By well-known nudist, Aleister Mattsnow 04:11, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mattsnow. In the crazy political world that is the United States, this does have logic behind it. If it somehow gets featured (wha?) a bottom pic can be added (although there are two bottom pics on the page already). Aleister /facepalm 4:36 30-3-'12
This idea came to me while talking to a friend about the pending Supreme Court decision on American health-care, and it made total sense. Thanks to Mattsnow nomming it, I fleshed it out a bit (pun intended) and explained more clearly what the page was getting at - a satirical representation of a real-world situation. With such a ruling as they are likely to announce, someone can probably get away with this or at least have enough to go to trial, being free to walk around nude until the case is tried. Which brings us to, the nudity.
I just popped in the pictures that seemed to fit the page. We can do nudity in articles, decided on a forum thread from awhile ago. This is only the second time I've done so. But these felt right, and by using the pics to illustrate a believable satire seemed okay to me. Since we can't have nudity on the main page, I also popped in a pic of Hillary Dufr, cute enough for the front page. In any case, thanks to Mattsnow for nomming this page, I never expected that, and to those who vote for it. Aleister
Gee, I just thought it was an excuse to get naked people into an UnNews article! ~jcm 19:26, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Nope. This is only the second time I've used a naked pic, both in context. People can really walk around naked in the U.S. once the Supreme Court knocks down the law, the logic of it seems solid. Aleister 20:23 April Foolishness
Well, I'm a conservative, so logic doesn't apply to me. Obamacare is an attempt by a tyrannical regime to destroy America, and though our arguments to strike it down might seem illogical, it's only for the good of this fine nation. The fact that it'll also help pry a socialist Muslim from office is only a plus. ~jcm 20:47, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, then you misread the page. I'm against the mandate too. It shouldn't drag the whole law down though, although it might. The page is about the unexpected consequence of the argument the court will likely use to strike it down. Aleister 20:55 same day