Pretty freaking pathetic that you feel the need to delete other people's posts when they point out the ridiculous nature of some of your claims. It's fair to say that that says a lot about you.

I used to work as a retoucher - these are photoshopped to death, and not exactly with a subtle hand either. I'm hesitant to post a negative comment given the almost uniform admiration others have expressed but this sort of thing just looks incredibly vulgar and artificial to me - almost bordering on kitsch. Seeing a…

Yes, for a religious state founded on ethnic cleansing which only in the past couple of years took away the religious test for citizenship it is a very "modern" country.

Yeah, Iran, Syria and just about every other country on the planet whose foreign policy is not directed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies.

Yeah, it "has its problems", like the fact that it was created by ethnically cleansing the native population and then doubled down by encroaching on said population's remaining lands on a daily basis. I guess those would count as "problems" alright...

Nobody I know talk like the narcissistic navel-gazing dweebs on this show. If they did I'd probably shoot them.

jesus christ, if ever there was a time for TinyUrl:

You're sorry if people who criticize religion get what they deserve? Because there certainly isn't anything in any of the absurd beliefs held in the name of religion that warrants harsh criticism, is there?

I wouldn't feel so smug, UK laws which allow the prosecution of people who criticize religion are disgusting. It's tragic how Albion has become such a pathetic nanny state.

What country on their "boarder" are you referring to?

Jesus you win the prize for stupidest thing I've read today. Read the other respondents comments for why.

How is what you claim a "scientific fact"? Care to cite some studies? Because I could cite plenty that demontrate that owning or having a gun in your home greatly increases the chance that you will be involved in a violent act.

The tl;dr of the above: women being "forced" to have sex is the same as actors giving a "forced" performance. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Your comment speaks for itself fuckface.

Hahaha! I pointed out your horseshit and now you're reduced to blathering about the fact that this is just a car site. I can't imagine what your godforsaken mother thinks of you, asshat.

He's the leader of the United States Senate. Have you perhaps noticed that we have been attacked by terrorists once or twice? Your comment is both moronic and utterly tasteless.

Your citation does not cover what is being discussed here unless you are talking about what is commonly referred to as "upskirt" shots - and even then the law does not ever seem to have been used for that purpose.

You are so fucking wrong about this it is not even funny. How could you even think that the fantasist nonsense you wrote above is true? But if you feel different just go ahead and post a link to a few of the thousands of legal cases that must spring from the imaginary scenario you just depicted.

deleted (posted in wrong place).

Shots taken with near perfect lighting in ideal conditions aren't really much of a test of a phone's camera. Show me some indoor low-light shots. Shots of moving objects. Shots taken with harsh direct sunlight on the subject, etc. etc.