She-Hulk Comics
Woman Supplements
Giant Tits

Meta

Subscribe

Enter your email address to get Amaz0ns in your inbox:

FeedBurner

Login

Welcome Guest.
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Related Items:
Gemma Atkinson morph
Friday, 17 October 2008


Gemma Atkinson morph No. 1 by ~LordDaroth on deviantART

Amazing photomanipulation by Lord Daroth, depicting Gemma Atkinson as a muscular Rosie the Riveter. (Rosie the Riveter is a World War II era American iconic character.)


Related Items:

Comments
Add NewSearch
GRISSSE   | Registered | 2008-10-17 16:47:46
It really is one of the best morphs I've seen.
cpbell0033944 - re:   | Registered | 2008-10-17 17:11:48
GRISSSE wrote:
It really is one of the best morphs I've seen.


Absolutely. Totally convincing. Who is she anyway?
Lingster   | Super Administrator | 2008-10-17 18:53:08
Some Limey skirt.
cpbell0033944 - re:   | Registered | 2008-10-18 09:26:39
Lingster wrote:
Some
Limey skirt.


Hey, us "Limeys" happen to be holding Afghanistan together for y'all.
Lingster   | Super Administrator | 2008-10-18 22:44:20
If you consumed something other than state-owned or state-censored media, you'd probably know by now that Limey performance in Afghanistan and Iraq has been something a bit short of show-stopping. We Americans appreciate that you're there - we really do especially since you're practically the only other country that stands up for liberty and democracy - but success demands a bit more than merely showing up.
Solarian     | Registered | 2008-10-19 01:40:16
What is a Limey?
cpbell0033944 - re:   | Registered | 2008-10-19 17:26:19
Lingster wrote:
If you consumed something other than state-owned or state-censored media, you'd probably know by now that Limey performance in Afghanistan and Iraq has been something a bit short of show-stopping. We Americans appreciate that you're there - we really do especially since you're practically the only other country that stands up for liberty and democracy - but success demands a bit more than merely showing up.


I've never heard so much bull in all my life. In all honesty, our soldiers acheive as with limited equipment and resources as US troops do with more. If you looked at the work that the British army has done, especially in Helmand province, you'll find a lot more than "just showing-up." We've also had this discussion about the BBC before, but, even if you stretch credibilty to its limits and call the BBC state TV (which it definitely isn't), then how do you explain TN news reports on ITV and Channel 4 saying the same, when the "I" in the initials stands for "independent"? They don't get any licence fees, you know - they're as commercial as ABC, NBC and especially the "Fair and Balanced" (*Hoots with derision) Fox News which receives its talking points straight from Pennsylvania Avenue but somehow isn't state TV.
cpbell0033944 - OK   | Registered | 2008-10-21 06:38:47
So I've looked at this and there does seem to have been criticism of the British army, mainly over the Prince Harry affair. The point is that Basra was always a lost cause because, whilst we had won the hearts and minds of the locals, the borders were too open (as a consequence of disatrous pre-war planning) thus enabling dissidents, extremeists and Al-Quaida to flood in and cause havoc. I would love to see how the US would cope with our troop numbers and resources - I still say they would not have acheived what we did.
Lingster - Basra   | Super Administrator | 2008-10-22 00:01:06
Basra was not a lost cause - it's come a long way since US troops replaced the Brits. And part of the problem is that the UK doesn't commit more resources to its military.

We try to treat our military personnel like they ought to be treated - people who have put their own lives on hold or at risk for the good of the country. In the UK they're treated like cast-offs. You Brits need to do a lot of thinking about where you're headed.
cpbell0033944 - re: Basra   | Registered | 2008-10-22 13:08:08
Lingster wrote:
Basr
a was not a lost cause - it's come a long way since US troops replaced the Brits. And part of the problem is that the UK doesn't commit more resources to its military.

We try to treat our military personnel like they ought to be treated - people who have put their own lives on hold or at risk for the good of the country. In the UK they're treated like cast-offs. You Brits need to do a lot of thinking about where you're headed.


We don't have the GDP to spend on our military like you do. That's why we couldn't pile huge troop numbers into Basra. It's easier for the US; you have alarge population and you are a very militaristic nation. If we spent a significantly higher %age, then other, home affairs would suffer. Having said that, political parties of both Labour and Conservative flavours have cut defence spending in recent years, so you have a point. I must say, though, I find it amusing when Americans are baffled as to why their popularity is low, when they're telling other countries to "do a lot of thinking about where you're headed." For one thing, you guys have a VERY important decision to make next month that requires a bit of reflective thought, and secondly, quite frankly, it's none of your business. What our government spends tax revenue on is their business with the approval of the British electorate. Your country has no right to tell us what we do; I sometimes think some of you folks treat us like you do Iraq of Iran; a backward, wayward state that needs intervention to force upon its citizens the patented All-American Way.
Only registered users can write comments!

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.
 
Next >
RocketTheme Joomla Templates