en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/528691 Comments by greggy http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23819304 How has Sarah Palin behaved "hypocritically" on the issue of premarital sex? Because Bristol got pregnant, against her mother's wishes, at a premature age - how does that make Sarah Palin "hypocritical" on the issue? It doesn't - and if you weren't a moron I wouldn't have to explain this to you. She most certainly did not "invite" these attacks on her family.. Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:21:57 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23819304 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23818804 Correct Vince - you are both an a--hole and a moron also, because you agree with Rob's moronic comment. Anyone who thinks making a joke about statutory rape at the expense of a 14 year old girl, is fine - is by definition both an a--hole and a moron. So since the shoes fit, it's nice that you're at least willing to wear them. Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:13:31 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23818804 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23818477 Rob, is that your definition of a joke? A 14 year old girl's statutory rape by a 30-something baseball player during the 7th inning stretch? If so, you have a sick sense of humor. And of course it's left-wing ideology - David Letterman is a liberal hack, who states on his show that he can't make any jokes at Obama's expense because he's just so great. Palin didn't "ask for it", you moron - and neither did her 14 year old daughter. You're an idiot. Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:08:32 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/09/letterman-jokes-about-the-statutory-rape-of-14-year-old-willow-palin-funny/#IDComment23818477 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22661035 Don't be too surprised if there are some cruel, uncomprehending miscreants in the audience Saturday - who boo her when she comes out. Or some scumbag who calls out something rude to her, even in the middle of her performance - just to try and trigger a trainwreck while drawing attention to themselves. If I was there and anyone did that, they wouldn't be leaving the facility with all their teeth. Fri, 29 May 2009 23:12:10 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22661035 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22660319 Amen! See my comments, Greggy Fri, 29 May 2009 23:07:29 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22660319 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22659892 We still don't know how nasty and ugly those two tabloid rag sub-humans were to Susan - chances are darn good they hassled and insulted her, hurt her, hoping to get exactly the reaction they got - in order to first "create" a story, then report it, in order to sell more of their bile to the public. If I'd have been there they'd have been confronted harshly - I don't tolerate scum who pick on middle-aged women with learning disabilities.The cynics, the low, cruel, craven dirtbags attacking this woman - if they had any conscience at all, if it were even possible to shame them, they would be ashamed. Interesting how such low persons, so ugly on the inside, often rant on about how ugly they perceive her to be on the outside. These people see someone else who has struggled, who has had problems, and pain, and loneliness and loss, and overcome these things to achieve success and to inspire tens of millions across the planet - and they MUST attack it, they must destroy it, they must belittle it. They must do so out of ugliness, out of jealousy, out of cynicism, out of depravity - it's in their nature. Fri, 29 May 2009 23:04:25 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FTKF80#IDComment22659892 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22083390 Certainly seems so..TV Guide said he was "openly gay", and there are some photos on the web which certainly appear to confirm that - one in which he's kissing a man, which was my first clue. Sat, 23 May 2009 01:37:52 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22083390 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22083315 Seems unlikely - although he may have provided certain services to sailors on leave, who lacked better options. Still, that seems like a lesser service than earning a silver star as a Seal in Afghanistan. Sat, 23 May 2009 01:35:36 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22083315 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22079771 Clay has an opinion about the music, and he is entitled to it. Lambert has a great talent, but it's art - and no one is required to like it. Lambert has a particular style of singing and performing, and he is very good at it - but some people like pop music, some people like country, some like hard rock, and some (God Forbid) like rap. Different genres of music, different styles of singing, different styles of performing, appeal to different people. I liked several of Adam's performances. Kris's preferred songs and style of performing had a wider appeal. When you wear "guyliner" and black nail polish, and are skilled at wailing (as well as a certain type of singing), and when you exude confidence and braggadocio, you will excite and appeal to a certain segment of the populace. When you are more down to earth and conventional, but still have interesting and different interpretations of songs like Kris, you may have a broader appeal. I don't care for Clay's music as much as I do Adam's or Kris's, but there's no rational denial that he is a talented singer, and has enough knowledge about music to be entitled to his opinion. Because Clay is gay, should he be required to like Adam's music or way of singing, just because Adam's gay? Because Clay is gay, is he required to keep his mouth shut and not express that opinion, because Adam's gay? The issue of sexual preference is and should be irrelevant when discussing the merits of the music. Aiken's comments didn't register as personal attacks, they were about styles of singing and interpreting songs. There's nothing wrong with that. No question that Adam's going to be a huge star. All of this wailing about Adam losing because of his sexuality, is BS. Adam didn't win because of several factors, and his sexuality was the least among them. Anyone who watched the talented Chris Daughtry get voted off a couple of years ago, well before Lambert did - knows that Idol is unkind to the edgier, more hard rocking contestants. I don't feel sorry for Lambert - he's going to be mega-rich, mega-loved, and his "losing" was better for someone like him, a renegade with a strong hint of danger, than "winning" would have been. Look at Daughtry, running circles around the three who finished ahead of him. I wish Kris tremendous success, and hope that the Idol "machine" won't hold him back. If he ever loses his grounding or his active faith, and loses that cutie he married, he will have lost everything and have been better off never winning. Best to all of them. I hear that Queen is interested in re-constituting the group, with Adam replacing Freddie - that's a good fit, and one that would still allow Adam a solo career apart from the band. Again, I dig Kris teh most, Adam 2nd, and don't care that much for Clay's music, but Clay's entitled to expressing his musical opinion without personal attacks. Sat, 23 May 2009 00:11:33 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BG10O0#IDComment22079771 http://topics.breitbart.com/Keith Lewis/#IDComment21282022 I would very much like to see Carrie sue some of these craven people - I'd like to think she has a very good lawsuit against Shanna Moakler, for blabbing her private medical information to the press in a transparent dirty trick to punish Carrie for her honest answer at the pageant. Shanna "I stripped down naked for a jackoff magazine" Moakler has no business passing judgments on Carrie Prejean. Shanna has known Carrie for how long, and still can't even pronounce her last name correctly? After bashing Carrie's honest "no offense" answer initially, they now try to claim that they support her in expressing her beliefs in her answer - sorry, but that ship has sailed and there's a record of your initial condemnations of her answer. Keith Lewis is a dirtbag too, he just stood aside and let Perez Hilton berate and profane Carrie, then sent him a letter basically saying he agreed with Perez in his attacks. Info is circulating that after the results were announced, Shanna and Keith abandoned Carrie and left her to fend for herself. It looks very likely that they have pressured her to apologize for her answer. Now these photos surface, which look like they're straight out of a Disney film compared to Shanna's Playboy mag spread. Even Eugene McCarthy would blush at the type of tactics these pigs are using against her. Perez Hilton's agenda was to gain an endorsement for his cause, and if he didn't get it, to damage her as much as he could and draw attention to himself. And yet, nowhere in any of this has anyone from the Miss USA pageant stepped up to admit that a question like this is too divisive, and that no matter how it's answered, will divide the people in the state she represents. If either answer will alienate and divide the populace, then the question cannot be answered in a way that "represents everyone" to their satisfaction. That question, was the cause of everything that followed - including the whole P.C. witch hunt. What diversity and tolerance mean to liberals, is that conservatives must respect all of their views - but it's strictly a one-way street. When we express our point of view, we get savaged and torn to pieces, called every name in the book, spit on, disrespected, destroyed. The thing Trump needs to remember is that this all started with a question that shouldn't have been asked, and that the hateful ugliness that followed toward Carrie was inexcusable. She was made to feel ostracized and unwelcome by the idiots who should have had her back, and stood by her side. Once the despicable Perez Hilton had called her those cruel, hateful, and unnecessary curse words, Keith and Shanna and Donald Trump should have come down on him like a ton of bricks. Instead, they were at best indifferent to the vulnerable position she was in, and at worst, they joined in on the abuse. Disgraceful.. Tue, 12 May 2009 04:56:07 +0000 http://topics.breitbart.com/Keith Lewis/#IDComment21282022 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D980A5J00#IDComment20868701 Part Two - Why hasn't anyone in the media bothered to ask the Miss USA Pageant organizers why a blatantly divisive question was allowed to be asked, by a judge with a single-issue axe to grind? Why doesn't the media make the obvious connection that the release of these 4 year old photos is a blatant attempt to destroy someone who disagrees with the PC position on gay marriage? Ditto Shanna Moakler's vengeful blabbing about Miss Prejean's breast augmentation. Why does the media ALWAYS fail to mention that in Miss Prejean's home state of California, a plurality of Californians agree with her belief that marriage should be between a man and woman? Why does the media not mention the distinct possibility/probability that the woman selected as Miss USA, agrees with Miss Prejean's answer - based on her avoidance of it when questioned by Matt Lauer? Why is the media not the least bit interested in the blatantly unconstitutional suppression of Miss Prejean's religious views, when the Miss California pageant director Keith Lewis put the admonition into writing? Why doesn't the media question Keith Lewis on the logic of the pageants allowing divisive questions with a blatantly religious dimension, if the contestants are not allowed to mention religion in their answers? Why does the media not point out that Miss Prejean never even mentioned her religious beliefs in answering the question? Why does the media rarely ever remind their readers that Miss Prejean has publicly stated more than once that she DID NOT WANT, and in fcat DREADED getting that question, and that her heart sank when she drew Perez Hilton's name, because she knew he'd probably ask that question? Why does the Miss California pageant accuse her of having had an opportunistic agenda regarding this issue from the start, when they know full well that she never asked for this to start with, and had no way of knowing she'd draw Perez Hilton as her inquisitioner? Why does Matt Lauer and msnbc state verbally and in on-screen type, that "nude photos" of Miss Prejean have "surfaced" (were they floating in a lake somewhere, and just floated to the surface on their own like some racy message in a bottle?), instead of using the words "semi-nude", "racy", "scantily clad" etc.? We have not seen nor heard that there are any "nude" photos of Miss Prejean out there from anyone else, and apparently that is not true. Doesn't nude mean wearing no clothes at all, and wouldn't you expect to see full breasts and nipples, and a bare backside in truly "nude" photos? It's a deliberate distortion and exaggeration. The article states "The contract also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." Really? And Lisa Leff sees no irony in the fact that the pageant directors are now engaged in a full on witch hunt, scrambling for sold skeletons in her closet, in order to take Miss Prejean's crown away precisely BECAUSE of her moral standards regarding gay marriage? I think that based on a number of issues, not least of which being the gay Keith Lewis's conflict of interest and obvious bias, and especially his highly legally questionable comments condemning Miss Prejean's right to express a viewpoint when asked, that has a religious foundation underpinning it - the pageant director had better be walking on eggshells. Miss Prejean may have a very actionable cause, when in the course of the next few days the Miss California pageant inevitably takes away her title. The obviously vengeful and PC nature of their efforts to find other reasons to disqualify her, would seem to be quite provable in a court of law. This is PC/gay McCarthyism at its' ugliest, and the media have covered this story very poorly, in many cases not bothering in the least to conceal their anti-Christian bigotry and pro-gay marriage bias. Journalism is dead, dead, dead. Wed, 6 May 2009 07:47:30 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D980A5J00#IDComment20868701 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D980A5J00#IDComment20868681 Part One - Honestly, can you believe how low the national media has sunk in abandoning all pretenses of objectivity between conservatism, and liberalism/Political Correctness? LISA LEFF, the shameless Associated Press writer of this story, brings an obvious axe to grind, and it isn't difficult at all to determine where she stands on the issue of gay marriage - consider the brazen wording in this story "The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances..." Heh, heh - get it? TITular? As in, she's had breast augmentation surgery? It was a real Beavis and Butthead or South Park style snarky jibe - without even a pretense of plausible denial. How many times in the last year, or five years, have you used the word "titular" in a conversation? Right - zero. Journalism is dead, dead, dead. Where is the media's aggressive investigation of whether Perez Hilton knew that Miss California was religious, and may have known that she worships at a church that was involved in the Prop 8 movement - and targeted her based on this? Where is the media's aggressive investigation of why the Miss USA pageant organizers invited an utterly classless, talentless gay gossip to be part of the panel? Why have their been no mentions of the fact that Hilton achieved notoriety by engaging in vicious and malicious gossip at the expense of others, and by drawing semen leaking or penises hanging out of the mouths of his targets, or cocaine trails leaking from their noses? Is anyone in the media even remotely curious as to why such a person became a panelist for the pageant in the first place? Has anyone in the media stopped to ponder what the hue and cry would be, if a religious broadcaster had been assigned to the panel of judges, and asked a contestant the same question - then given a pro-gay marriage contestant a ZERO score for her answer? And if the next day, the religious broadcaster called the young pro-gay marriage woman a "dumb b*tc*"? And the day after that, called her a "c*nt"? The media would go into full nuclear meltdown over it. Wed, 6 May 2009 07:46:59 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D980A5J00#IDComment20868681