Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion about hot topics trending today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
    I don't care if she protests, most women don't like being ogled. But do something effective. The braless bit was tried decades ago and failed. It seems that for many women, going without the bra is simply not comfortable, so many didn't participate.
    Ummm...I guess you must know women from another planet. Most like to "set their people free," as my friend Katrina puts it.
    sigpic

    Comment


      Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
      I don't care if she protests, most women don't like being ogled. But do something effective. The braless bit was tried decades ago and failed. It seems that for many women, going without the bra is simply not comfortable, so many didn't participate.
      It's not about getting women to not wear bras. it's that bras are not mandatory, yet when she didn't wear one she got in trouble. Which is dumb.

      Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post
      So Trump doesn't want to put Assad in his place?
      I don't think Assad particularly cares. A few extra missiles won't do much in a place that's seen a free-for-all war for years now. If the West was going to do anything, it should've been done years ago. Now? Russia runs the show, and there's precious little the West can do without directly engaging Russia. Assad knows that. Putin knows that. Trump knows that (and was an anti-interventionist before he changed his mind).

      Originally posted by mad_gater View Post
      not to mention...you go to school to do one thing: learn, not engage in ill-thought out experiments in social engineering
      She did something that wasn't against the rules, yet got into trouble for it. Which raises the question, should bras be mandatory? and if so, wouldn't that be an argument for or against burqas and whatnot?

      Comment


        Originally posted by thekillman View Post
        It's not about getting women to not wear bras. it's that bras are not mandatory, yet when she didn't wear one she got in trouble. Which is dumb.

        She did something that wasn't against the rules, yet got into trouble for it. Which raises the question, should bras be mandatory? and if so, wouldn't that be an argument for or against burqas and whatnot?
        Quite correct, she shouldn't have gotten into trouble for it. And she is right to protest having gotten into trouble. It's nobody's business what anyone wears for underwear.

        All I'm saying is that she should try something which hadn't failed in the past. Maybe get bunch of t-shirts that say "I'm up here" or some other snarky comment aimed at males who ogle them.

        Back in the 60's/70's, bra burning was tried as a form of protest for equal rights and such for women, but it never really caught on except as short-lived fad, as far as I can tell because many women, particularly those that were more well-endowed found it uncomfortable.

        Comment


          How to know who bombed Syria next time:

          If the target is hit by an absurd number of expensive missiles and the whole thing is live-streamed on Twitter, it's the USA.

          If the bombing was announced but nobody saw it happen - it's France.

          If the target is utterly destroyed but no one knows how or by whom - it's Israel.

          If everything in a hundred mile radius from the target has been flattened with the target- it's Russia.

          If the target has been bombed, then hugged and kissed, it's the Turks.
          If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

          Comment


            OMG...! I know this is a HOT topic thread, but this particular subject is borderline ridiculous...

            Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
            I don't care if she protests, most women don't like being ogled. But do something effective. The braless bit was tried decades ago and failed. It seems that for many women, going without the bra is simply not comfortable, so many didn't participate.

            Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
            Has nothing to do with what I said.
            what a surprise.
            Annoyed was trying to keep this *clean* and to the point of the school protest being "done that before" etc...
            But anyway, bordering on verge of censorship {see spoiler quotes} --

            As some of the guys out there who say, "Her high beams were ON" and she didn't have enough sense to tone them down or turn them OFF..!

            Originally posted by LtColCarter View Post
            Ummm...I guess you must know women from another planet. Most like to "set their people free," as my friend Katrina puts it.
            Witness thy neighbor...
            Spoiler:
            who is two-hung-low... literally down to her waist. And when that lass starts waddling, hers goes a-swinging back and forth...

            That sight had my other neighbor's jaw drop when she saw it...

            Some ladies may like to free themselves from the binding cloth restricting their chest, but there are situations where some of them need to find something to stop swinging up-down and all-around the walkway.

            The below is for reinforcement of the above *issue(s)*

            Spoiler:
            Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
            Oh, and for the record, she did not "try to go bra'less", she got in crap because she had nipples, and argued that it was crap when she had to tape her nipples down because they were "distracting the boys"

            Poor boys...........

            Comment


              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              I never wear bras -- too restrictive.
              that's an interesting tit-bit of information

              Comment


                Apparently international observers were not allowed on the spot of the gas attack, but now after several days they finally are. So don't expect them to find much, any condemning evidence was probably removed by Assad or Putin (well, not personally but you get my point).


                Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                Annoyed was trying to keep this *clean* and to the point of the school protest being "done that before" etc...
                But anyway, bordering on verge of censorship {see spoiler quotes} --
                I find it funny that your attempts to be clean sound far raunchier than anything anyone else said.

                Comment


                  I used naughty words................
                  sigpic
                  ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                  A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                  The truth isn't the truth

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Gatecat View Post
                    My comment was more sarcastic. He responds to a massacre outside the US with a missile strike, but there are no real consequences for Vegas and Florida.
                    Probably not enough civilians have died yet...
                    Woops...

                    Originally posted by Womble View Post
                    How to know who bombed Syria next time:

                    If the target is hit by an absurd number of expensive missiles and the whole thing is live-streamed on Twitter, it's the USA.

                    If the bombing was announced but nobody saw it happen - it's France.

                    If the target is utterly destroyed but no one knows how or by whom - it's Israel.

                    If everything in a hundred mile radius from the target has been flattened with the target- it's Russia.

                    If the target has been bombed, then hugged and kissed, it's the Turks.
                    Syria bombed -- check the list...

                    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                    ..."Her high beams were ON"...


                    My sister's gonna love this one.

                    I'll file it away under the same as "Comfort Zone? I don't have a comfort zone. I have layers of anxiety."

                    Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
                    that's an interesting tit-bit of information
                    Enjoy it, cause it's all you're getting.
                    Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

                    Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                      As some of the guys out there who say, "Her high beams were ON" and she didn't have enough sense to tone them down or turn them OFF..!
                      I havn't seen any pictures, so I don't know if they were on or not, but if they were, it's not really something the young lady can be blamed for, as it is an autonomous reflex, not necessarily caused by sexual stimulation. She may not have turned them on or have been able to to turn them off.

                      Comment


                        And back onto more familiar territory...

                        Seems that Comey admits in his forthcoming book that he re-opened his email investigation against Clinton shortly before the election in an attempt to influence the election. Something about Not wanting to taint her presidency with illegitimacy.

                        It's amazing how loudly the democratic crickets are chirping.. Election tampering charges, anyone?

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                          It's amazing how loudly the democratic crickets are chirping.. Election tampering charges, anyone?
                          I thought he already talked to Mueller for the whole election influence things. I'd imagine this was covered, wasn't it?

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by thekillman View Post
                            I thought he already talked to Mueller for the whole election influence things. I'd imagine this was covered, wasn't it?
                            Nah, this would be something else, I think. This was Comey, an Obama appointee acting against Clinton's election. Wouldn't that be a different ballgame indeed?

                            In any case, it is becoming clear that Mueller is just on a witch hunt at this point. He has nothing to prove Trump's collusion with the Russians, so now he's just throwing whatever mud he can find against the barn wall, hoping something sticks.

                            And Comey's vague reference that the Russians might have something on Trump is even worse. Can't prove anything, so cast innuendo.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                              In any case, it is becoming clear that Mueller is just on a witch hunt at this point. He has nothing to prove Trump's collusion with the Russians, so now he's just throwing whatever mud he can find against the barn wall, hoping something sticks.
                              Snort!

                              Trump does hope so yes... the reality though...
                              Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

                              Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

                              Comment


                                Someone has been drinking the Trump Kool-aid
                                Originally posted by aretood2
                                Jelgate is right

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X