Monday, 16 March 2009

The mind boggles...



Time for more photo comparison!

The first two photos show Sarah Palin seven months pregnant with baby Trig. The third one was taken on May 22, 2008, 34 days after Trig's birth.

The second group of photos show Bristol Palin on February 8, 2009, 43 days after she gave birth to baby Tripp.

Remarks:
  1. Yeah, right!
  2. Bristol, 18, not pregnant, looks more pregnant than her mother, 44, seven months pregnant.
  3. Bristol, 18, struggles to get her post-partum figure back after having her first baby, while her mother, 44, looks as flat as a board 34 days after having her fifth child.
  4. Yeah, right!
Possible explanations:
  1. Bristol is very slack, doesn't exercise and will never get her figure back.
  2. Sarah has the most amazing abs in the history of the world.
  3. Bristol is pregnant again.
I hear you exclaim, "But Bristol couldn't be pregnant again so soon after giving birth to baby Tripp!!!" Well, she couldn't be pregnant so soon after baby Trig's birth, remember? It's not possible, is it?

Conspiracy theories:
  1. Tripp is not exactly who we were told he is.
  2. Bristol will disappear for months on end (again!) and reappear with a baby Trix or Trixie.
  3. The Palins will then proceed to perform even more prodigious gymnastics with dates.
  4. Remember the argument Todd had with Levi outside the Palins nice, warm home? Perhaps he shouted something like this: "F***ing hell, Levi! Just when things are falling into place, now that we convinced everybody that Bristol gave birth to baby Tripp, you go and get her f***ing pregnant??? Your timing stinks!"
  5. That's why the Palins made Levi backtrack on the break-up story and he's giving interviews that leave the door ajar for a comeback into the clan. They still need him after all...
Ok, maybe I'm hallucinating.

When pregnancies and the Palins occur in the same sentence, the mind boggles so much that we take leave of our senses...

Gryphen's explosive post, Immoral Minority.
.

8 comments:

Dianne said...

These people make my head spin. I just don't know what else to say - yet.

Anonymous said...

I think it's just post partum pudge from baby Tripp being born sometime between the middle and end of january.

Molly said...

How's this explanation:

Bristol had Tripp, but in late January, not Dec 27th, so she was maybe a week postpartum in that photo. Or if second baby, maybe two weeks post-partum.

I'm not believing the Dec 27th birthdate; it was too darn convenient and unsubstantiated.

:P to you Sarah Palin!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with Molly! I think they could get away with saying anything they wanted before Sarah hit the national spotlight and had sky-high approval ratings in Alaska. Now, that people are giving her a well deserved critical look, it doesn't play as well. Thanks Regina!

ravenstrick said...

The Levi interview from GMA is online at abcnews.com.

Sad.

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

OMG! I just went to Mat-Su hospital to look up birth info and came across this: 1/10.09
Mat-Su hospital halts birth announcements
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/649766.html

Isn't that just convenient!!!!

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Went to Ma-Su Online Baby annoucements....
No babies entered since Dec 08!
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/nursery_calendar.php?month=03&year=2009
This is not a coincidence!

FW said...

I am with the same theory..Tripp was born in January...having tow babies in a year, the figure doesn't quite bounce back that quickly.

As far as Sarah and her magical, invisible, 7 week, no post partem, Trig pregnancy? It was just that...a made up story.