That's the wrong day to wear a miniskirt.

The only thing I have to say about their miniskirts is how obvious it is they shave...

Shows what you know about the rapist mentality -- it isn't (always) about sex, my friend.

80 year old nuns have been raped. Downs syndrome and disabled men and women have been raped. Fat women have been raped. The whole rape culture in prison, nary a slender woman in a miniskirt in sight. It can be about control and power and anger.

Besides, even for those men motivated by lust, what are the odds that zero percent of them are attracted to women of size? Women are shamed about being large, men are shamed about finding large women attractive, so you may not even be aware that there are men out there who like large women.

I don't think you are a horrible person -- I think you are uninformed of the complexities of the subject.

I know you are just making an offhand, presumably mildly funny?, remark and here I am, getting all complicated. However, this comment is the seed from which the mighty oak "she was asking for it" grows. Just thought I'd take the opportunity to point that out.

Listen close, as life turns its pages
Makaveli here, kickin' rhymes for the ages
Seen things in stages, wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pages
Your crew don't phase us
We'll make you bustas pay us
Run up in your spot like C.J. from San Andreas
I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Feel me!
I wrote this song a long time ago
It was the dopest song I ever wrote... in '94

What can a nigga do
when half the people voted for George W.
It's a bitch, fuck George W.
-- can't be true --
I wanna choke him, because he's a snitch
I'm talking about George W. Smith
From city council, he ran in '93
Out in Oakland,
you probably didn't hear about him

I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Way before Slim Shady was in demand
Way before we dropped baloney on Afghanistan
I wrote this song in '94

How am I doin' this?
Look around the club, see everyone in the place
Showing 'Pac love got a smile on my face
The girl in the miniskirt has bad taste
Because her shirt don't match
And there's a puddin' stain on the back
What the fuck is that? It might be doo-doo

And you in the back, you ain't shit
You bought a gin and tonic
but you didn't even tip
And if you hit this table one more time
then the record might skip Might skip...
I told you, stop hittin' the table

Tupac Shakur
I wrote this rhyme in 1994
I'm not alive!
Thug life!
Dave Chappelle, that ain't your wife
A married man, you've got two kids
Go home!

I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Way before Beanie Sigel had to do a bid
Way before Dave Chappelle had two kids
(Don't give him no coochie)


DJ: 2Pac rest in peace!
2Pac: Ok, I will!



Slightly * nsfw lyrics, but what the hey.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

Up with miniskirts!
*controversy

Tags for this video have been changed from 'violin, piano, chinese harp, zither, guzheng, drumbox, miniskirt, thumbnail galore' to 'violin, piano, chinese harp, zither, guzheng, drumbox, thumbnail galore' - edited by xxovercastxx

No miniskirt there. Fluffy top and denim shorts.

>> ^Jinx:

nsfw for a couple of exposed knees.


Uh, when? I didn't see them?

@ant @jonny

You might want to come over here, ant, and fix the invocations as suggested by Jinx.


>> ^Jinx:

nsfw for a couple of exposed knees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Spector

She was 43 in '86 and rockin' the miniskirt. Plus, married to that crazy fk Phil Spector.



BTW calvados FTW.

^So I take it you're not in my camp?

Those are great images, btw, though I think a miniskirt and bustier might provide little protection from the cold in this one.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'miniskirt waddle, 1978, 70s, 70s, 70z' to 'miniskirt waddle, 1978, 70s, elvis costello, i dont want to go to chelsea' - edited by Issykitty

good for you winston.
what you looking for? a cookie?
your thinking reveals a myopic view,longde is correct.
it is not a slant,at least not to me anyways.it is who you are and i would not have you any other way.
you think in two dimensions and there can be great strength in that but the downside to that paradigm is abstract thinking,grey areas,fuzzy logic.

the discussion was pertaining to the morality of this young woman.recognizing she was stepping on her neighbors face to collect a paycheck,so she broke the rules and got fired for it.she didnt appear too bitter to me and i applaud her for her courage.i have made similar choices.does this make me better than others? of course not,but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

"the man who flipped the switch at aushwitz may have been a great guy and wonderful family man but he still participated in the elimination of thousands"-noam chomsky.

THIS is the integral point i am trying to make and since you are the "smartest man in the room" i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".
i attempt to convey my mistrust of bankers and show historically why and you cherry pick lines from my comment and ignore the over -all context.
we,as a group praise this young lady and you call her a whiner (which is your right) and spout rhetoric on the awesomeness that is you.
what i have gathered from your comments here is that:
a.bankers are a good and noble breed and those who may have had the misfortune of life turning wrong are just stupid and deserve neither comfort nor release but contemptful scorn.
this is the very same logic of "well,she wouldnt have been raped if she hadnt worn that miniskirt" and you get IRKED when longde calls you out on your myopia?...please son....please...
b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.
yeah...ok..so the manipulation of markets by institutions to swindle entire governments and it's people of it's wealth is noble?the engineering of wars by those who would profit most is a good and honorable thing for society?

listen my friend,governments are thing not to be trusted,BIG government is a thing to avoid at all costs and when that government starts to work with financial institutions the death knell has begun to ring for the common citizen.
this is not new,it did not began yesterday and while you noted 30 years ago (correct 1972,gold standard=gone) but it goes even further.1966,1942,1933,1929,1917,1923,1880,1781 in america alone.since you are the smartest man in the room i guess you already knew that though./snark

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont FUCK YOU over for a dollar.WE dont agree with the fact that the very same people who created this financial mess cried like little fucking bitches and had to have average joe taxpayer working two jobs bailing those elitist pricks out.at NO risk to them but all the risk on us while they engage in practices that are at best, bottom feeding tendencies.
so YEAH winston,we LIKE when we see a person stand up for what they believe even if that may mean hardship for themselves.not like those PUSSIES on wall street.


so feel free to cherry pick whichever lines you wish to conflate into your myopic paradigm.
hey..you are the smartest man in the room.guess what my response will be.

In LA it's a reason to party and for chicks to dress like sluts. Which is cool, because the girls in LA typically have rocking bods, and last night at a party I saw a Pretty Woman hooker costume, and the dress was shooooort. Also plenty of cleavage bearing nurses and what other stupid themed costume that is basically a short, short skirt and a low top. "Oh look, I'm a Leprechaun because my miniskirt and tube top is green and has a clover on it."

But yeah, your kids and candy and all that, dag.