Re: My Little Lupe's 4th week photo show
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:02 am
Wow! what a little stunner, great photos
The world's definitive resource on love dolls and erotic dolls for adults since 2001.
https://dollforum.com/forum/
Thanks Gabrielle1, I'll pass the message along to Little LupeGabrielle1 wrote:That Lupe is one FINE doll... wow.
Thanks Dollscrazy, I gave her ass a kiss for you, it burnt my lipsDollscrazy wrote:HOT BABY!!!
Kharn, thanks for your kind wordskharn wrote:Wow! what a little stunner, great photos
Yeah, and during this photo shot Jenny was in the background saying, Yeah, but who is John Gult?dollyforme wrote:I'm sure that we'll be seeing many more Lupe dolls in the future. The 60lbs is the deal maker for many would be doll buyers. I see many are just waiting for their Lupe to arrive or are saving up to buy one. I hope Abyss doesn't wear out their molds making all of them!
They'd be making a very good choice in getting a Lupe. I can't wait to see other new Lupe pictures
Go for it FENRISULFR! A sister for Agnetha would be greatFENRISULFR wrote:If Agnetha was to get a silicone sister, your girl would tick the box, grrrrrrrrreat.
narcissus wrote:I like this comment that Big D. has with this photo , it's a play on the proletarians rally whine (see the Communist Manifesto for reference)
Little Lupe: Viva la revolution! Sexy dolls unite. Demand better working conditions, more shinny thing to wear, the keys to the car....
Big D. Lups you can't even sit up on the bed by youself.
That's hilarious!
If Lups is looking for handouts, I'll give my hands out to her alright!
Mexdollover! Great to hear from you again. Haven't heard from you since before my Little Lupe got here. I just tapped her ass one time for youMexdollover wrote:
put a comunist hat with a star in the front and you have a super cute "guerrillera"
those lips are killing me!
lupe is H O T !!!!!!!!!!!!!
congratulations, great poses, great doll!
JoyDivision wrote:
Yeah, and during this photo shot Jenny was in the background saying, Yeah, but who is John Galt?
I put that in cause I had a feeling I'm at present going through the audio book of, you know what. Almost at the end, I'm at "the speech". She could have easily cut this to about 1/12 the size and called it....Let me think of a good title.....The Fountain Head.narcissus wrote:JoyDivision wrote:
Yeah, and during this photo shot Jenny was in the background saying, Yeah, but who is John Galt?
Years ago I was pulled over for blowing a red light late at night and one of the two cop cars that surrounded my vehicle a cop from one of them asked "So, I have to ask, 'Who is John Galt?'" for he saw it on my car. Only person that ever asked me about him in all the years I had it on my car. As I was telling him who he is, the other officer was issuing me a fine and 4 points I think it was on my liscence.
JoyDivision wrote: I put that in cause I had a feeling I'm at present going through the audio book of, you know what. Almost at the end, I'm at "the speech". She could have easily cut this to about 1/12 the size and called it....Let me think of a good title.....The Fountain Head.
Yes, Objectivists wonder if it is moral to be on such programs, seeing how VERY opposed they are to the entire system that makes such programs possible. It basically goes like this man: I would go on it as a way of getting the money that was taken off of me by force, back. And still be oppsed to the system as a whole, and actively work towards making this whole country, not Go Galt! but rather, go laissez-faire capitalistic. Work towards the abolition of such programs based upon taxation. Now one is free to voluntarily contibute their money to such things, sure go ahead, but don't fucking include me in on it by force, you know? That's how it would work in LFC.JoyDivision wrote: But seriously, what do you think of Ms. Rand being on SSI and Medicare at the time of her death.
I'm all about individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, myself.JoyDivision wrote:I'm all for the power of the individual, but not the uber being or an aristocracy.
No, but I saw clips. There will be a Part 2, and probably a Part 3.JoyDivision wrote:P.S. Did you see the movie?
Don't you think this is a bit of an oxymoron, seeing how she seemed to be against the initiation of force (even though she thought it was right for European colonists to take land from the American Indian), and how the fist, weather used in a violent act or not, is the symbol of violence. It suggest that you get in line with her philosophy by will or by force.narcissus wrote:
I actually have her name tattooed on my hand, I have 'RAND' across the tops of my fingers, and 'ayn' in the middle of my knuckles, so when I make a fist it reads:
ayn
RAND
My other fist reads: "A is A" across it.
Ok, I want to first make one thing clear, I like Ayn Rand Love this country. I think at one time it was the greatest country in the history of the world, though even during it's time of greatness it practiced institutionalized slavery and racism. One of the things that I think Ms. Rand failed to see that made this country great is it's system of checks and balances, and it's duel party system. The so called founding fathers of this country knew that any extremist philosophy or political practice would not work.narcissus wrote:Yes, Objectivists wonder if it is moral to be on such programs, seeing how VERY opposed they are to the entire system that makes such programs possible. It basically goes like this man: I would go on it as a way of getting the money that was taken off of me by force, back. And still be oppsed to the system as a whole, and actively work towards making this whole country, not Go Galt! but rather, go laissez-faire capitalistic. Work towards the abolition of such programs based upon taxation. Now one is free to voluntarily contibute their money to such things, sure go ahead, but don't fucking include me in on it by force, you know? That's how it would work in LFC.JoyDivision wrote: But seriously, what do you think of Ms. Rand being on SSI and Medicare at the time of her death.
Now this is an interesting way to look at it. I use logic and reason, instead of my fists, but will if I have to.JoyDivision wrote: Don't you think this is a bit of an oxymoron, seeing how she seemed to be against the initiation of force[...]and how the fist, weather used in a violent act or not, is the symbol of violence. It suggest that you get in line with her philosophy by will or by force.
Sure, she was very right. I have a quote that explains her position clearly:JoyDivision wrote: (even though she thought it was right for European colonists to take land from the American Indian)
Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.
All I will say is that Atlas Shrugged is America's Second Declaration of Independence - Onkar Ghate think sthat it should be consdiered that in a lecture, and this is the summary of the lecture which I could link to if wanted:JoyDivision wrote: One of the things that I think Ms. Rand failed to see that made this country great is it's system of checks and balances, and it's duel party system. The so called founding fathers of this country knew that any extremist philosophy or political practice would not work.
In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But from inception, and from both within and without, the ideals of the new nation were under attack.
Without a full justification of an individual’s moral right to pursue his own life and happiness—not serve his neighbors, God or country—the nation was vulnerable, and its founding principles were slowly chipped away. In 1957 the missing justification came with the publication of Atlas Shrugged. On this, the book’s 50th anniversary, we will examine the moral revolution launched by Ayn Rand, without which the political revolution of the Founding Fathers had to remain incomplete. We will see what this moral revolution has meant for America so far, and what it promises for the future. We will see why Atlas Shrugged should be considered America’s second Declaration of Independence—a declaration not of political but of moral independence.
It doesn't muddy a thing, this is Objectivism in practice, Objectivism applied to the real world. You pay taxes on shit, you have your money taken off of you that you earned, you have sales taxes, etc. The point is, getting on such programs is NOT immoral, as it acts to get some or all your money back, many think it would be immoral if they got on such programs since they are against those types of entitlement programs to begin with. Now, trying to end/abolish those entitlement programs altogether is the key though, of course.JoyDivision wrote: My answer, Ayn Rand being the creator of the concept of objectivism should have been operating at the highest standard of it, and that this served to muddy the waters of her philosophy in practice.
Oh, but there are. There would be a government. To protect and uphold individual rights. Laws, courts, cops, national defense...JoyDivision wrote:As for laissez-faire capitalism, to me that's like saying there should be no rules of the road.
Anyone is free to be benign or malignant. The choice is theirs. But there are rules of the road that can be enforced, just like today. You'll have a mix of people doing bad things, and people not. Just like today. But probably less than today.JoyDivision wrote:That all capitalist are benign and to be totally trusted not to engage in activities that could and would hurt others.
Yes, we better chill on this talk openly before anyone whines, or PM's are fired off at us both from staff here, or the staff comes with scissors to cut this part of the thread.JoyDivision wrote:Hey, but again, this is a doll site so before my Antonio Salieri chimes in or shoots me another PM, what about these great looking dolls . I will clear up this reference in another post of yours about some pictures I was politely asked to take down.
http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/in ... ?cat=13541
This is great stuff Narcissus, and I am willing to continue this in PM, but I have a few last things to say on the matter from this thread. This thread that I started, and as such feel that it is akin to my house or, private property to maintain. (yeah I know thought Nazi's or Antonio Salieri, it's an open forum), I'm not referring to you Narc, but getting back to you, if after I've addressed a few issues younarcissus wrote:Yes, we better chill on this talk openly before anyone whines, or PM's are fired off at us both from staff here, or the staff comes with scissors to cut this part of the thread.JoyDivision wrote:Hey, but again, this is a doll site so before my Antonio Salieri chimes in or shoots me another PM, what about these great looking dolls . I will clear up this reference in another post of yours about some pictures I was politely asked to take down.
JoyDivision wrote:(even though she thought it was right for European colonists to take land from the American Indian)
...(anyone else reading this can read the quote elsewhere in this thread.narcissus wrote:Sure, she was very right. I have a quote that explains her position clearly:
This is from the book Ayn Rand Answers:
JoyDivision wrote: One of the things that I think Ms. Rand failed to see that made this country great is it's system of checks and balances, and it's duel party system. The so called founding fathers of this country knew that any extremist philosophy or political practice would not work.
Jefferson and Rand have one thing in common, they were both hypocrites. Jefferson for postulating the notion that for the first time in history there was a nation dedicated to the individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while all the while owning slaves. The ones who's muddied hands and broken backs really went to building this nation as much as any others. And Ayn Rand, "A is A". Rational thought is supreme. She's right about that, so why would such a rational person, who knew the heath risk of smoking, be such an avid and flamboyantly heavy smoker? How could she rationalize her habit? A is....blank out. She died from her....blank out. There are other example I could list but i've taken up way too much time on this.narcissus wrote:All I will say is that Atlas Shrugged is America's Second Declaration of Independence - Onkar Ghate think sthat it should be consdiered that in a lecture, and this is the summary of the lecture which I could link to if wanted:
In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But from inception, and from both within and without, the ideals of the new nation were under attack.
I know that.JoyDivision wrote: Just because she says so doesn't automatically make it so
Right, but the use of retaliatory force, in defense, is perfectly fine. This is not that libertarian crapola, we can go after rogue governments elsewhere in the world if we really wanted to, because humans are humans whereever they are, and have rights. Oh and you are misspelling the books title purposely like that, which I don't find amusing.JoyDivision wrote: In this case, she's contradicting herself. In this quote you have of her she's saying Europeans had the right to initiate force, but in the speech from her book, Atlas Shredded, as utterly long winded as it is, John Galt says that no man has the right to initiate violence against another man, period.
A baby is born into a country that is already ruled by objective law, which states that when they are born, they have certain rights that must be respected.JoyDivision wrote: A baby has less since than a so called savage, does that mean if anyone wanted to do what ever they wanted to babies, because their not developed to a certain stage, that it's ok, smack the baby, kick the baby, kill the baby, that's ok? See, I can make the same kind of dumb remarks using the exact kind of line of "reasoning" she does.
But at the time, it was different then. You are acting like they know what we know of today about different races being the same, since we are all humans, we should all have the same rights. Not all thought of them like that then, obviously. Rand's writing on racism is the best that I have ever read on the subject, it's in her The Virtue of Selfishness.JoyDivision wrote: Jefferson and Rand have one thing in common, they were both hypocrites. Jefferson for postulating the notion that for the first time in history there was a nation dedicated to the individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while all the while owning slaves.
Once she found out the health issues with smoking, she quit.JoyDivision wrote: The ones who's muddied hands and broken backs really went to building this nation as much as any others. And Ayn Rand, "A is A". Rational thought is supreme. She's right about that, so why would such a rational person, who knew the heath risk of smoking, be such an avid and flamboyantly heavy smoker? How could she rationalize her habit?
Don't worry, I don't like assholes at all. I stay away from them.JoyDivision wrote:Don't be so far up her ass that you can't see the light of day anymore.