Skip to comments.Julia Louis-Dreyfus blames nude photo on "drunken stupor"
Posted on 04/10/2014 3:54:42 PM PDT by Gamecock
Blame it on a drunken stupor. That's what Toronto Mayor Rob Ford did.
If you pick up the new issue of Rolling Stone, you'll get to see in Julia Louis-Dreyfus in the buff. The 53-year-old "Veep" actress unveiled the magazine's cover photo on Twitter:
She tweeted that she's about to get more Twitter followers -- and she's right. We just started following her.
Her butt-naked appearance coincides with the third season of "Veep," which premiered on Sunday. In the issue, which hits newsstands on Friday, Louis-Dreyfus dishes on the upcoming season (she's thrilled her character gets to curse a lot), her beloved role on "Seinfeld" (which she landed partly because of her "disposition") and the entertainment industry.
"There is sexism -- I'm not denying its existence," she said. "But I'm saying that I will deny its effort against me. I just pay it no nevermind and say, 'Get out of my way.'"
"Veep" airs Sundays at 10:30 p.m. ET on HBO.
So our little Lainey is a drunken, foul mouth, liberal trollop.
Not that different than her role on Seinfeld I guess.
Better looking than Biden!
Looks like she’s the only one to break the Seinfeld curse. George and Kramer, not so much.
Julia who? You say she was in something called Seinfeld? Never heard of them.
Looks like it worked.
Appropriate of the liberal historical knowledge of the Constitution, which John Hancock did not sign.
I think she is one of the most genuinely funny women comics
around. And she still looks damn good for 53.
Probably tied up in trusts, if it's actually in her name.
Pictures or it isn’t true. Nice Butt Dimples anyhow.
True enough. But still an interesting bit of information.
I knew something was wrong right away, thought John Hancock signed it last or near last.
What are those nasty indentations on her lower back?
Thank goodness they spared us the raw unphotoshopped version of her body.
Is that a real tat or just one that washes away?
I guess every person has their own view of beauty. I sometime watch reruns of Seinfeld. For a while I really never paid attention to her looks, she seemed sort of attractive but after actually paying attention, she is not attractive at all.
She looks a little bit like a carnival worker. The more you look at her the worse she looks. At least that is my take.
Another waste of cyber ink.
Would you write your name on her back? Apparently John Hancock did cause he didn’t the sign the Constitution. ;d
I suppose she does. Just keep in mind every image you see of her has been touched, retouched and touched again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.