HERE IS PRINCE HARRY NAKED ASS GETTING REALLY FRIENDLY WITH SOME CHICK IN LAS VEGAS OVER THE WEEKEND. AND FROM THE PHOTOS WE CAN SEE PRINCE HARRY HAD A REALLY FUN TIME PLAYING STRIP POOL WITH A BUNCH OF VEGAS SLUTS IN HIS HIGH ROLLER VIP SUITE.HARRY, ALONG WITH A LARGE ENTOURAGE, WENT DOWN TO THE HOTEL BAR AND MET A BUNCH OF YOUNG WOMEN… AND INVITED THEM UP TO HIS SUITE FOR A PARTY. SOME OF THE PARTY GOERS SNAPPED PHOTOS OF THE PRINCE PLAYING A GAME OF STRIP POOL THAT QUICKLY ESCALATED INTO FULL-ON ROYAL NUDITY. IN ONE PHOTO, A FULLY NUDE HARRY CUPS HIS GENITALS WHILE A TOPLESS WOMAN STANDS BEHIND HIM. IN ANOTHER PHOTO, A NAKED HARRY IS BEAR-HUGGING A WOMAN WHO APPEARS TO BE COMPLETELY NUDE AS WELL. THANKS TO TMZ FOR SHARING THE UNCENSORED PHOTOS.
The images of Queen Elizabeth’s grandson naked with an unnamed woman while on holiday are now unofficially banned in Britain, following a request from St James’s Palace, the official residence of the prince, through the Press Complaints Commission to respect his privacy. They might go so far as trying to get a court ordered injunction against the publication of the images in the UK similar to whatTulisa Contostavlos did to ban her leaked blowjob sex tape available for download here. But according to some reports, The Sun tabloid on Friday will publish photographs of Prince Harry naked in Las Vegas, becoming the first British publication to defy the request from the royal family’s lawyers. On Thursday The Sunpublished a photos on the cover of two models striking the same pose as the Prince and the unknown woman. These pics of Harry were not going to be posted on Gutter Uncensored however now we have to share since the “Royal Family” want to ban them. What happens in Vegas don’t always stay in Vegas… Enjoy! Click on pictures to enlarge.
Here is the cover with the models doing the pose to be safe for publication:
she’s all sexy a gosh-darn don’tcha know. Not bad looking legs on the Governor, she better get use to candid photos of her making it on the web. From her hairstyle to her politics, America remains obsessed with the female politician who seemingly came out of nowhere. She should follow in Barack’s footsteps; write a book or two
If you’ve ever watched a political convention on television, I’m sure you’ve thought it looks like a circus. People are running around, wearing funny hats and yelling at each other. And, yes, there are clowns.
And that’s exactly what’s it like when you’re there. In the summer of 1972, I was there — I had been elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach. That year, the party gathering was a special one, with all-night debate sessions about the explosive social issues of the day, and political activists joining elected officials as part of the delegation. They called it “The People’s Convention,” and it was an honor to be among citizens of all stripes — from all across the country — occupying one of the delegation’s coveted seats.
I’ll never forget one particular fellow delegate. She was in her 70s and a farmwoman from Sacramento, who’d sold two cows in order to finance her trip. Talk about your American dream story.
For all the fireworks and partisan posturing of campaign season in this nation, our electoral process remains a thing of brilliance — a living, breathing embodiment of the Founders’ vision of representative government. But to my mind, nothing illustrates the true magic of that singularly American process than those quadrennial gatherings of the party faithful — the conventions — which begin this week with the Republican convention in Tampa, Florida.
Sure, there’s lots of screaming at each other on the convention floor during those first heady days — not to mention trash-talking the “enemy” from the podium throughout the week. But political conventions are also places where dreams are born, hopes are realized, and careers are made. As messy as the proceedings can be, American electoral conventions are the shining model of democracy in action, and I know of no other country on earth that celebrates them with such noisy pride.
Like most conventions, the one I attended in 1972 had a little bit of everything. There was drama in the back room debates, as Democrats of varying shades of blue fought over whether to include a women’s right to choose in the party platform. (The measure was defeated — Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and all of the women there were crushed.) There was excitement, as delegates rallied behind our presidential nominee, candidate George McGovern, convinced he was the one to evict Richard Nixon from the White House. (Despite our enthusiasm, McGovern would go on to lose the general election in a humiliating landslide.)
There’s a reason for this broad-based cooling of affections. In the past four years, something like an organic consensus has emerged. Doubts that began with talk of “death panels” only grew with mutterings about “blood libel.” Over time, the reflexive Republican impulse to defend her honor became replaced with exhaustion and embarrassment.
Even some of the most devoted Palinites are left wondering what they were thinking.
Take David Kelly of Colorado Springs, the one-time treasurer of the Draft Sarah 2012 committee. In 2009, when I interviewed him, Kelly believed that Palin “represents the silent majority of this nation … she invokes what conservative America’s all about: God and Country.” Now he’s come to a different conclusion.
“You may be shocked to hear that I am no longer a Palin supporter,” he told me over the phone. “I think what attracted me to her in the first place was the fact that she’d say things that you’d hear at the Thanksgiving table when your relatives are there and go, ‘There’s my crazy aunt, but she nails it every time.’”
But now? “I realize that she’s another Republican talking head,” says Kelly, who is today a proud Ron Paul supporter. “I don’t think she has the caliber to make a great leader for this nation in these times … She’s off my radar. It’s a sad statement.”
Yes, it’s been a bad breakup. But signs of trouble were there for a long time. In December 2010, just one month after the Tea Party triumph, an ABC poll found that “59 percent of voters said they wouldn’t cast a ballot for Palin and only 8 percent of Americans said they’d ‘definitely’ vote for her.”
Almost a year later, in September 2011, a McClatchy-Marist poll found that “by 72 percent to 24 percent, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents do not want Palin to run for president in 2012. Even among Tea Party supporters—a group that likes Palin—68 percent do not want her to run.”
The polarization has faded in favor of a general understanding that for all her talents, Palin was not ready for presidential prime time. readmorehttp://chuliastreettulukan.blogspot.com/2012/08/former-vice-presidential-candidate.html
No comments:
Post a Comment