TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- page 3 banned
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

page 3 banned

i don't what what other countries are like, but in the UK, we have a fine and famous tradition in The Sun newspaper - for decades, on page 3 you got a nice topless model. now a bunch of insecure campaigning feminists have seen it thrown out.

the claim is, women were objectified and degraded by it. although i am not convinced by that claim. no-one of sound mind really gives a flying fuck. it's just a pair of tits to admire. best thing was, it was opposite the only real news page of the entire paper, so it served as a one stop shop to browse whilst you ate your lunch.

i think the feminists think we are all a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth rapists or something. worst of all - it's not as if the feminists are now suddenly going to buy the sun because there's no tits - they just ruin it for everyone else.

all the models were very healthy looking i.e. no visible ribs. we are allowed to see titty as long as it comes in the form of a flat-chested stick-thin catwalk model, it seems. that empowers women, right? the women on page 3 are just slags.

i'd argue that page 3 made normal woman more secure about their bodies than the freaks pedaled on london catwalks, fashion magazines and billboards everywhere.

the muslim fanatics got it all wrong, if they want to change certain aspects of a publication, forget the AK's - get a bunch of nagging feminists to squeal in their ear.

fucking hate busy-bodies. they need to get a life and stop meddling in other peoples affairs, this changes exactly fuck all. maybe it will give them some sort of ego trip whilst they lock on to their next target to make up for their inadequacies.

poppy was my favourite. RIP, sort of

You "read" The Sun.

Explains a lot.

I really can't understand why they didn't just add something like "Page 4 blokes" so equality and hormones could reign supreme

but wait, these women actually submitted pictures in hopes of being chosen right?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I really can't understand why they didn't just add something like "Page 4 blokes" so equality and hormones could reign supreme

They did, it was called 'page 7 fella'

The feature did not last long, mainly due to the fact very few women actually bought 'The Sun'

hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment?

I was a bit miffed that he never responded to my post in that Ron Paul thread.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment?

Yup, was wondering that too.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment?

he hasnt gotten that far yet, i think he is still working on the 4th amendment....

If the feminists really wanted to make a positive change, they should have just pushed to have the sun discontinued, do the world a favor, and while they're at it, get rid of the sun newspapers in canada too.... 90% of the sunshine girls in the ottawa sun are sourced from trailer parks..

If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by pointPi If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway?

Because that's all the Sun you can get in England

Also, 'tis back, apparently.

"If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway?"

because it sells?

i don't know if it (or any paper) even makes a profit, they are more loss-leading political mouthpieces i think.

good to see page 3 back. yesterday it was a fucking sainsburys advert!

quote:

the paper again features a photograph of a topless model, which appears under a �Clarifications and Corrections� header and comes after a front-page panel announces: �We�ve had a mammary lapse.�

insult to injury, take that feminists!

quote:

�So it seems the fight might be back on,� tweeted Lucy-Anne Holmes, the founder of the No More Page 3 campaign.

get a hobby, lady! suffragette, you are not.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment?

hardly the thread... but never mind income taxes being voluntary - the 16th amendment was never ratified - something they swept under the carpet. the US collects taxes by force and fear.

if the mighty ron paul says it is an illegal tax and is not constitutional, then that's what it is - are you saying you know the constitution or the law better than ron paul?

fuck you're dumb. like, really really dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by rubez hardly the thread... but never mind income taxes being voluntary - the 16th amendment was never ratified - something they swept under the carpet. the US collects taxes by force and fear.

"The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12, 1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.) 4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id., 4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State (Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the Constitution. 37 Stat. 1785."

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html#f8

Gosh, isn't it inconvenient when reality disagrees with what your nutbag ideology says should be true?

he's just a gullible fool. the "16th was never ratified" nonsense was a common conspiracy theory in the 80s or 90s and relied upon by a bunch of tax avoiders. needless to say these people all lost, got heavy fines and/or incarceration.

the fact that ron paul apparently buys into this nonsense says a lot more about paul than it does the amendment. sadly for rubez the supreme court determines what laws mean, not ron paul.

rubez is just a child who believes everything they read on the internet. the problem with scotland, is that it's full of scots.

needless to say ron paul is infinitely more informed than you on the subject, and i think you are aware of this.

very good you can quote a film. scots were significant in the forming of america.

and Vector A, maybe you should look into WHY people say the amendment wasn't properly legally ratified, instead of copying and pasting stuff like a sheep.

this thread is about tits. bring up the ron paul thread if you want to yammer on about it.

so dumb.

you sound like an idiot mate, give yourself a break.

quote:

Originally posted by rubez and Vector A, maybe you should look into WHY people say the amendment wasn't properly legally ratified, instead of copying and pasting stuff like a sheep.

I already did, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_pr...dment_arguments

Unfortunately, these have all been rejected by judges every single time they have been advanced. Ron Paul may know a bit more about American law than pkcRAISTLIN, but he is after all a doctor, not a judge or a legal scholar. But I guess law school must turn people into "sheep," too, right?

Are you actually Scottish, or are you an American who changed your flag? It discourages me to think that what I believed was a stupidity particular to my country may have been leaking beyond its borders.

Baaah! Baaah!

transferring you to the good doctor ron paul's thread...

Come to China Rubez, with your intellect, you would easily makes waves as an assistant cucumber picker.

He reads The Sun, it's odds-on he works on a building site anyway.

wait a minute, no-one ever said anything about reading!

i read the guardian mostly (website form) it's a great site, though the new incoming redesign is awful. anyway... i am enjoying watching them trying to backpedal intelligently on this subject.

seen today's page 3, it's an awesome kick in the stones (vagina?) to the righteous commentators over the past few days. it's like they had this planned all along. free advertising. now, here's some tits to make you look like a tit, enjoy.

sadly can't find the unedited version.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A Ron Paul may know a bit more about American law than pkcRAISTLIN,

given paul thinks the fed is unconstitutional, and the 16th amendment too apparently, then there's 2 examples of him knowing less. quite a bit less!

rubez is a deadshit.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.