namelesstavern.net

Darcler wrote:You can have the ones I left behind. A couple of them were pretty hot. One just got new tits too.

I dont want to post her pics, I dont have her permission.

Her old set was too small for her liking.

cosmetic surgery is for people who have no self worth

spazz wrote:cosmetic surgery is for people who have no self worth

Thats not actually true. There are times when cosmetic surgery is not only about image. Consider breast reduction.

The image that you think they are too big.

Still an image.

Actually, too-large breasts can cause serious back issues on some women. I have known some that considered getting it done for that reason alone, to get rid of chronic back pain.

Is plastic surgery still purely an image thing if they rebuild a breast on a woman who's had a mascectomy? Does the woman who wants to have that done have no self-worth?

-Arlos

I wasnt really talking bout the kind you need to get. It disgusts me all the bitches fillin there lips and tits fulla this shit for no reason at all. Whats so wrong about how you are?? Just seems so fake and superficial to me.

I agree 100%. All women should have fake ones, not so they look better, but so they're perky past 35.

It looks like the amendment won't pass in the Senate. From Associated Press:

(AP) The constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is headed toward certain defeat Wednesday despite a fresh appeal for passage by President Bush.

While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, an equal majority oppose amending the Constitution to prohibit it, according to a poll this week by ABC News. And, according to one Republican, Americans do not yet buy the warning that traditional marriage is under attack by renegade judges.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same sex couples," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment.

The measure's looming defeat in the Senate is by no means its last stand, said its supporters.

"Whether it passes or not this time, I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."

The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

Some of those closely watching the Senate's three-day debate on the proposed amendment are engaging that argument as if the measure stands a chance of passage.

Bush, his popularity sagging and his conservative base dissatisfied with Republicans' efforts on social issues, issued a fresh appeal for passage Tuesday for the third time in as many days.

"The administration believes that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few," a White House statement said.

The Vatican also weighed in Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.

Despite the big names advocating it, the amendment was expected to fail a test vote early Wednesday after three days of floor time in which debate over the definition of marriage touched on issues ranging from child welfare to bigotry.

Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska oppose the amendment, say the debate is a divisive effort to energize social conservatives this election year.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

More than half of the 100-member Senate is likely to support the amendment on the test vote Wednesday, even if the vote fails to win the required 60 votes, said Hatch.

"Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?" he fumed.

More than half of Americans, 58 percent, said in an ABC News poll released Monday that same-sex marriages should be illegal. But only 40 percent said they support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. A majority said states should make their own laws on gay marriage.

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage _ 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

IMO it just sad that this is even being voted on by the Senate. What scares me even more is that they actually think they might get 50% of the Senate. Party polotics suck when things like this that shouldn't even be considered actually get scary support so that people dont piss off their party.

Harrison wrote:

spazz wrote:Im really serious on this. Why do you people give such a big fuck about something that has no effect on you ?

spazz wrote:cosmetic surgery is for people who have no self worth

He is spazz after all.

gidan wrote:IMO it just sad that this is even being voted on by the Senate. What scares me even more is that they actually think they might get 50% of the Senate. Party polotics suck when things like this that shouldn't even be considered actually get scary support so that people dont piss off their party.

Ah-ha. It was Gid who changed the Muslim gays thread title

I for one hope this gets passed. It probably won't, but I wish it would.

Why? A law that silly would tarnish the Constitution. If anything, this is something that should be handled on a state level. Not important enough to be there.

Many people believe it is. Apparently not the majority though.

I agree it should be a state issue.

To make a law, or anything of that sort of it, is ridiculous.

FOR OR AGAINST

Markarado wrote:I for one hope this gets passed. It probably won't, but I wish it would.

Why in the world you want something like this to be added as an amendment to the constitution? Marriage has no place in the constitution. This is purely an attempt by Bush to regain some of the conservative republican power base he once had as well as a chance to force his religious views on the country.

On a side note, I would be just as adamantly against an amendment to allow gay marriages in the constitution.

Passing this is almost as ridiculous as a judge striking down valid legislation limiting the definition of marriage, which vastly overreaches said Judge's authority.

Seriously who the fuck cares if gay people get married or not, I've said this befor and I'll say it again, Weddings inject huge sums of money into the economy. Divorces inject even more money into the economy, and if you don't think gay people would get divorced well then screw your head on straight.

People in the world are to fucking worried about who someone else is fucking, as long as they are both consenting adults who gives a shit really.