |
‘This girl’s sluttish behavior is the outward manifestation of ner inner evil.’
Who are you to cast the first stone? Judge as you will be judged.
Comment by Wikinterpreter — June 13, 2007 @ 8:40 am |
I agree with Everett Volk. Like so many of our problems, the roots of this one can be traced to flapper girls and John Dewey. I am constantly surprised to see how many people are ignorant of their pernicious influence.
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 9:36 am |
“Why hasn’t a Brownback supporter scooped her up by now? Why is she having trouble finding a decent man?”
I think she’s doesn’t like the whole “breast strapping” and forced-housewifery thingy.
And women like compliments, calling a woman Satan’s primary tool of temptation doesn’t get you any…
So, you see, no Brownback supporters for her, she’ll go for a decent liberal who respects her and they’ll have lots of premarital sex!
Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 9:38 am |
I have just spent a few minutes researching internet images of Kelly Clarkson, and I am afraid that I can draw only one conclusion: she is a harlot, and a strumpet, and a hussy. It is too late for her. Who knows what diseases she has? No one will want to marry her. I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t even get close enough to strap her chest.
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 9:40 am |
‘this girl’s sluttish behavior is the outward manifestation of ner inner evil.’
‘she is a harlot, and a strumpet, and a hussy. It is too late for her.’
Oh dear. I’ll reply with some other quotes – let’s see if you recognise them –
‘He who has no sin shall cast the first stone’
‘Judge, as you will be judged’
Comment by Wikinterpreter — June 13, 2007 @ 10:16 am |
That… sounded really sexually sadistic.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 10:26 am |
Whoops, posted above again, as I thought that the site had lost it.
Still, the point stands – I know that it’s a bit Gladstonian to try to ‘rehabilitate’ people, but don’t dismiss someone saying ‘it’s too late for them’ – it’s not.
Furthermore, this isn’t the issue here; this is:
‘I would know full well that her overt sexuality would arouse sinful passions in every man within a three mile radius. She doesn’t strap her chest down. She doesn’t cover her hair. She doesn’t cover much of anything, in fact. What man wouldn’t try to commit adultery with her, when faced with such temptations?’
It seems that you’re assuming the worst of people here, Sisyphus – people aren’t that weak.
Furthermore, the sexism expressed here is disgusting to me – by your argument, and others that you have posted here, women are merely sex-objects, and need to be ‘covered up’. Strangely reminiscient of other another country’s regime …
‘Yet, were I her husband, I would not feel comfortable leaving her alone for two seconds.’
Again, your assumptions would seem to show that you believe women to be weak, and, without your guidance, liable to sleep with someone else at the slightest opportunity. Would you say that the same was true for men, since for every woman who slept with someone outside their marriage there is a man (or possibly a woman) as well?
Since you appear to bring just about everything back to religion, I would like to offer you a quote –
‘There is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.’ Galatians 3:28
Men and women are equal.
Comment by Wikinterpreter — June 13, 2007 @ 10:28 am |
Look at all those misogynic quotes by God and his followers.
I’m starting to suspect God is gay…
Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 10:31 am |
Sorry Linus M. – I can’t help but be worried that the Bible sounds like S&M to you ;)!
Comment by Wikinterpreter — June 13, 2007 @ 10:39 am |
“That… sounded really sexually sadistic.”
I can’t help what comes into your demented brain. Go pray. Pray very hard.
“I’m starting to suspect God is gay…”
This wouldn’t have anything to do with you being a 180 lb. lesbian, would it?
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 10:52 am |
Isn’t this Kelly Clarkson from the television show “American Idol”. The Bible forbids the worship of idols. Sorry Sisyphus, this girl’s sluttish behavior is the outward manifestation of ner inner evil.”
She can still redeem herself, if she alters her behavior to the path of chasteness and virtue.
“Surely her father or husband should be speaking for her rather than allowing her to speak to the press herself. It’s a lack of discipline from the parents that causes this sort of behaviour.”
Baby steps. Once she’s learned to cover herself, she can learn to let her betters speak for her.
By the way, I like Everett Volk’s analysis of all this.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 10:54 am |
Don’t worry guys – I’ll take care of the Kelly Clarkson “problem”.
Got a nice ’73 Cabernet; a little Chris Botti on the stereo – problem SOLVED.
Comment by Ahab — June 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am |
“She doesn’t strap her chest down. She doesn’t cover her hair. She doesn’t cover much of anything, in fact.”
Come buy veils at Abdullah Fabrics, best shop in Tehran!
We at Abdullah Fabrics have veils in all shapes and sizes!
Special price for you my American friend: only 5000 rial for you!
Check our whips also, very good for flogging!
And remember, you’ll get a free AK47 clip for every 20.000 rial you spend in our shop!
Comment by Achmed Abdullah — June 13, 2007 @ 11:24 am |
I meant 11, the thing by DPS about chest-strapping.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 11:31 am |
“Strap her chest”, coming from a guy, sounds a bit sadistic to you, doesn’t it?
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 11:40 am |
Frankly I think the whole game with women dressing in men’s clothing and then flaunting their bodies is why so many men are gay now. Once a body associations the object of his desire to a pair of tight jens it is only a matter of time before he is prancing around in an a lacy frilly dress and hosting tea parties. I am sorry if this is politically incorrect but that is the way I see it.
Comment by BJ Tabor — June 13, 2007 @ 12:13 pm |
Linus @ 21 ‘“Strap her chest”, coming from a guy, sounds a bit sadistic to you, doesn’t it?’
Maybe you misunderstood me. I refuse to strap her chest. If you would like to strap her chest, be my guest. After all, someone should strap her chest. If you expect to find the task of strapping her task pleasureable, however, you should find someone else to do it.
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 12:16 pm |
“task of strapping her chest,” that is.
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm |
According to the Brownback campaign this is a fringe blog that doesn’t represent Brownback’s values. How do you respond to that?
Comment by Syphilis — June 13, 2007 @ 2:05 pm |
As much as I would like to feel sorry for Miss Clarkson I just cannot. She willingly volunteered to appear on that Pro-Homosexual television show that made her famous, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Idol. I refuse to call it by it’s “legal name” because it certainly does not recognize the morals of my country.
It is a well known fact that the contestants, hosts, and judges on that show are very “gay-friendly” if not flaming homosexuals themselves. Kelly is often seen with that homosexual mulatto boy, Justin, and has been seen on more than one occasion with that Clay Aiken character. If she is single it is because she is being punished by God for cavorting with sodomites, harlots, and liberals. The Lord hasn’t introduced her to the right boy becuase ther world is littered with leftieloons and He doesn’t need any more ruining His creation.
I pray that Miss Clarkson will turn her back on that crowd of infidels and then I will happily introduce her to a nice young man from my very own congreation. Until then, well, Misery loves company and she has submerged herself in it.
I cannot imagine that Sam Brownback would condone that sort of behavior either.
God bless you and Sam Brownback in 2008!
Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — June 13, 2007 @ 3:14 pm |
“Got a nice ‘73 Cabernet; a little Chris Botti on the stereo – problem SOLVED.”
Sin is the problem, not the solution.
“Strap her chest”, coming from a guy, sounds a bit sadistic to you, doesn’t it?”
No.
“Frankly I think the whole game with women dressing in men’s clothing and then flaunting their bodies is why so many men are gay now.”
That’s an excellent point, BJ. I think that, combined with soy in our childrens’ diets and Helioleftism and Darwinism in our schools, cause our children to question everything and ultimately embrace sodomy.
“According to the Brownback campaign this is a fringe blog that doesn’t represent Brownback’s values. How do you respond to that?”
Do you have a link for that, treefrog non-Brownback campaign spokesman?
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 3:17 pm |
“I cannot imagine that Sam Brownback would condone that sort of behavior either.
God bless you and Sam Brownback in 2008!”
I agree. Thank you, and God bless you also! Be sure to vote Brownback!
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 3:19 pm |
Mrs. Gaines, do you strap your breasts to your body?
Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm |
““According to the Brownback campaign this is a fringe blog that doesn’t represent Brownback’s values. How do you respond to that?”
Do you have a link for that, treefrog non-Brownback campaign spokesman?”
Yes, please give us the link, maybe that will end all this madness!
Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 4:31 pm |
“Mrs. Gaines, do you strap your breasts to your body?”
A decent man doesn’t ask a decent woman such questions, Skeptic. He merely accepts that the ladylike answer to such an inappopriate prying is “Yes,” and keeps his unspeakably filthy thoughts to himself.
“Yes, please give us the link, maybe that will end all this madness!”
Such a link is unlikely to exist; but even if it did, it would prove little more than that political contingencies required a superficial denunciation of this blog, followed by a post-election embrace of its ideas and its objectives.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 5:58 pm |
“And women like compliments, calling a woman Satan’s primary tool of temptation doesn’t get you any…”
This should be nominated as well.
Comment by fairlane — June 13, 2007 @ 6:03 pm |
“This should be nominated as well.”
Nominated for the sweetest-tasting poison. We’re worried about saving our souls, not wooing the hearts of simpering harlots who fail to strap their chests or dress in modest attire EVEN AFTER they’ve been shown that it’s the Christian thing to do.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 6:41 pm |
You keep putting breasts into my thoughts, Sisyphus.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 7:01 pm |
Come, one and all, to Blogs 4 Moonbats!
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 7:02 pm |
“You keep putting breasts into my thoughts, Sisyphus.”
I apologize, Linus. This was not my intent.
“Come, one and all, to Blogs 4 Moonbats!”
I’ve added you to my blogroll.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 7:07 pm |
“She doesn’t strap her chest down. She doesn’t cover her hair. She doesn’t cover much of anything, in fact.”
I think I’ve finally figured you our Sisyphus…you are a wanna be Amish.
From wikipedia:
“In all things, the aesthetic value [of Amish womens clothes] is “plainness”: clothing should not call attention to the wearer by cut, color or any other feature. Prints such as florals, stripes, polka-dots, etc. are not allowed in Amish dress,”
Although they don’t require boob strapping, but I think you could probably add that in as your personal twist.
Comment by Dave — June 13, 2007 @ 7:14 pm |
“I think I’ve finally figured you our Sisyphus…you are a wanna be Amish.”
The Amish refuse to fight for their country. They’re worse than Wiccans, some of whom have at least died for America even if their souls weren’t saved.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 7:22 pm |
I have heard that Kelly supports Huckabee. Let’s see if we can change her mind.
Comment by Jeff Davis — June 13, 2007 @ 7:40 pm |
I have always strapped my chest down, ever since my marriage. It seemed like the proper thing to do. My husband commanded it of me, so I did it. Why can’t other women do the same? What makes them think they’re better than me?
Comment by Marcia P. — June 13, 2007 @ 7:51 pm |
@37
Thanks, dude.
Comment by Linus — June 13, 2007 @ 8:29 pm |
“Although they don’t require boob strapping, but I think you could probably add that in as your personal twist.”
Dave, how is that modesty if boobs are allowed to flop freely into the face of any guy that wanders by? Let’s keep with the program here. The Amish are a primitive and savage people.
Comment by BJ Tabor — June 13, 2007 @ 9:08 pm |
I have changed my mind. If necessary, I will strap Kelly Clarkson’s chest, but I will not enjoy it.
Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 10:33 pm |
I have to say, I am optimistic about American women. I have found that when I am at work or out and this woman comes up in conversation, she generally meets with disapproval from the women around. Usually, I might throw out a test phrase, like, “Isn’t she hot?” This is to see how others will react. More often than not, the women will say something like “She’s so pretty, what a bitch” or “She’s so thin, I bet she pukes”, or, my favorite, “Hot? I hear she’s a whore!.
Comment by America4Americans — June 14, 2007 @ 3:18 am |
“I have heard that Kelly supports Huckabee. Let’s see if we can change her mind.”
At least Huckabee is a conservative. That’s a big step in the right direction.
“I have changed my mind. If necessary, I will strap Kelly Clarkson’s chest, but I will not enjoy it.”
Of course not! To enjoy such a thing would be sinful and prurient. Your morality is beyond question, DPS.
“I have to say, I am optimistic about American women.”
Good point. It would be a simple matter to get almost every woman in America to agree that every other woman in America should strap her chest down and cover her hair. So, we already have a functional near-100% majority of American women.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 5:28 am |
“It would be a simple matter to get almost every woman in America to agree that every other woman in America should strap her chest down and cover her hair.”
I bet we could even get them to strap each other. Think of it. Millions and millions of American women strapping each other’s bosoms. That would be a glorious day I would not soon forget.
Comment by DPS — June 14, 2007 @ 8:31 am |
“I bet we could even get them to strap each other. Think of it. Millions and millions of American women strapping each other’s bosoms. That would be a glorious day I would not soon forget.”
Yes, the commercial success of the video would be enough to fund all of America’s war efforts!
Comment by Skeptic — June 14, 2007 @ 8:41 am |
If they needed help then there would be no shortage of willing men to help them out. The whole nation would be brought together in a united front and work towards a common goal. It would be an historic moment. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.
In fact I’d be happy to film the great event for the sake of posterity.
Comment by hoverfrog — June 14, 2007 @ 8:44 am |
Finally we agree on something, Skeptic and hoverfrog. It would be a great day for America, and everyone will want to remember it. Frankly, given your views on other things, I’m surprised that you’re sympathetic to this idea, but I welcome your change of heart!
Now, if we could just get you to see the light about the false doctrine of heliocentrism…. One step at a time, I guess!
Comment by DPS — June 14, 2007 @ 9:55 am |
“I bet we could even get them to strap each other. Think of it. Millions and millions of American women strapping each other’s bosoms. That would be a glorious day I would not soon forget.”
That would be the foundation of a moral society.
“Now, if we could just get you to see the light about the false doctrine of heliocentrism…. One step at a time, I guess!”
Baby steps, DPS. Baby steps.
Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 10:17 am |
It doesn’t occur to you that they are using those renowned lib’rul tactics of http://www.conservapedia.com/Deceit deceit against you? No. Probably not.
Comment by interpreted — June 14, 2007 @ 11:51 am |
“I bet we could even get them to strap each other. Think of it. Millions and millions of American women strapping each other’s bosoms. That would be a glorious day I would not soon forget.”
I’m pretty sure they made a movie about that. It was an…educational film.
Comment by Ahab — June 14, 2007 @ 2:16 pm |
It doesn’t occur to you that they are using those renowned lib’rul tactics of http://www.conservapedia.com/Deceit deceit against you? No. Probably not.
Comment by interpreted — June 14, 2007 @ 11:51 a.m.
Interpreted, I went to the link you provided and expecting I had found a good Christian website, I joyfully posted a stirring defense of our good Scooter under the heading of deceit. Obviously I pointed out that he should be judged by a different set of rules given that he is being punished for his service in a godly endeavor.
Bush/Cheney rule by the dictates of God and scooter is their humble servant. Therefore, to punish Scooter is to thwart the will of God.
I was banned for my troubles and my post was removed. I found this very deceitful. Are you sure that site is operated by good conservative Christians? They sure act like deceitful treefrog sodomites. Please research your links more carefully in the future.
Yours in Brownback,
Comment by ec1009 — June 14, 2007 @ 5:08 pm |
Ha ha ha! Ha ha!…. Ha… *sigh*
Oh man! This is awesome. Even as a gay man, nothing I say will ever be as faggy as you admiting intimidation by a woman’s sexuality. I LOVE your posts!
Comment by Jc — June 15, 2007 @ 8:48 pm |