jja Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Hello. My name is Lauren Bush. I have unbuttoned the top two buttons of my blouse, exposing my bra the view of the audience, to symbolize my desire to feed all of the hungry children of the world from my generous bosom. Thank You. Best photo caption ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 jjd, I think the guy at right is beating you to it... but hey, there's enough for everybody, if you want seconds. I talking about hunger!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjd Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 jjd, I think the guy at right is beating you to it... but hey, there's enough for everybody, if you want seconds I'll take seconds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jja Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 I find it interesting that I've heard a few people on this thread saying that abortion should be legal, but that they felt uneasy about it being used as a form of birth control. Well why? If abortion is ok, why not have 20 of them? I think Kathy Ireland says it well. She was on Hannity & Colmes on September 30 to discuss her pro-life views. She said this: “The bottom line is this: If the unborn is not a human being, have as many abortions as you want, whenever you want. It doesn’t matter. No justification is necessary. If, on the other hand, the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate unless another human life, that being the mother, is in danger.” -KI The best looking babes are republican !! Smart and Beautiful !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I think my favorite part of this thread is all the guys speculating/weighing in on the abortion issue. You guys really think it's something you want to tangle with ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jja Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Why not? I used to be a fetus you know By the way allison, Kathy Ireland is really really hot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I wanna tangle with the woman jja posted in THAT BARN!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacier Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Hi, My name is Lauren Bush, and as a model, I know what it means to go hungry. And if the two boys in the picture behind me had as much food as I've binged and purged over the years, they'd look like Cornhusker offensive linemen. Thank you for your support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I think my favorite part of this thread is all the guys speculating/weighing in on the abortion issue. You guys really think it's something you want to tangle with ? I'm not sure that having a uterus endows one with any special insights into the ethical and philosophical matters that lie at the heart of this debate, such as the one concerning when life begins. If you were talking about ovulating, labor pains, or nursing then that would be another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The other obvious one is the 2nd amendment. Any sane person realizes it was not intented to arm the populace against each other with fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers. Oh, wow!!! Thanks for clearing that one up. It was so obvious, how did we all miss it? So fucking obvious, in fact, that it took some youngster like yourself to enlighten us. Gee, thanks. It's obvious, everyone! Of course. Damn, all that money wasted on my education and NRA Membership dues, etc. and I could have just asked JoshK. It's amazing how obvious you think this is when the 2nd Amendment issue is being debated by greater minds than ours and those minds are realizing that the personal intent of the Second Amendment DOES guarantee our right as citizens to defend ourselves as we see fit. Your "fully automatic weapons" (illegal since 1927) and "rocket launcher" arguments are just a smoke screen to avoid the true issue of personal choice in self-defense and protection of property. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I think my favorite part of this thread is all the guys speculating/weighing in on the abortion issue. You guys really think it's something you want to tangle with ? I'm not sure that having a uterus endows one with any special insights into the ethical and philosophical matters that lie at the heart of this debate, such as the one concerning when life begins. If you were talking about ovulating, labor pains, or nursing then that would be another matter. Well said, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Not another gun debate!!!!!! Doncha know: Gunz don't kill, People with gunz kill Ban the people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Abortion guns and swimsuit models all in the same thread I hope Snickers is watching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 If you even want to find out if GregW is following a thread, just throw out the phrase "Second Amendment", and you'll get your answer in a New York minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 This thread belongs in one of those toyota offroad forums the 2nd Amendment issue is being debated by greater minds than ours and those minds are realizing that the personal intent of the Second Amendment DOES guarantee our right as citizens to defend ourselves as we see fit. this one is priceless! heston is such a philosopher! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 GregW said: Oh, fuck off, you bitter shrew. You know I'm not bitter, so don't even pull that shit. I've been nice to you, so don't make me hit below the belt. 'mkay? We all know that women trap men into impregnating them by batting their eyelashes, doing that hair-flip thing, and asking us to do odd jobs around their apartment in trade for home-cooked meals. It's a scientific fact, deal with it. Hmmm, I think this more about the character of the women who find you attractive than any intrinsic characteristic of the gender. precisely! greg is clearly out of touch with what most women want. none of the women i know are out there trying to get pregnant to trap a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 GregW said: Oh, fuck off, you bitter shrew. You know I'm not bitter, so don't even pull that shit. I've been nice to you, so don't make me hit below the belt. 'mkay? We all know that women trap men into impregnating them by batting their eyelashes, doing that hair-flip thing, and asking us to do odd jobs around their apartment in trade for home-cooked meals. It's a scientific fact, deal with it. Hmmm, I think this more about the character of the women who find you attractive than any intrinsic characteristic of the gender. precisely! greg is clearly out of touch with what most women want. none of the women i know are out there trying to get pregnant to trap a man. For fuck's sake, can no one discern dry humor anymore? Sheesh. IT WAS A FUCKING JOKE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. HOLY FUCK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I find it interesting that I've heard a few people on this thread saying that abortion should be legal, but that they felt uneasy about it being used as a form of birth control. Well why? If abortion is ok, why not have 20 of them? I think Kathy Ireland says it well. She was on Hannity & Colmes on September 30 to discuss her pro-life views. She said this: “The bottom line is this: If the unborn is not a human being, have as many abortions as you want, whenever you want. It doesn’t matter. No justification is necessary. If, on the other hand, the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate unless another human life, that being the mother, is in danger.” -KI the reason? b/c it is a surgical procedure. nothing that should be taken lightly. i will not debate abortion based on the fallicy that is religion. a debate based on the biological issues is worthwhile. again... if you feel that life is life at conception don't have an abortion. h/e be very careful where you step b/c that ant your trodding on has a life too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I think my favorite part of this thread is all the guys speculating/weighing in on the abortion issue. You guys really think it's something you want to tangle with ? I'm not sure that having a uterus endows one with any special insights into the ethical and philosophical matters that lie at the heart of this debate, such as the one concerning when life begins. If you were talking about ovulating, labor pains, or nursing then that would be another matter. i agree that abortion is not soley a women's issue but i think women might have a tad more insight to the issue b/c of things like labor pains, nursing, and being the primary care giver in most cases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The 2nd Amendment issue is being debated by greater minds than ours and those minds are realizing that the personal intent of the Second Amendment DOES guarantee our right as citizens to defend ourselves as we see fit. Your "fully automatic weapons" (illegal since 1927) and "rocket launcher" arguments are just a smoke screen to avoid the true issue of personal choice in self-defense and protection of property. Greg_W Good news for Greg_W!! The landmark 1994 assault weapons ban that outlawed Uzis and AK-47s (like the ones reportedly seized yesterday) expires September 13. The U.S. Senate showed on March 2 that it could pass a renewal of the law, but unless President Bush tells the House of Representatives that he wants the law renewed it will expire. Executives of the Israeli company that makes Uzis said publicly last year that they were excited about the U.S. market reopening for assault weapons. And though a ban on importation of the weapons would remain law, Uzi officials said they were strongly considering building a plant in the U.S. Come Sept.14th, you'll be allowed to use Uzi's to protect your Hummer and your really cool CD collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The 2nd Amendment issue is being debated by greater minds than ours and those minds are realizing that the personal intent of the Second Amendment DOES guarantee our right as citizens to defend ourselves as we see fit. Your "fully automatic weapons" (illegal since 1927) and "rocket launcher" arguments are just a smoke screen to avoid the true issue of personal choice in self-defense and protection of property. Greg_W Good news for Greg_W!! The landmark 1994 assault weapons ban that outlawed Uzis and AK-47s (like the ones reportedly seized yesterday) expires September 13. The U.S. Senate showed on March 2 that it could pass a renewal of the law, but unless President Bush tells the House of Representatives that he wants the law renewed it will expire. Executives of the Israeli company that makes Uzis said publicly last year that they were excited about the U.S. market reopening for assault weapons. And though a ban on importation of the weapons would remain law, Uzi officials said they were strongly considering building a plant in the U.S. Come Sept.14th, you'll be allowed to use Uzi's to protect your Hummer and your really cool CD collection. They focus on AK-47s and Uzis for sure, because that's what everyone sees in Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo movies. However, this ban on "assault weapons" is not so definitive as that. There, currently, is no hard criteria for determining what is, and is not, an "assault weapon" worthy of banning. It is entirely objective (one of the main reasons NRA opposed this legislation in the first place). Further, the extension that the anti-gun crowd is pushing EXPANDS THE LIST of "assault weapons" to be banned. Included are several models/styles of semi-automatic shotguns (a common hunting gun) and semi-automatic rifles and/or rifles with a removeable clip (which may or may not be semi-auto). It is important to dispel the myth that this assault weapons ban deals with fully-automatic machine gun style weapons. These weapons have been illegal since legislation was passed in 1927 (I may be slightly off on the date). I would question the "hundreds of thousands" number purported by the Brady Campaign (formerly, Handgun Control, Inc.) as I believe, but am not certain, that there are import quantity restrictions. Could be wrong there, but I recall something regarding this. The Bradys are an interesting bunch. Note that, for public relations reasons, they changed their name from "Handgun Control Inc." to "The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence". All they are campaigning against is private ownership of guns. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jja Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 He could do that already, the dirty little secret of the so called assault weapon ban was that in essence all it banned were cosmetic features of the guns in question. Things like bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and pistol grips. The manufacturers responded by re-engineering these features so as to be legal. The problem wasn't with the way the law was written but with the asinine nature of what it was trying to accomplish. There is no functional distinction between a legal AR-15 so called "assault weapon" and any old semi automatic .223 (5.56) like say a ruger mini 14. But since law makers and anti gun hysterics are never ones to let facts get in the way they developed the silly and wholly cosmetic assault weapon ban based on guns that looked really really scary. I say good riddance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Further, the extension that the anti-gun crowd is pushing EXPANDS THE LIST of "assault weapons" to be banned. Included are several models/styles of semi-automatic shotguns (a common hunting gun) and semi-automatic rifles and/or rifles with a removeable clip (which may or may not be semi-auto). Greg GW, if you need a semi-automatic shotgun, you shouldn't be hunting. Despite being a typical liberal thug, I am actually ambivalent about gun control. I own guns, and enjoy them (yes, guns are toys). At the same time, I do believe they contribute directly to American murder and crime rates. While I would hate to lose my guns, I cannot morally defend them, and I'm disgusted at the NRA for their pathetic attempts. The NRA's 'hunting and tradition' defense is absolute bullshit (c'mon- it's a fucking shotgun! If you didn't take it down with the first shot, you're not a hunter. Clips for a hunting rifle? Who are you kidding?). The 'self-defense' gambit is no better. Our (U.S.) violent crime rates are 5 times higher than any other industrialized nation ( CDC study ). Guns are used to facilitate crimes; they don't stop crime. In the absence of our gun culture, we wouldn't descend into some chaotic anarchy of knife-wielding rapists and fine-art thieves, but would blissfully ascend to a higher state of group-hugging dope-smoking vegetarians (we'd become Dutch). The NRA are pansies, cuz they won't stand by the real reason we have that second amendment - to facilitate armed revolt from an oppressive government. If you look again at the second amendment, it's nestled right in there with other protective clauses that restrict the government (quartering of troops, search and seizure, etc). The amendment is there so we can protect ourselves from our gov't, not from each other. If the NRA had balls, they'd be campaigning for my rights to mount a 50mm on top of my Hummer. just to keep the love flowing.. ps. My guns are bigger than yours, and I'm a better shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 but GregW has a banana clip and can get more rounds off at you before reloading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.