Spring forward…
43 minutes ago
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Hot Russian chics bare their breasts for Putin
GRAPHIC WARNING! TWO FEMALE PUTIN SUPPORTERS TAKE OFF THEIR T-SHIRTS IN THIS VIDEO
From Eric Dondero:
A 60 second news clip fro Rio de Janeiro about a car wash just opened in Moscow, with scantily-clad female Putin supporters. It's in Portuguese, but you'll get the drift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
So is that Putin or poutain? (Or is that a distinction without a difference?)
Of course, if the left-libertarians had their way, these women wouldn't have the right to show their tits in public. Because as we all know - according to Rockwell, Raimondo and the Ron Paulists - we don't want to "offend" Muslims.
^ misconceptions abound... I am a "Ron Paulist", as you say, in that I support Ron Paul, but I quite frankly don't give a fuck who I offend. I challenge you to find any instance where Ron Paul has said civil liberties need to be suspended for the sake of protecting the feelings of any one individual or group. Also, being an Objectivist myself I would have to say that you cannot lump all Ron Paul supporters into a group like that because everyone in the movement that I know actually thinks for themselves and would rather that the government let people do so as well. My position is that if women want to flash their tits in public they should be able to, but if anyone does not want them doing that on their own private property they should be able to throw them out without retribution from the government so long as they are indeed on their property. Same goes for Burquas, Women should be able to wear them in public if they truly wish it, but if they do not want to and their liberties are being curbed by some other person then that person should be punished for forcing them to do so (everyone has a right to free will). Also if someone does not want to allow women with Islamic religious garb in their place of business they should be able to bar them from entrance. Plus, I support Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and if that isn't pro free speech cred I don't know what is. Plus, I think this odd fascination you have with Vladamir Putin is a bit disturbing, considering the man is ex-KGB and is trying his very best to make himself dictator for life. It also perplexes me why you would rather support Mitt Romney or *insert other Republicrat drone* than Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. I honestly would be voting for Gary if he were pro-life, but since he is not I find he violates one of my essential criteria for a candidate: pro-government protection of life, liberty and property (see Locke, John). Romney's "ability to win" does not mean he is the right man to nominate, and his foreign policy even sounds more like Ron and Gary's now, which should be making you cringe. I look at domestic policy above all other things, and you yourself say that Ron is "perfect" in his domestic approach, thus with no openly neo-con candidate in the field it would only make sense for you to support either Gary or Ron for president.
And Putin would gladly lock them in a Gulag if they were covered but protesting for Chechnya ;-)
Equivalency??? Give Putin credit for removing a corrupt criminal element from Russian politics. But he's replaced it with a level of fascism that may steer the Russian government for many years. That is not in our interests.
But it does support us having a targeted middle east policy of protecting our energy interests. Russia has the energy China needs and neither are our allies.
"But he's replaced it with a level of fascism that may steer the Russian government for many years."
Heh! 'Twas there under komrade the Man of Steel: the shift was hardly a radical one.
So were the babes, BTW, and their Viking genes.
Jimmy - lad - s l o w d o w n a bit. Ron Paul sux, we all agree. (BTW, there is no such thing as "ex"-KGB. You're either in it or you're dead.)
Jimmy, dude, chill out. Seems I touched a nerve.
Ron Paul and his minions don't have to explicitly say they love Islamism; it's plain to see by their actions.
Show me an instance where Ron Paul or his supporters said, "hey, you know what, Islamism sucks and it runs counter to individual liberties, legalized prostitution, women showing their tits, marijuana, booze, gambling, ect..."
You can't. Cause they don't give a flying fuck about such issues. All you hear them talk about is foreign policy non-interventionism, and "The Fed!"
Libertarianism is a cultural thing too. It's not just about puritanical ideology. And if you don't defend Western culture, frankly you ain't no fuckin' libertarian.
Sad Charlie, you miss the point about Putin-mania. Sure, he may suck on some civil rights issues. But the dude's gotta a serious LIBERTARIAN streak when it comes to hot babes. And frankly, that's far more important and issue for me than KGB wiretapping, and promoting democracy.
Eric, you're off in your criticism of Ron Paul as only about the Fed and foreign policy non intervention. He speaks freely and frequently about drug prohibition being wrong, about YOU having the freedom to do with your body and mind what you see fit, without interference from the gubmint. For you to have missed that means that you are either not listening to him at all, or intentionally excluding it from your memory. Either one means that your opinion is ill informed at best, and should be revisited upon getting ALL of the information available.
Decadence isn't liberty. Would you support a bunch of men running around with their dicks hanging out in support of some female candidate?
If so, you aren't a libertarian. You're just an asshole.
Chuck, you sound just a little too enthusiastic about the "bunch of men running around with their dicks hanging out."
Sad Charlie, you miss the point about Putin-mania. Sure, he may suck on some civil rights issues. But the dude's gotta a serious LIBERTARIAN streak when it comes to hot babes. And frankly, that's far more important and issue for me than KGB wiretapping, and promoting democracy. - Eric
Eric be honest, you'd throw any civil right that you didn't personally use (personally or politically) under the bus in a second ;-)
Don't get me wrong I'm as much a pragmatist as the next guy (Yeah were fighting wars for energy resources, and???? :-) but you've got a WAYYY stronger authoritarian streak in you than you like to let on.
Sorry, I just get a little frustrated when people go around claiming to be libertarians support people like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I understand that libertarianism is a cultural thing, which is why I will never, ever convert to Islam, it disrespects women, it disrespects liberty, and above all: you can't drink. How the hell would I ever have fun at a party if I couldn't do that? Of course I personally think that through military intervention we are giving the Islamists propaganda material making them look like the victims (Their proof to the people is the large number of American tanks rolling through the streets and the occasional civilian death). Being the Nazis they are, the Islamists are propaganda masters, in the middle east (excluding Israel itself) less than 10% of the population believe that Al-Qaeda was the party responsible for 9/11, while a large plurality believe that Israel was responsible. ISRAEL! How ridiculous is that? And they believe it because the propaganda told them so and they have been told all their lives that Israel is sitting on "their" land. Most in the middle east trust the Islamists because they have effectively portrayed themselves as the victim. In a cultural war like this where one culture seeks to destroy another, you never want to look like the bully. The more propaganda you take away the less they will be able to recruit. We can have secret missions like SEAL Team 6 did to take out their leaders to disrupt the power structure, then there will be infighting and eventually they will go away.
Aha! Jimmy, you fell right into my trap.
Military culture - at least the way it was before bullshit PC - IS LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!
Masculinity, hanging out at whore houses in San Juan PR and the Phillipines, drinking your stinkin' ass off all night long, ribbing your buddies, cussin' up a storm, THAT'S CULTURAL LIBERTARIANISM.
I joined the Libertarian Party straight out of the US Navy in Jacksonville, Florida in 1985. Back then, going to a Libertarian Party of Florida convention was like going to a beer guzzlin' raunchy Spring Break almost Swinger's Party.
That's cultural libertarianism.
Being soft on the Military and politically correct like the Paulists advocate is anti-thetical to cultural libertarianism.
Chuck, you're wrong on this one. Since it's inception, there's always been an element of decadance in the Libertarian Party. That's what made the LP so cool in the 1970s and 80s. The LP is not nearly as party-oriented as it was back then. And frankly, that sucks. Some of us miss that aspect of the Libertarian Party.
Oh, btw, one of you said "geez, Ron Paul talks about drug legalization all the time..." Not true. He hardly ever brings it up, only when he's asked about it. Otherwise it's all "The Fed this; The Fed that, blah, blah, blah..."
If you want someone who talks about drug legalization that would be GARY JOHNSON.
"Chuck, you're wrong on this one."
No. I'm not. And you're full of shit which is why you ignored my question. You wouldn't want to live in a town where people are fucking on park benches in broad daylight, and you wouldn't consider it "freedom" to live in the midst of such depravity.
I see this is where there is a great disagreement. Cultural Libertarianism is the notion that "I don't give a fuck what you do just don't make me do it too". Cultural Libertarianism is not about drinking, drugs and sex, it is about the freedom to choose. Plus, I don't know one Ron Paul supporter who is "Soft" on the military or loves political correctness. Just because we like to defend the borders of the USA more than those of Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan does not mean we are "soft".
If we had privately owned parks and roads we would not have to worry about people spreading their seed in public. The owners of the park would never allow it.
Eric, your inability to just say "I'm wrong" is ASTOUNDING. Scary, really.
As libertine as my sexual life is I've got to go with Chuck on this one, at least to a point.
Do i really have the liberty to violate the social contract at a whim? I don't think so... We all agree top abide by some standards in the public space. That's the only way they can remain truly public.
i think there's nothing hotter than bending a girl over doggy style, but I can see how my neighbors would disagree :-) The only way society can work is if there is this communal courtesy. Of course as a libertarian I'd prefer this be done through peoples own good sense. As a realist however, I understand the need for some law to establish a baseline.
Eric, I've found that as my daughters grow older my views trend 'conservative.' Chuck has a point - we left New York City for civilization. NYC - where guns are illegal but men frenching on the subway or screwing on the park bench is "cultural expression."
Liberty without some measure of self-restraint and acceptance of consequences devolves from fun into chaos pretty damned quick.
Ordered liberty is the term. People in the jungle living on bugs and bark with no social structure are "free" as a bird. Just like wild animals.
People who claim to want to live that way don't seem to want those around them to live that way. They want to depend on the decency of others without offering the same in return.
It's a childish cop out.
I like Thomas Jefferson's definition of liberty:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
As far as decadence and libertinism, it's a lifestyle that exists in opposition to the laws of the universe, meaning cause and effect. Surely you can drink yourself to death and screw yourself into a dozen STDs, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences.
This ideal that somehow doing this is masculine and linked to military is somewhat misleading. Surely soldiers lived hard at one time. And at one time soldiers were often slaves, indentured servants or just unlucky to be shanghai'd. Doing such activities was an act of desperation and relief from a certain death. Celebrating it is like a football player thinking he's a 14th century Samurai or a gladiator from 2000 years ago. It's ridiculous. If people have to escape in a sense through such activities in a free society, it's a sad thing. I'd like to know what makes such a man a miserable wreck knowing he acts to his free will in where he is. Just saying.
"...If people have to escape in a sense through such activities in a free society, it's a sad thing. I'd like to know what makes such a man a miserable wreck knowing he acts to his free will in where he is." - Right Guy
You pose some heavy questions there RG :-) For some of us it's an existential question. That one that has no answer until you die. Is life worth living?
When the point beyond jaded is reached, you realize nothing you do matters in the cosmic sense. Much like our fun exchanges on this blog that have no impact on the actual issues. Much as Eric must know inside he is no second coming of Jefferson and even if he makes some headway in the establishment it will change little.
Once this is accepted a little cynicism and hedonism are sure to follow :-)
"Self improvement is masturbation. Self destruction on the other hand..." - Tyler Durden
Eric Thomas Jefferson? Hardly. I would say they would be at odds over foreign policy.
As far as life being worth living and blogging, well, I can tell the former is all we know for now and the latter is this.
And I say that will full honesty. It's pissing in the wind.
Right Guy that link was pure win ;-)
Thanks for the laugh!
As for pissing in the wind... Well, gotta piss somewhere. Might as well let your balls feel the cool breeze. If there's an afterlife I promise to meet you at the interstellar coffeshop :-) We can discuss eternity for eternity LOL.
Or maybe just give that starchild from 2001 a spanking. Heh, Heh...
Or just sip 18 year old Macallan.
I'm there buddy ;-)
Talk to you next thread...
Post a Comment