Christina Aguilera needs publicity; leaked nude photos

That's some serious knee bruisin' in the second pic. Also, some serious turned head action.

These photos aren't particularly flattering.

Are they older? Cause I remember her bottles having a bit more genie in them as of late.

This chick has a voice but its marred by being stupid and having bad publicists.

Methinks she had her implants removed or redone since having a kid. I recall her cleavage in the post "Dirty" era looking fakey. This is a move in the right direction. Still hate her music though…

How many fucking shoes does one person need? jesus

Oh man, I didn't even think of that! I just assumed she had a whole store closed down to shop in the way celebrities do and decided to take some slutty pics of the ridiculous stuff she was trying on. But duh, now that I actually look at it that does look like a bedroom or a giant closet or something. Man, that's just obscene, really makes you think of all the poor dead cows and starving kids in sweat shops...

I thought that was Courtney Love in that there first picture. I think it's time for her to release the "sex tape" which might be interesting.

Amber Who?

Ewww. How many hours does she have to sit in the prosthetics makeup chair every morning before she goes out?

How is six pairs of shoes an "obscene" amount of shoes? I think most people in this thread probably own that many shoes, and I'd think a performer would need even more. She could just have them organized in one location. You're only assuming that there are mountains of shoes just out of frame

Quoted to illustrate that digging deeper is not her forte.

Tzu,

Do you intend to follow me from thread to thread snickering insults, or "fixing" my posts by inserting unneeded unwanted punctuation? It grows vexatious..

FYI: The existence of an IGNORE FUNCTION has been confirmed. Why not explore that option?

Maybe because you just go around from thread to thread without actually reading or clicking on the links? For the record, that's one of the things that you get a time out for, which would be... like your 3rd or 4th?

The reason Tzu saved that was because if you clicked on the link (from the first post, which is what you are supposed to do) you would have seen a bunch of photos and they all had a wall of shoes behind her.



For the record, I don't think she has that many shoes for a person of her status. Most of those shoes are the same style \ brand just different colors. Yes.. I spent far too long looking at the photos to notice this.

Usually I do click the links, but in this case I didn't want to be exposed to more 'semi nudity' or whatever so I figured I'd post based on what I saw in the thread which I figure is the essential gist of the story. Ultimately, I underestimated the scale of her shoe collection, but frankly now it just looks like an appropriate amount of shoes to have IMHO. She no doubt gets given shoes by different companies as a gift in order to get her to wear them, and again, as a performer, she needs alot of different shoes because she's going to have to coordinate with varied costumes and outfits. I don't see what's so scandalopus about that. In her world, any fashion misstep is immediately pounced upon and ridiculed

Now, does your average every day person need those many pairs? No. If you got them for free though in a promotional capacity? I can't imagine many would turn them down

To the people outraged about the number of shoes: how do you feel about the number of cars Jay Leno owns? Or about the fan who posts pictures of his collection of hundreds of action figures?

I think owning hundreds of actions figures is a lot sadder than owning a hundred pairs of shoes.

You're both wrong! Wrong! The fact that a rich young woman has many fashion accessories is frankly shocking.

I wish I made as much money as she does. I'd build a nerd temple so extravagant its mere existence would turn people in a 30 mile radius back into virgins.

To me, there is a point at which the collection of material goods is indecent, which is the point at which you take more goods than you can reasonably make use of over the course of a week. Using one of your examples, I think that Leno's car collection is unconscionable. He'll never need that many cars and he must have a carbon footprint the size of a small city.

I seriously doubt Leno drives every single one of his cars as much as he would one car in a single week. It's not like he's employing fleets of drivers to drive them all around.

He's not driving them all, yes, which is part of my point. You don't need to drive a car for it to be bad for the environment. Those cars are antiques sitting in a large compound. I can only imagine the kind environmental impact doing the necessary maintenance on that many cars in various stages of disuse must have.

The way I see it, all those cars already existed. It's not like Leno had them made. And most likely, whoever owned them would be doing the same maintenance and upkeep. So one hundred guys with one antique car or one guy with a hundred antique cars doesn't seem to be a big difference to me.

Or theres the part where he made the money and he can spend it howver he wishes. Not to mention that even if he didn't own those cars someone would and I imagine they would be driving them.

There is also the other half of the problem, i.e. the moral problem of greed. What is the purpose of having that many cars? He could have funded a school, stocked a major city's food pantry, or done any number of other great things for the community with that money. Shunting that cash into worldly goods you'll rarely, if ever, use instead just seems loathsome.

He likes them, they make him happy, and he bought them with money he earned?

So you've never bought anything that had any other purpose beyond, "Cool, I like that, I want that"?

It seems to me we're being hypocritical when we drool over every poster the Alamo folks put out or the latest repackaged version of a movie we already own two copies of, but when Leno has a bunch of cars or Aguilera has a bunch of shoes, we tsk tsk and shake our heads at the waste.

I always get angry how other people spend their money and time. They should agree with me and do what I think is morally right with their money.

Leno has probably donated plenty to charities, and raised more besides.

I think the ideological difference we're going to run into here is that you seem to take the conservative/Malcom stance that a person owns his talents and fortunes while I'm going to disagree and side with the liberal/Rawls position that people get their talents largely through the accidents of birth and circumstance and have a responsibility to provide for the worse off.

Personally, I was a poor kid--I was considered terminal and then chronically ill, my late brother was terminally ill, my mother was chronically ill and the house brought in a net total of $8k a year for a family of five--from a rural background. So, I never had much then, and I grew up to be an adult on the extreme side of both political and social liberalism and liberal/authentic/non-hypocritical Christianity. So, no, I've never bought anything I don't plan on actively using. In fact, when things fall into disuse, I give them away to the less fortunate. That is, I do what I say we ought to do.

WG is the only poster I recall being openly disgusted with the wall of shoes originally and I think she's pretty consistent about consumerism as well.

Where does hard work fit into all of this? Based on this statement, the theory you espoused must presume that everyone works equally hard, with disparities in income predominantly coming from disparities in talent alone.

And I don't believe that. Many times, some people just work harder than others.

And people who work hard make differences more than people with talent.

Rawls' theory of distributive justice doesn't assume that all people work the same amount, rather it assumes talents are distributed arbitrarily and in unequal proportions, which create unfair sets of advantages and disadvantages. A common criticism of the idea that we should adjust for this is, as you point out, some people work really hard to either perfect extraordinary talent or take mediocre to meager amounts of talent to the next level while others just let their talents go to waste, which gives individuals a measure of ownership over their talents and the fortunes they build with them.

The rebuttals to this are, first, that hard work doesn't always make the difference. If you study really hard, are you going to be able to do physics as well as Einstein? If you practice really hard, are you going to play shortstop like Derek Jeter? Probably not. Some people are naturally more advantaged than others no matter the choices we make and it's weird to think that they should think that their advantages are "theirs" to the point that they can and ought to do whatever they wish with them.

The second common rebuttal is that developing your talents takes resources, whether those resources are the availability of time or material in nature. Such resources are also distributed arbitrarily. If you have cancer or your dad is beating the shit out of you all the time, for example, you probably aren't going to have much opportunity to perfect whatever natural strengths you do have.

I have to say that I am very impressed with you all. A thread with the words "Christina", "Aguilera" and "nude" in the title has been created and a very interesting discussion about consumerism and the moral use of money lies within.

That's why these boards are the best on the web.

Boobies! Damn she a skank. I'd hit dat shizzit! RMFLAO!*





*Sorry, after that last post I felt it necessary to bring down the tone a bit.

Certainly hard work doesn't always make the difference. But it very often does. And we're not necessarily discussing the Derek Jeters and Albert Einsteins of the world. As in all things, often the critical thoughts or moments come from people who are only there because of hard work.

And disadvantages are often as important as advantages in developing your talents. Few super rich kids are neurosurgeons. And of course, few super poor kids are either. Perhaps rewards are a driver. Some are motivated by altruism, and some are motivated by spending $70K on a car.

Life isn't fair. It is never going to be.

Nicely done

So, do you own more DVD's and CD's than you can reasonably make use of over the course of a week?

I always love the "I grew up poor so other people shouldn't spend money" line of social liberalism. It's that sort of shit that makes conservatives think we have no sense of humour or no fun in life.

If I had a time machine, you know what I'd do? I'd go back in time, not to fuck Gene Tierney or stop the Holocaust or hang out with Robert Altman on the set of Nashville or any other really cool things. No, friends, I am so goddamn sick and tired of hearing him talk about it that I would go back in time and give Cuch's ancestors a fuck-ton of money and stock tips so that he wouldn't have to grow up dirt poor. Then I would travel through time to the future, find a cure for cancer, and bring that to the mid 90s so we wouldn't have to hear about how he had cancer and how his brother had cancer. Then I would personally go back to the first century A.D. and shoot Jesus in the fucking head so he'd shut the fuck up about that, too. I'd also destroy the founders of socialism and social liberalism and whatever philosophical bullshit he's choosing to spew this week. I'd also remove the idea of pegging from the historical record, because I'm cruel.

Finally, I'd go and I'd kill the inventer of soapboxes, so he wouldn't have one to stand on.

Shut up, dude. Just shut the fuck up. Please. Nobody cares. I guarantee you there are people on these boards who have had it just as hard as you, but they don't constantly bring it up. You're not going to get laid off this. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Merry Christmas to us all!

Are you feeling better now?

Have you shut the fuck up about your dirt-poor upbringing? If so, then maybe.

You realize that you just wrote a multiple paragraph screed tearing into someone you've never met and who has never written a single bad thing about you, right? You seem to have anger issues.

Let me ask you a question, Cuch: Do you ever have more crazy broads than you could ever go through in a single week? When does the number of bug-fuck women who you can't seem to break away from become obscene?

I don't have anger issues. I just think you're a bit of an ass.

How about the two of you not respond to each other. This boards big enough for the two of you. Thanks!

"Become Rath..."

Oh, okay, so this is one of those situations where we just let Cuch be a moron, without anybody really saying "You're stupid, and you shoud stop talking." Just like we let Kate be a bigot, because she's retarded. I see. Good to know.

Seriously, fuck this shit. Kind of a shame that a place I spent a large portion of my development as a movie-goer, as a film fan, a place that taught me a lot and got me through some really rough times, has so thoroughly gone down the toilet. It's a joint I keep returning to, hoping the morons and the inanity would at last die down, has become such a fucking cesspool of "don't rock the boat/turn your brain off/everyone's entitled to their own opinion" bullshit.

See you guys whenever. Been real.

Calm down, man. Breathe slow.

HAHAHAA

There are certainly ways of expressing displeasure at someone without resorting to personal attacks. The line is fine, to be sure, but if you can't find the line then just leave him alone.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Made my day. Thank you, A & P. You are the new Purple Jesus.

That didn't go how I thought it would.