Thursday, June 25, 2009



Once again, the thoughts come out in a heated moment

I don't suppose it's big news but many homosexuals don't think very highly of one-another either:
"Police have charged the tour manager of the Black Eyed Peas with assault after he allegedly gave celebrity blogger Perez Hilton a black eye outside a Toronto nightclub.

Hilton said he got into an argument with band members Fergie and will.i.am at the Cobra nightclub early Monday morning and was punched outside by Polo Molina, the band's tour manager. They were at the club following a Sunday night video awards show.

Hilton, who is openly gay, said in interview with The Associated Press that he called will.i.am a "faggot," a gay slur, inside the club after the musician told the blogger not to write about his band on his Web site.

Source

The homosexual "community" now seems intent on excommunicating their one-time hero over his use of such a naughty word. Details of the furore here.

77 comments:

Brian from Virginia said...

The way I see this situation is that Perez Hilton got exactly what he deserved. He was being a jerk, his emotions got the better of him, and he got a punch in the face. Most people would look back on that as a learning experience, figure out what they did wrong and how to avoid getting punched again if they disliked it so much, and not go crying on TV about how they wronged.

Then again, I learned these lessons back in junior and senior high school before all the touchy-feely PC crap about no fighting started. I would be willing to guess that Perez never fought a battle like that in school, so he never learned where to draw the line. That he might have some personal responsibility for the incident doesn't seem to even be a possibility to him leads me to this conclusion.

Bobby said...

Sorry Brian, I disagree, the Black Eye Peas are public figures, as such, the media has the right to criticize them.

Lately celebrities and their goon associates feel entitled to punch the paparazzis and in this case, celebrity bloggers.

It's not a question of deserving it, I've been disrespected by people in the workplace yet I don't go punching people in the face.


"would be willing to guess that Perez never fought a battle like that in school"

---I will assume he got his ass kicked many times in high school. High School is hell, if you're not strong enough and if you stand out too much, the jocks will make an example out of you.

The only thing I will criticize about Perez is that pussy video of him crying like a girl. That was disgusting, NEVER SHOW WEAKNESS, that's what I believe in.

Anonymous said...

Brian hit the nail on the head. People are not learning vital lessons on conflict anymore. Example: If you are a jerk you may get a punch in the nose.

Anonymous said...

Hilton lost sight of the fact that his blogging world is not the real . When you slur everyone and everything on the WWW, photoshop pictures of people with ...stains all over their faces, you gotta expect to get paid back. He got less than he deserved.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Brian, I disagree, the Black Eye Peas are public figures, as such, the media has the right to criticize them.

This has been a meme of yours for quite sometime now Bobby. You really need to get over the jealousy.

Lately celebrities and their goon associates feel entitled to punch the paparazzis and in this case, celebrity bloggers.

People are entitled to defend themselves when they feel threatened. The exchange between Hilton and will.i.am was heated. Perez admits that he was getting in the face of the guy when the manager stepped in to break them up.

Public figure or not, no one has to take being jostled by the media and papparazi that you appear to love. No one has to endure being stalked by the press. No one has to feel threatened by the actions of people under the guise of them being a "public figure."

Being a "public figure" means that that the person loses some abilty to sue for damages in civil courts. It does not mean that those who attack them, jostle them, push them, or threaten them are immune to criminal actions.

It wil be interesting to see what happens in the case. In Canada, Hilton's verbal assault would be considered "hate speech" and therefore the guy has a right to defend himself. Whether that right extends to the manager I have no idea.

No matter what, being a celebrity does not mean that you are a pinata for everyone who wants to make a buck off of your name and reputation.

I believe that for all the times Hilton has trashed people in his rise to the top of the trash heap, this is a case where he doesn't want the same rules he applies to others to apply to him.

Hypocrisy thy name is Perez Hilton.

Anonymous said...

If the Federal Government had passed the "Hate" Crimes bill, then Hilton would be looking at a long Federal Prison sentence, while Polo would only be getting a short Misdemeanor time of a couple of months in a county jail.

Mobius

Bobby said...

"People are entitled to defend themselves when they feel threatened. The exchange between Hilton and will.i.am was heated. Perez admits that he was getting in the face of the guy when the manager stepped in to break them up."

---So do all your heated exchanges turn into violence? I've had heated exchanges, it was the asshole manager that went to Perez Hilton and started telling him how to do his job, it was the asshole manager who ridicule'd Hilton's sexuality, frankly, I'm glad Hilton gave him a piece of his mind. These celebrities think they all have to be treated like the Kings and Queens of the world, I'm glad someone puts them in their place.


"Public figure or not, no one has to take being jostled by the media and papparazi that you appear to love."

---But Perez isn't a paparazzi, he's a blogger, he publishes pictures others take. That's like punching the editor of US or People just because you didn't like their story.



"It wil be interesting to see what happens in the case. In Canada, Hilton's verbal assault would be considered "hate speech" and therefore the guy has a right to defend himself."

---Hilton never punched him, never attacked him, a heated argument is not violence. I don't see Bill O'reilly punching all the character destroyers he has to deal with.


"No matter what, being a celebrity does not mean that you are a pinata for everyone who wants to make a buck off of your name and reputation."

---Yes it does, ask President George W. Bush, even Comedy Central had a TV show called "That's my Bush!" which ridicule the president. Public figure means public figure, any picture you take of them in public can be used, they can be criticized, ridiculed, insulted, they're not like you and me.


"I believe that for all the times Hilton has trashed people in his rise to the top of the trash heap, this is a case where he doesn't want the same rules he applies to others to apply to him."

---He was punched, that's the difference. After the Ms. America controversy he was called every name in the book and that's ok. But violence is never justified unless it's self defense, what Oasis manager did was "self-esteem defense."

Anonymous said...

These celebrities think they all have to be treated like the Kings and Queens of the world, I'm glad someone puts them in their place.

Once again, jealousy distorts your judgement.

Hilton was talking to will.I.am and it was Perez who yelled the slur. Not once but more than once.

It was after that the manager stepped inbetween in what some may consider a threatening position.

But Perez isn't a paparazzi, he's a blogger, he publishes pictures others take.

Perez is a gossip columnist that blogs. That qualifies him as part of the papparazi. Even if you want to say that all he does is publishes pictures that others take, that means he helps create and fill the market for the pictures. He is just as guilty as the guy who snaps the picture.

Hilton never punched him, never attacked him, a heated argument is not violence.

Perhaps you need to reread what I said. The exchange was heated. The person may have felt threatened.

I don't see Bill O'reilly punching all the character destroyers he has to deal with.

Of course not. O'Reilly is a blowhard and a coward that tries to hide behind the cloak of a legitimate journalist. He is just as much as a bully as Perez.

Public figure means public figure, any picture you take of them in public can be used, they can be criticized, ridiculed, insulted, they're not like you and me.

Once again, please read what was said. Your jealousy is clouding your vision. No one has a right to threaten or try to intimidate another. That is where the pinate comment is from. You cannot physically threaten them (and Perez did.) Even stars have the right to defend themselves. (Of course you may not want to think they do, but in fact they do.)

But violence is never justified unless it's self defense, what Oasis manager did was "self-esteem defense."

Perhaps you need to understand the doctrine of "fighting words" before you make such a statement.

Remember that this was in Canada where Perez's insult is considered "hate speech." Such hate speech can certainly be deemed as fighting words.

Bobby said...

"He's openly gay and the worst thing he can think of is to call another person a faggot??!!!"

---For a straight man that's the worse thing you can be called. It's a popular insult, designed to denigrate someone's masculinity, it's widely used in sports by both players and fans. It's also a popular school taunt. Think about it, if a black person insults you the worst thing you can call him is a nigger. But if a straight person insults you, what do you call him? A breeder? A cunt-sucker? Doesn't work as well. An insult needs to hurt and Perez knew which one was likely to do the most damage.


"Perez is a gossip columnist that blogs. That qualifies him as part of the papparazi. Even if you want to say that all he does is publishes pictures that others take, that means he helps create and fill the market for the pictures. He is just as guilty as the guy who snaps the picture."

---Perez is not the only columnist that blogs. Remember Liz Smith from the New York Post? She made a career out of revealing the private things of celebrities, she didn't have pictures but still, same effect.


"Perhaps you need to reread what I said. The exchange was heated. The person may have felt threatened."

---Since when are fat effeminate men threatening?


"Of course not. O'Reilly is a blowhard and a coward that tries to hide behind the cloak of a legitimate journalist. He is just as much as a bully as Perez."

---I assume you are a conservative like me, but I suppose we're all entitled to our opinion, even though I disagree extremely with you, but O'reilly is another topic.



"Once again, please read what was said. Your jealousy is clouding your vision. No one has a right to threaten or try to intimidate another. That is where the pinate comment is from. You cannot physically threaten them (and Perez did.) Even stars have the right to defend themselves. (Of course you may not want to think they do, but in fact they do.)"

----Buddy, I took Communication Law 101, this has nothing to do with my jealousy. Perez never threatened that manager, he fights with the pen, not the sword, the most Perez can do is write "so and so is an asshole."


"Perhaps you need to understand the doctrine of "fighting words" before you make such a statement."

---I understand it, and I don't think this incident amounts to that. Seriously, look at the crap people write about Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin? You don't see them slapping people around, do you?


"Remember that this was in Canada where Perez's insult is considered "hate speech." Such hate speech can certainly be deemed as fighting words."

---Even if that's true, you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. If my neighbor steals from me, that doesn't give me the right to steal from him.

If my neighbor pisses me off and I punch him, he can call the cops and I can get arrested. Again, I realize that Perez Hilton is not very popular right now, but if you really believe in free speech you ought to defend not just the speech of your friends but the people you disagree with as well.

This politically correct idea that no one should say or write anything hateful is not what our founding fathers intended.

Anonymous said...

Perez is not the only columnist that blogs. Remember Liz Smith from the New York Post? She made a career out of revealing the private things of celebrities, she didn't have pictures but still, same effect.

And yes, she is just as guilty as other of her and Hilton's ilk.

---Since when are fat effeminate men threatening?

I'm sorry, but are you so prejudiced and predisposed to think that a gay man can't be threatening? That is quite a statement for you to make.

---I assume you are a conservative like me, but I suppose we're all entitled to our opinion, even though I disagree extremely with you, but O'reilly is another topic.

O'Reilly is another topic yet you brought him up to bolster your argument. O'Reilly is a hypocrite and a blowhard. His show is not news as he claims it to be. If you are going to say the man proves your argument, you'd better be able to defend him. And frankly, in the area of news and hypocrisy, he is indefensible.

Seriously, look at the crap people write about Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin? You don't see them slapping people around, do you?

You don't see them making those comments to their faces in a threatening manner do you?

---Even if that's true, you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. If my neighbor steals from me, that doesn't give me the right to steal from him.

Thank you for proving you don't understand the rational behind "fighting words." It has nothing to do with two separate, disparate acts that happen apart from each other.

If my neighbor pisses me off and I punch him, he can call the cops and I can get arrested.

Yet if your neighbor says something that a reasonable person would conclude is so offensive that a normal person would react with force, you would have a built in defense. You would also win at trial.

This politically correct idea that no one should say or write anything hateful is not what our founding fathers intended.

This is not about free speech. This is about the results of that speech - the consequences of that speech. It is about the consequences of one's actions and whether those actions rise to a level of offense that a physical response is understood by all.

If you don't think the Founding Fathers understood that, perhaps you need to read how Alexander Hamilton died. He died from wounds received in a duel. The cause of the duel in which Aaron Burr was offended by comments made by Hamilton and as a point of honor, challanged Hamilton to a duel.

In other words, what someone said about another person lead to a physical reaction.

The Founding Fathers understood more about defending one's honor from insults more than you give them credit for. They clearly understood "honor" and "defending one's reputation" more than you do.

Anonymous said...

"The only thing I will criticize about Perez is that pussy video of him crying like a girl."

I wonder if he cries like that when he's being hammered up the pooper?

Or does he stiffle the screams by bitting the pillow?

Bobby said...

"I'm sorry, but are you so prejudiced and predisposed to think that a gay man can't be threatening? That is quite a statement for you to make."

---Come on, it's common sense, most gays don't know how to fight, specially the artistic ones. When was the last time a group of hairdressers beat the shit out of you?


"O'Reilly is a hypocrite and a blowhard. His show is not news as he claims it to be. If you are going to say the man proves your argument, you'd better be able to defend him. And frankly, in the area of news and hypocrisy, he is indefensible."

---Do you even watch The Factor? The man has exposed government corruption, judges that give pedophiles light sentences, bias teachers in the classroom, has confronted the powerful. You have a lot of nerve insulting him.


"You don't see them making those comments to their faces in a threatening manner do you?"

---Perez got in trouble for what he wrote on his website, and when confronted by it he decided not to back down. How would you feel if you wrote crap about Obama and some goons came to you and demanded an apology?


"Thank you for proving you don't understand the rational behind "fighting words." It has nothing to do with two separate, disparate acts that happen apart from each other."

---I've heard fighting words all my life, including comments that provoke anger, personal attacks, and so on. And yes, I've had to control myself all my life. The Oasis manager should have controlled himself, how would you feel if your chauffeur starts punching people?


"Yet if your neighbor says something that a reasonable person would conclude is so offensive that a normal person would react with force, you would have a built in defense. You would also win at trial."

---You're making an assumption, I'd rather not deal with the time and expense of a trial or with the possibility of a biased jury and jailtime. Besides, you have to prove that your neighbor was harassing you constantly. This isn't the case here.


"This is not about free speech. This is about the results of that speech - the consequences of that speech. It is about the consequences of one's actions and whether those actions rise to a level of offense that a physical response is understood by all."

---Tell that to Ann Coulter, she has to travel with bodyguards to ensure her safety. Why? Because she's written a few books, articles and made TV appearances that have pissed people off. This is about free speech, it's about being able to say and write what you want without some bully punching you in the face.


"He died from wounds received in a duel. The cause of the duel in which Aaron Burr was offended by comments made by Hamilton and as a point of honor, challanged Hamilton to a duel."

---Duels have been illegal now for what? Centuries? But even so, a duel is different because you give the other person a chance to prepare instead of giving him a sucker punch. Besides, it is an act of cowardice to punch Perez Hilton. You're supposed to pick a fight with someone your own size.


"They clearly understood "honor" and "defending one's reputation" more than you do."

---The founding fathers lived in a time when people where more respectful, civil and polite. This is a different era, celebrities rarely sue for defamation and libel because the courts have ruled that public figures don't have the same protections as private figures. And when speech is opinion, which is what gossip really is, it enjoys virtually unlimited freedom.

I will defend Perez Hilton because an attack on him is an attack on free speech. There are people out there that want to do the same to Rush Limbaugh, there are forces that want to remove any "hateful" comment from the public airwaves.

Today Perez gets punched in the face, tomorrow it may be one of our own.

Anonymous said...

Calm down guys. Perez is simply doing what all gays do, get attention any way he/she/it can. Thanks in part to all of you, he/she/it has gone from being some shadow-dwelling cretin, to "celebrity". Kind of like a Kim Kardashian but without the tits. I think.

Anonymous said...

---Come on, it's common sense, most gays don't know how to fight, specially the artistic ones. When was the last time a group of hairdressers beat the shit out of you?

More stereotypes and prejudice from you.

---Do you even watch The Factor? The man has exposed government corruption, judges that give pedophiles light sentences, bias teachers in the classroom, has confronted the powerful. You have a lot of nerve insulting him.

The man has not exposed anything other than himself to an intern. What he does it take a known, local story and tries to trump it up to national attention. He uses his program to get people such as yourself to be bullies. I don't have to insult the man. The fact that he and people that worship him think that he is a serious journalist is insulting enough.

---Perez got in trouble for what he wrote on his website, and when confronted by it he decided not to back down.

So "not backing down" means throwing out fighting words? Interesting point of view you have there. You view is colored by the fact that you hate those who are more successful than you. It is a constant theme with your posts.

---I've heard fighting words all my life, including comments that provoke anger, personal attacks, and so on. And yes, I've had to control myself all my life.

Yet the definition of fighting words means that you wouldn't have to control yourself. You made a choice. It is not a choice that others may make when confronted with the same fighting words.

The Oasis manager should have controlled himself, how would you feel if your chauffeur starts punching people?

More class envy from you.

---You're making an assumption, I'd rather not deal with the time and expense of a trial or with the possibility of a biased jury and jailtime.

There is no assumption here are all. The fact of the matter is that "fighting words" is a legitimate defense.

Besides, you have to prove that your neighbor was harassing you constantly. This isn't the case here.

Factually false. "Fighting words" do not have to be constant or harrassing.

---Duels have been illegal now for what? Centuries? But even so, a duel is different because you give the other person a chance to prepare instead of giving him a sucker punch.

The issue is the defence of one's honor and integrity - not how it is done. You stated that the Founding Fathers would never do something physical in response to an insult. That is clearly not the case.

---The founding fathers lived in a time when people where more respectful, civil and polite.

Man, you really need to read some of the actual writings of the Founding Fathers instead of watching O'Reilly. Even so, you are once again trying to weasel out of the idea that the Founding Fathers understood that verbal attacks against one's honor and integrity could be met with physical force. that fact is contrary to your stated opinion.

And when speech is opinion, which is what gossip really is, it enjoys virtually unlimited freedom.

Perez's comments on the quality of the music put out by the Black Eyed Peas is protected. Perez crossed the line when he started yelling comments that were clearly designed to incite and clearly fall into the realm of fighting words. You have yet to deal with that.

I will defend Perez Hilton because an attack on him is an attack on free speech.

All evidence to the contrary. Hilton has a right to his opinion. Yet when that opinion crosses a line and becomes "fighting words," that type of speech is not protected.

Today Perez gets punched in the face, tomorrow it may be one of our own.

You run around calling people "faggots" multiple times to their faces? You run around with a crowd that gets into shouting matches with people and try to start incidents by using "fighting words?" That isn't "one of our own" to me. It may be in your circle, but not in mine.

Bobby said...

"More stereotypes and prejudice from you."

---And more ad hominems from you. Stereotypes have some truth in them, you know.


"The man has not exposed anything other than himself to an intern."

---According to whom? A money-hungry intern seeking to make a few bucks? And you believe him?


"So "not backing down" means throwing out fighting words? Interesting point of view you have there. You view is colored by the fact that you hate those who are more successful than you. It is a constant theme with your posts."

---If someone offends me, I call him an "asshole" or I might scream "fuck you" to his face. And while I'm tempted to punch the bastard, I know that doing so could get me fired from my job, which is why I control myself.


"There is no assumption here are all. The fact of the matter is that "fighting words" is a legitimate defense."

---Tell that to Fred Phelps, the guy goes to funerals and screams "Thank God for AIDS," "God Hates America," "Thank God for IED's," "God Hates F-gs" and a bunch of other incredibly inflammatory stuff. Yet he gets away with it because the first amendment protect him and if anyone was to attack him it would be assault.


"The issue is the defence of one's honor and integrity - not how it is done. You stated that the Founding Fathers would never do something physical in response to an insult. That is clearly not the case."

---Buddy, if you live in this country you better grow a thick skin because your honor and integrity will be attacked sooner or later and if you go around throwing punches you will find yourself in a holding pen with the scum of society. Unless you're in the Jerry Springer show, you can't go around hitting people.


"Perez's comments on the quality of the music put out by the Black Eyed Peas is protected. Perez crossed the line when he started yelling comments that were clearly designed to incite and clearly fall into the realm of fighting words. You have yet to deal with that."

----People yell comments at Perez to, do you see him punching people? During a war protest people yell the most vile things to cops, do you see them taking out their nightsticks and beating the crap out of protestors?


"You run around calling people "faggots" multiple times to their faces? You run around with a crowd that gets into shouting matches with people and try to start incidents by using "fighting words?" That isn't "one of our own" to me. It may be in your circle, but not in mine."

---No, I hate making waves, I mind my own business and expect others to do the same. If however a coworker calls me an asshole, or someone starts picking on me, I will respond.

We live in dangerous times, a lot of liberals are equating "violent speech" with actual violence. There are people blaming O'Reilly for the death of Dr. Tiller, the partial-birth abortion doctor. After the OK City bombing a lot of liberals tried to shut down talk radio. Keep that in mind before political correctness censors all of us.

Anonymous said...

---And more ad hominems from you. Stereotypes have some truth in them, you know.

No I don't know that. I know that stereotypes when applied to people show an ignorance and an inability to discern the merits of individuals.

---According to whom? A money-hungry intern seeking to make a few bucks? And you believe him?

The intern that O'Reilly settled with. That's who. The same O'Reilly that demands that people come onto his show and answer for their actions but will not take questions about this incident. The man is a hypocrite. The man is not a jounalist in any traditional sense of the word. Can you see Walter Cronkite or Edward R Murrow selling a book or tee-shirts during a news broadcast? O'Reilly is an agitator, a hypocrite, a blowhard and yet there are those who worship the ground he walks on.

---If someone offends me, I call him an "asshole" or I might scream "fuck you" to his face. And while I'm tempted to punch the bastard, I know that doing so could get me fired from my job, which is why I control myself.

Being "offended" is not the same as "fighting words." Your continued attempts to equate them shows a lack of understanding.

Yet he gets away with it because the first amendment protect him and if anyone was to attack him it would be assault.

Once again, you exhibit a complete understanding of the doctrine of "fighting words." Phelps makes general statements. If he were to say something directly to a person and accuse them of something that was so onerous and so spiteful that a reasonable person would react forcefully, the defense would be "fighting words." The defendant would be vindicated. And in case you missed it, Phelps lost a case in Baltimore where the jury found his "protest" was a conspiracy, an invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm.

---Buddy, if you live in this country you better grow a thick skin because your honor and integrity will be attacked sooner or later and if you go around throwing punches you will find yourself in a holding pen with the scum of society. Unless you're in the Jerry Springer show, you can't go around hitting people.

Nice paragraph. Too bad it doesn't address the issue of your assertion that the Founding Fathers never felt that physical force was an appropriate response for some insults and attacks on character.

There are two problems here. The first is that you are simply ignorant of what "fighting words" means. The second is that you want think that "fighting words" applies to all insults or character attacks. It doesn't, so stop trying to bolster you point by saying it does.

----People yell comments at Perez to, do you see him punching people? During a war protest people yell the most vile things to cops, do you see them taking out their nightsticks and beating the crap out of protestors?

See above. This is another example where you misrepresent "fighting words" to what you think it means.

---No, I hate making waves, I mind my own business and expect others to do the same. If however a coworker calls me an asshole, or someone starts picking on me, I will respond.

In other words, your comment of "one of ours" is not correct as you are admitting that Hilton's conduct was not the same as your circle of friends.

We live in dangerous times, a lot of liberals are equating "violent speech" with actual violence. There are people blaming O'Reilly for the death of Dr. Tiller, the partial-birth abortion doctor. After the OK City bombing a lot of liberals tried to shut down talk radio. Keep that in mind before political correctness censors all of us.

Of course, none of your examples have anything to do with the "fighting words" exception to "free speech." Other than that, it was a nice paragraph.

Bobby said...

"No I don't know that. I know that stereotypes when applied to people show an ignorance and an inability to discern the merits of individuals."

---Perez Hilton embodies the stereotypes I mentioned earlier, you cannot deny that.



"The intern that O'Reilly settled with. That's who. The same O'Reilly that demands that people come onto his show and answer for their actions but will not take questions about this incident."

---Because if he did, that bitch would go public and it would become a war of words, a he said/she said situation. Besides, his job is to comment on the news, not to become the news.


"Can you see Walter Cronkite or Edward R Murrow selling a book or tee-shirts during a news broadcast? O'Reilly is an agitator, a hypocrite, a blowhard and yet there are those who worship the ground he walks on."

---They were journalists, O'reilly is a commentator, and the money from the stuff he sells goes to charity. People in the army love him for a reason. If it wasn't for him, nobody would know about the Wounded Warrior Project.


"Being "offended" is not the same as "fighting words." Your continued attempts to equate them shows a lack of understanding."

---I will admit that there are words that can provoke a fight, but normally, whoever initiates the violence is the guilty party regardless of circumstances.



"The defendant would be vindicated. And in case you missed it, Phelps lost a case in Baltimore where the jury found his "protest" was a conspiracy, an invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm."

---Phelps is not a sympathetic character, so like Perez Hilton, people vilify him and forget about his rights. As much as I hate what Phelps does, I will not condone the ruling of that liberal court. "Infliction of emotional harm?" Give me a break.


"See above. This is another example where you misrepresent "fighting words" to what you think it means."

---So tell me this, the next time someone calls Perez a faggot, is he allowed to throw a punch and will you defend him when he does?

"In other words, your comment of "one of ours" is not correct as you are admitting that Hilton's conduct was not the same as your circle of friends."

---This is a conservative/traditional site for the most part, "one of ours" means one of our conservative/libertarian freedom-loving comrades.

Does this sound familiar?

" "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

That's how freedom words, you have to speak up for people that have nothing in common with you, that might not even be ideological comrades, before your own group starts to suffer.

Brian from Virginia said...

Bobby said...

Sorry Brian, I disagree, the Black Eye Peas are public figures, as such, the media has the right to criticize them.


I agree that the media, hell everyone for that matter, has the right to criticize a public performer. If Perez has said that Wil.I.Am's singing sucked, or their latest album was lame and uninspired, I would have no problem with that. And if Will's (or his manager or whoever that actually hit Perez) responded with a punch, then he would be in the wrong.

But it didn't happen that way. Perez was being a jerk, he mouthed off and said something stupid, and got a punch in the face for it. Should the guy who threw the punch have been a bigger person and walked away? Yes. But as someone who has done something stupid in the heat of the moment, I can't say that I would never do that, because I might.

Bobby said...

Well Brian, I see your point and I admit almost everyone, including the media agrees with you.

Boston Herald
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20090625what_goes_around_comes_around_for_perez_hilton/srvc=home&position=3

The Dish Rag
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/06/perez-hilton-sues-polo-molina-for-emotional-distress-seriously.html

I just hope this incident doesn't stop the gossip industry from putting celebrities in their place, exposing their wicked deeds, and holding them accountable.

And I hope Perez Hilton learns to defend himself if he's going to keep opening his mouth in public.

And by the way, will.i.am is black, that could explain some of the undeserved sympathy he's getting from the media. It's the same reason Obama got away with making fun of the special olympics, if Perez Hilton or anyone else had made that joke, they would be in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

---Perez Hilton embodies the stereotypes I mentioned earlier, you cannot deny that.

I have no idea whether Hilton is a "hair dresser" or is versed in the art of self defense. And you don't either.

---Because if he did, that bitch would go public and it would become a war of words, a he said/she said situation.

So O'Reilly breaks civil law, and the complaintant is a "bitch?" For what? Why not hold O'Reilly to the same standard of conduct that he demands from everyone else?

Besides, his job is to comment on the news, not to become the news.

Then you agree that O'Reilly is not a serious "journalist," but rather a commentator on the news. Secondly, I thought you have always maintained that people such as O'Reilly are "public figures" and as such have no rights or privacy? Now that it is one of your icons, you seem to be saying that he does.

---They were journalists, O'reilly is a commentator, and the money from the stuff he sells goes to charity. People in the army love him for a reason. If it wasn't for him, nobody would know about the Wounded Warrior Project.

Okay, so once again you agree that he is not a journalist. That means that by definition his show is not a "news show" as you claim. Secondly, the "Wounded Warrior Project" was known LONG before O'Reilly got involved. Those of us who actually read and listen to other sites and people other than O'Reilly know that.

---I will admit that there are words that can provoke a fight, but normally, whoever initiates the violence is the guilty party regardless of circumstances.

Geez you still don't get it do you? "Fighting words" is an exception to the norm. I agree that normally, the person initiating the violence is the guilty party. What you still can't grasp is that with "fighting words," the person initiating the "violence" is the one speaking the fighting words.

---Phelps is not a sympathetic character, so like Perez Hilton, people vilify him and forget about his rights. As much as I hate what Phelps does, I will not condone the ruling of that liberal court. "Infliction of emotional harm?" Give me a break.

What "liberal court" are you refering to? The jurors who made the award (not the "court.") were all "liberal?" You do realize that the SCOTUS has recognized "intentional emotional harm" as not only legal, but based upon a long series of laws before the US was formed? You do realize that your buddy O'Reilly said the verdict was just?

Of course, none of that matters to this discussion. You see, this is just another deflection of the proof your original point concerning Phelps was wrong.

(cont)

Anonymous said...

(cont.)

---So tell me this, the next time someone calls Perez a faggot, is he allowed to throw a punch and will you defend him when he does?

In all circumstances? NO. I don't how to get you to understand that an insult does not necessairily rise to the level of "fighting words." So anytime you make hypotheticals like this, all you do is further expose your ignorance.

---This is a conservative/traditional site for the most part, "one of ours" means one of our conservative/libertarian freedom-loving comrades.

I have no idea what that means. None whatsoever. Anyway, I hate to tell you this, but while conservatives believe in freedom of speech, they also believe in the consequences of that speech. In this case, the consequences of Hilton's use of what Canada considers "hate speech" and what most normal people would consider "fighting words" had a consequence.

Does this sound familiar?

How dare you.

Really. How dare you.

How dare you try to use a poem that showed the violence and horror of Nazi Germany and compare it to Perez Hilton's deliberate provocation of a fight by the use of "fighting words."

You should be ashamed for even trying to equate the two.

That's how freedom words, you have to speak up for people that have nothing in common with you, that might not even be ideological comrades, before your own group starts to suffer.

So you are a Perez supporter then, eh? You run around calling people "faggots" to their faces in order to get into a fight?

You still just don't get it. O'Reilly gets it more than you do, and he is an intellectual midget.

Bobby said...

"So O'Reilly breaks civil law, and the complaintant is a "bitch?" For what? Why not hold O'Reilly to the same standard of conduct that he demands from everyone else?"

----Read this article I wrote about how the media labels people guilty before proven innocent.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/guilty-until-proven-innocent-841223/1/20



"Then you agree that O'Reilly is not a serious "journalist," but rather a commentator on the news. Secondly, I thought you have always maintained that people such as O'Reilly are "public figures" and as such have no rights or privacy? Now that it is one of your icons, you seem to be saying that he does."

---Yes, O'reilly is a public figure, he also was a journalist and then became a commentator, just like Larry King, Rachael Maddow and many others. They have a right to privacy inside their home just like everyone else. A club, a restaurant, and the street is not a private place.


"Okay, so once again you agree that he is not a journalist. That means that by definition his show is not a "news show" as you claim."

---They mix news with commentary. His show is a "news show" because they cover and comment on the news. But if that term offends you, fine, call it a "news commentary show."


"Secondly, the "Wounded Warrior Project" was known LONG before O'Reilly got involved. Those of us who actually read and listen to other sites and people other than O'Reilly know that."

---Known by whom? By millions of people or just military families? O'reilly is the #1 rated show on cable news, when he covers a story, the world finds out. That's why Obama is always bashing Fox News, the president understands how powerful and influential they are. Without Fox News the president would get away with more crap than what he's doing now.

Bobby said...

(continues)


"What you still can't grasp is that with "fighting words," the person initiating the "violence" is the one speaking the fighting words."

---Fine, all of that is true. However, where's the video? Where are the witnesses? How do you prove who spoke the fighting words first? If I'm a cop and I see a man punching another man, I'm not going to think about fighting words but I will stop the aggressor and then investigate.


"What "liberal court" are you refering to? The jurors who made the award (not the "court.") were all "liberal?" You do realize that the SCOTUS has recognized "intentional emotional harm" as not only legal, but based upon a long series of laws before the US was formed? You do realize that your buddy O'Reilly said the verdict was just?"

---I don't always agree with O'reilly, but I do like his show because he challenges people and offers both sides of the story. I also don't worship SCOTUS, they make mistakes.


"In all circumstances? NO. I don't how to get you to understand that an insult does not necessairily rise to the level of "fighting words." So anytime you make hypotheticals like this, all you do is further expose your ignorance."

---Let me see if I get it, when Perez Hilton calls someone a faggot, it's fighting words, but when someone calls Perez that, it's free speech. That's what you seem to be saying.

"In this case, the consequences of Hilton's use of what Canada considers "hate speech" and what most normal people would consider "fighting words" had a consequence."

---Hate speech is subjective and the law isn't always used, otherwise millions of Canadians would be in jail today, who among them has never engaged in hate speech?


"How dare you try to use a poem that showed the violence and horror of Nazi Germany and compare it to Perez Hilton's deliberate provocation of a fight by the use of "fighting words."

---That poem has resonance beyond WW2. Political correctness persecutes people, today Hilton was a victim, tomorrow it may be you, that's the point of the poem. You have to fight for others while you still can, while you're strong, or pretty soon you'll find yourself persecuted and alone.


"So you are a Perez supporter then, eh? You run around calling people "faggots" to their faces in order to get into a fight?"

---I don't do that, but I understand why he did it. To a black man being called that is the worst thing in the world, almost as bad as "nigger." Of course, Perez could have called him a nigger, but you know what society does to people who use the n-word. Besides, what else could Perez call him? A pussy? A bastard? An asshole? Think! You have to hit where it hurts.

"You still just don't get it. O'Reilly gets it more than you do, and he is an intellectual midget."

---Personal attacks are a sign of desperation and frustration, are you sure you're not a liberal?

Anonymous said...

----Read this article I wrote about how the media labels people guilty before proven innocent.

I don't have to read anything. Your hypocrisy is showing - as is O'Reilly's.

---Yes, O'reilly is a public figure, he also was a journalist and then became a commentator, just like Larry King, Rachael Maddow and many others. They have a right to privacy inside their home just like everyone else. A club, a restaurant, and the street is not a private place.

Funny how this is a change from your earlier statements that "public figures" have no right to privacy.

---They mix news with commentary.

Wrong. But thank you for playing.

---Known by whom? By millions of people or just military families?

The Wounded Warrior Project was known by many people before O'Reilly got involved for his own personnel gain. I am sorry if you were ignorant of the Project as you seem. That is not my fault. Besides, if one person knew about it, that would have shown your statement that "no one knew" to smithereens.

---Fine, all of that is true. However, where's the video? Where are the witnesses?

How about Hilton himself? He says:

And that’s when I made the split-second decision that I was gonna say what I thought was the worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear. I was standing my ground without being violent or physical, which I would never do. I told him, “You know what? I don’t need to respect you, and you’re a fag. Stop being gay, and you’re a faggot.”

Ooops. You lose.

---Let me see if I get it, when Perez Hilton calls someone a faggot, it's fighting words, but when someone calls Perez that, it's free speech. That's what you seem to be saying.

I'm sorry, but this is getting tiresome. You are either incapable of understanding or just being obteuse.

Merely "calling" someone a name is not necessairly "fighting words."

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the SCOTUS ruled that: Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [n2] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [p572] and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [n3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [n4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Hilton admits that his words were intended not as an exchange of ideas, but rather to cause an incident. By his own admission, his words fall into the narrowly defined realm of "fighting words." His speech is not protected.

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.

---That poem has resonance beyond WW2.

No one said it didn't. It does not resonate with anyone clear thinking person who knows that Hilton's attack was not protected and rises no where near to the level of what the Nazi's did.

You seem to be trying to equate Hilton with the Jews, Socialists, Gypsies, etc named in the poem. That in and of itself is offensive. If anything, Hilton acts more like the Nazis, demonizing those who does not like and those he disagrees with.

Your attempt to equate Hilton with the Jews, etc is frankly, disgusting.

---I don't do that, but I understand why he did it. To a black man being called that is the worst thing in the world, almost as bad as "nigger."

Game over. You admit that Hilton's actions were not designed to create an exchange of ideas and that his words were designed to create a reaction. That reaction, as you yourself admit, would have been one of violence and a breech of the peace.

By law, Hilton's speech was not protected under the First Amendment.

---Personal attacks are a sign of desperation and frustration, are you sure you're not a liberal?

And yet what I said was protected free speech.

Have a nice day.

Bobby said...

This is bullshit, anonymous. All this diatribe about fighting words and your desire to prosecute Perez for it.

How would you feel if Perez had been at that event with a manager and his manager had punched someone because he said some nasty things in a video?

You're not being fair and balanced, the only reason you're attacking Perez is because you don't like him.

The fact that Perez stood up to that bastard in this Obama-loving era deserves praise. For too long black rappers have been attacking all kinds of people with their music. The Black Eye Peas are a bunch of weirdos, their music is hideous, their popularity only reflects the lowering standards of our culture and Hilton's attack is a breath of fresh air.

Anonymous said...

This is bullshit, anonymous. All this diatribe about fighting words and your desire to prosecute Perez for it.

Learn to read Bobby. I have no desire to prosecute Perez for anything. You have maintained that Perez's comments are protected speech. You have maintained that in spite of the fact that the doctrine of "fighting words" has been around long before the Constitution was written.

Perez's comments were not protected speech.

How would you feel if Perez had been at that event with a manager and his manager had punched someone because he said some nasty things in a video?

I have answered this before, Bobby. What is said in a video does not rise to the level of "fighting words." At this point in time you are arguing things which have been discussed before. You're wrong on this. Plain and simple.

You're not being fair and balanced, the only reason you're attacking Perez is because you don't like him.

My like or dislike of Perez has nothing to do with this at all. Like the lady on the building, my take on this is irrespective of the parties involved.

The fact that Perez stood up to that bastard in this Obama-loving era deserves praise.

Once again, if you had read what I said, the fact that he stood up to them is fine and acceptable. I have no issues with that at all. However, when he started to use "fighting words," he lost any protection of "free speech."

For too long black rappers have been attacking all kinds of people with their music.

And your point?

Oh wait... I know your point. It is one based in jealousy. You see, it is clear that you support Perez not for what he did, but in your view of the world, he attacked someone who is more successful than you are. Your support of Perez is not based on logic, the law, or any rational thought. It is based simply on the fact that you don't like people that are successful, and therefore support those who seek to tear them down.

The Black Eye Peas are a bunch of weirdos, their music is hideous, their popularity only reflects the lowering standards of our culture and

See? I knew that you and Hilton thought the same way.

I don't like the Black Eyed Peas' music at all. Yet I am not going to say that Hilton's use of fighting words was correct simple because I don't like their music. I won't say that Hilton's use of "fighting words" was correct based on your standard that anyone that is more successsful than you are has 1) no privacy and 2) should be torn down.

Hilton's attack is a breath of fresh air.

There ya go.

"Hilton's attack."

I doubt that you get it yet, but you are skirting around the central issue. Hilton's attack at the time, place, and situation in which he made it, is not protected, free speech.

You don't have to like it, but that is the law of the land handed down by the Constitution and Common Law long before it.

Bobby said...

"I doubt that you get it yet, but you are skirting around the central issue. Hilton's attack at the time, place, and situation in which he made it, is not protected, free speech."

---Neither is calling Dick Cheney a terrorist, but I guess when Code Pink yells epithets it's perfectly fine, in fact, they only get arrested when they push or shove someone. Get it? Their "fighting words" are ignored but their physical actions aren't.

Anonymous said...

---Neither is calling Dick Cheney a terrorist, but I guess when Code Pink yells epithets it's perfectly fine, in fact, they only get arrested when they push or shove someone. Get it? Their "fighting words" are ignored but their physical actions aren't.

I was right..... you don't get it.

There is a big difference between a crowd yelling something across a police line at someone protected by the Secret Service, and getting up in someone's face, one on one, trying to provoke a confrontation.

For you to think that the epitaphs yelled by Code Pink are the same as what your buddy Hilton did, you would have to say that Cheney would break through the Secret Service, run whatever distance to the restraining line of the protestors, hop though and or over the police and their barricades to confront one particular protestor.

No one thinks that is rational. No one would think that is a response that the average person would have.

One the other hand, getting in the grill of someone, yelling sonething that you know will provoke a reaction and hoping that reaction will happen because of the 1) closeness of the person saying the insult to the person being insulted and 2) the fact that most people would react with some sort of physical response makes Hilton's words fit into the defininition of "fighting words."

I suspect that you still won't understand that. I suspect that you will focus only on what is said, rather than the response or what a rational person would do.

In other words, despite all these responses, you still wish to claim that the fighting words doctrine applies to the written word, the electronic word, words shouted at a distance, etc.

It doesn't.

I know that won't stop you from making up some ridiculous hypothetical situation where words shouted, signs held up, a video is made, a letter is written or a blog is typed and then say "see? It should apply here too!!"

It doesn't. "Fighting words" are different.

If you can't understand that, oh well.

Live in ignorance.

Bobby said...

"There is a big difference between a crowd yelling something across a police line at someone protected by the Secret Service, and getting up in someone's face, one on one, trying to provoke a confrontation."

---That's what Code Pink does, and not just crowds, sometimes it's individuals that get close to a former member of the Bush administration and yell "murderer" or "killer."

Besides, Perez wasn't beat up by will.i.am, he was beat up by his manager. That's like someone insulting President Bush and me beating him up because I don't like what the obama-lover had to say.


"One the other hand, getting in the grill of someone, yelling sonething that you know will provoke a reaction and hoping that reaction will happen because of the 1) closeness of the person saying the insult to the person being insulted and 2) the fact that most people would react with some sort of physical response makes Hilton's words fit into the defininition of "fighting words.""

---You're speculating. Earlier on you accused me of saying that Perez Hilton was harmless and couldn't hurt a fly. Now you're assuming Perez knew that word would create a violent reaction.


"In other words, despite all these responses, you still wish to claim that the fighting words doctrine applies to the written word, the electronic word, words shouted at a distance, etc."

---You're the one making those claims, I barely believe in that doctrine, which by the way has been challenged in the courts many times. I support free speech in all its forms.


"It doesn't. "Fighting words" are different."

---We shall see what the courts have to say about this case.

Either way, I respect Hilton for standing up to his tormentor, for insulting him just like he was insulted, for showing that negro that he's not all that.

This is something you don't understand, because you lack the ability for feel empathy or walk in someone else's shoes. I feel empathy for the powerless, for the weak, for those who lack strengh but not courage.

Will.i.am's manager is nothing but an animal. He responded with violence because violence is the only thing he understands. In fact, if will.i.am is such a man, how come he needs his manager to fight for him?

I don't mind if Perez did to others what others do to him all the time. Perez has spent his entire life having fighting words thrown at him, the one time he strikes back you expect him to face criminal charges for it? Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

---That's what Code Pink does, and not just crowds, sometimes it's individuals that get close to a former member of the Bush administration and yell "murderer" or "killer."

Whatever Bobby. You keep throwing out hypotheticals and all you are doing is showing your ignorance.

---You're speculating. Earlier on you accused me of saying that Perez Hilton was harmless and couldn't hurt a fly. Now you're assuming Perez knew that word would create a violent reaction.

The thing that makes it difficult to talk with you is that you find it necessary to ignore the facts. Hilton himself said that he wanted to provake a reaction. Therefore it is not speculation.

---You're the one making those claims, I barely believe in that doctrine, which by the way has been challenged in the courts many times. I support free speech in all its forms.

Frankly, I don't care whether you support the doctrine at all or not. It is part of the law. It is part of the history of this country. It is a well established and recognized legal doctrine. And the fact that it has been challanged many time means nothing. In fact, as it has been challanged and still stands only shows how strong of a doctrine it is. The idea that you want to ignore it like a five year old ignores things they don't like reveals more about you than the doctrine.

Either way, I respect Hilton for standing up to his tormentor, for insulting him just like he was insulted, for showing that negro that he's not all that.

You have serious issues, Bobby, You have a certain jealousy that is not pretty and is downright distasteful.

This is something you don't understand, because you lack the ability for feel empathy or walk in someone else's shoes. I feel empathy for the powerless, for the weak, for those who lack strengh but not courage.

Perez Hilton is more of a bully than the members of the Black Eyed Peas. He is not "powerless." He is not "weak." He is a coward, which shows more of a lack or conviction than anything.

(And by the way, if you read Hilton's account of the incident, Will.i.am never threatened him, never got violent with him or anything. All the guy did was to ask Hilton to write about the group in a respectful manner. Will.i.am told him he didn't care whether Hilton liked the music or not, but at least be resepctful in his writing. Hilton's response was that he didn't have to respect anyone and that he was insulted that someone would ask him to be respectful. That is the guy you are trying to support here, Bobby. YOu are supporting a guy who lives to tear others down. You are supporting a guy who takes pleasure in being disrespectful to people he has not met. Maybe that it the way you are as well. If it is, shame on you and Hilton.)

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.....



I don't mind if Perez did to others what others do to him all the time.

You see, this is where you and I differ. You believe that two wrongs make a right. I don't.

(And by the way, there is NO evidence that Will.i.am said anything negative toward Hilton.)

Perez has spent his entire life having fighting words thrown at him,

Really? Source please. Or are you making that assumption because you are the type of person that would have hurled insults at him as you have done here. Are you the type of person that would have made the same type of prejudicial and bigoted statements to his face as you have made here? Maybe your support of Hilton is a case of remorse for what you have done in the past. I don't know. But if it was, I wonder why you continue to make such bigoted and stereotypical remarks as you have made in this thread?

You say you have empathy for the weak and the helpless. You say that you view Hilton as part of that group and yet you continully make statements that are bigoted and hateful toward him here.

Your actions here show that you don't have any empathy for anyone. All you do is hate and want to tear down.

the one time he strikes back you expect him to face criminal charges for it? Give me a break.

This is at least the third time you have said that I wanted Hilton to face charges. I do not. Never said that I did. I can only assume that you keep repeating that I do because you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what is said.

Here is the issue, Bobby. Hilton's deliberately used words in a time, situation and manner that would provoke a physical reaction. You say his words are protected speech. The law says they are not.

That's the core issue here. You want to keep dodging it and trying to say "look at what this person does!" as if that somehow justifies Hilton's actions. It doesn't.

Hilton's speech by law and historical precedence is not protected.

Deal with it.

Bobby said...

"Whatever Bobby. You keep throwing out hypotheticals and all you are doing is showing your ignorance."

---No, the actions of Code Pink are well-documented, I'm just excusing Hilton's behavior by pointing to similar behavior that did not get prosecuted.


"The thing that makes it difficult to talk with you is that you find it necessary to ignore the facts. Hilton himself said that he wanted to provake a reaction. Therefore it is not speculation."

---He didn't say he wanted to provoke a violent reaction.


"Perez Hilton is more of a bully than the members of the Black Eyed Peas. He is not "powerless." He is not "weak." He is a coward, which shows more of a lack or conviction than anything."

---He is not a coward, it takes balls to insult a black man surrounded by a posse of hoodlums. It takes guts to write with honestly and piss off the Hollywood community instead of kissing ass like David Letterman.



"That is the guy you are trying to support here, Bobby. YOu are supporting a guy who lives to tear others down. You are supporting a guy who takes pleasure in being disrespectful to people he has not met. Maybe that it the way you are as well. If it is, shame on you and Hilton.)"

---You don't know the whole story, I read somewhere else that will.i.am called Hilton a slurr after Perez said he didn't have to respect him. Besides, celebrities like the Black Eye Peas often wage wars against capitalism, against the second amendment, and against America and the media doesn't tear them down. Perez is an equal opportunity critic, if you do or say something embarassing, he will expose you.

Bobby said...

"You see, this is where you and I differ. You believe that two wrongs make a right. I don't."

---And you live in a world where people get prosecuted for calling each other names.


"Really? Source please. Or are you making that assumption because you are the type of person that would have hurled insults at him as you have done here. Are you the type of person that would have made the same type of prejudicial and bigoted statements to his face as you have made here? Maybe your support of Hilton is a case of remorse for what you have done in the past. I don't know. But if it was, I wonder why you continue to make such bigoted and stereotypical remarks as you have made in this thread?"

---I don't make bigoted remarks, I tell the truth. Effeminate queens like Perez do get insulted from passing cars and strangers on the street. I'm too polite to insult perfect strangers, besides, I have no problem with homosexuals, my concern is mainly ideological.


"You say you have empathy for the weak and the helpless. You say that you view Hilton as part of that group and yet you continully make statements that are bigoted and hateful toward him here."

--I tell the truth, he's an effeminate queen, any man that talks like a girl, dyes his hair pink, and dresses funny is a queen. You're being politically correct if you deny that.

Bobby said...

"To him, and apparently to you, it is more important to market and sell oneself than to actually stand up to someone."

---He did both, he might not know how to throw a punch but he does know how to throw an insult. It takes guts to insult someone who's physically more powerful than you.

As for marketing yourself, every successful person does it, Donald Trump has "trump university," trump steaks, trump ties, trump figurines, trump everything!


---Come on, it's common sense, most gays don't know how to fight,

That is bigoted and prejudicial.

----So if I say that southerners like country music is that statement bigoted and prejudicial? What about "African-Americans are great basketball players" or "Asians are good at math." The exception doesn't make the rule.

Anonymous said...

---He did both, he might not know how to throw a punch but he does know how to throw an insult. It takes guts to insult someone who's physically more powerful than you.

No, it takes a someone to think that they are protected by "free speech" to throw an insult. In other words, someone exhibiting the same ignorance you have is not courage.

It is ignorance.

As for marketing yourself, every successful person does it, Donald Trump has "trump university," trump steaks, trump ties, trump figurines, trump everything!

So now you are saying that Hilton is "successful?"

That would mean that he is not the "weak" little person you claim he is, wouldn't it?

Hoisted on your own petard again.

----So if I say that southerners like country music is that statement bigoted and prejudicial? What about "African-Americans are great basketball players" or "Asians are good at math." The exception doesn't make the rule.

Of course it is prejudical. By definition, "prejudice" means to have "pre-judged" someone.

So if you met a person from the south, you have prejudged him by assuming that he likes country music. If you meet a black person and assume that they are good at basketball, you have a prejudiced thought. The same with the statement on Asians.

The problem is that you look at the world through your prejudiced eyes and then want to apply that prejudice to everyone.

You are happy in that happy little world where prejudice and bigotry live.

You see, it takes real guts and real courage to come out and actually view people for their accomplishments and faults as individuals independant of where they live, or the color of their skin.

The fact that you don't do that says a great deal about you.

Bobby said...

"So now you are saying that Hilton is "successful?""

---Yes, he's so successful that not only Donald Trump invited him to pick the best web commercial on a segment for Celebrity Apprentice, but he also invited him to be a judge in the Ms. America pageant. His website is very popular, some of the topics he has get as many as 1,000 comments. His blog and the ads on his blogs have allowed him to have a comfortable living as a blogger. Give credit where credit is due, most bloggers have real jobs to support themselves, Perez doesn't need a real job because his blog makes him enough money.



"That would mean that he is not the "weak" little person you claim he is, wouldn't it?"

---Powerful with fame and money doesn't equal powerful with the fist.


"Of course it is prejudical. By definition, "prejudice" means to have "pre-judged" someone."

---So according to you, I should make no judgments whatsoever. That's political correctness, this idea that we can't say anyting because someone might get offended.


"So if you met a person from the south, you have prejudged him by assuming that he likes country music."

---Yes, because that's usually the case. New York is famous for theater and Nashville for country music. It's not that Trace Adkins can't sell tickets in New York, but he's more likely to get an audience in Nashville.


"The problem is that you look at the world through your prejudiced eyes and then want to apply that prejudice to everyone."

---No, I look at the world through statistics and generalities. I'm not going to say "liberals are pro-life" just because a tiny minority of liberals happen to be pro-life. I will not say "Alaskans hate Sarah Pallin" just because a tiny minority of Alaskans are ashamed of people who hunt and fish.


"You are happy in that happy little world where prejudice and bigotry live."

---I never hate people for who they are, I only hate them for what they do.


"You see, it takes real guts and real courage to come out and actually view people for their accomplishments and faults as individuals independant of where they live, or the color of their skin."

----In other words, we should end racial profiling, never mind that the average terrorist is more likely to be arab than caucasian, let's treat everyone like an individual and harass everyone equally.


"The fact that you don't do that says a great deal about you."

---You don't like Fox News, you don't like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitti, Glen Beck, and George W. Bush. That says a great deal about you.

Anonymous said...

---Yes, he's so successful that not only Donald Trump invited him to pick the best web commercial on a segment for Celebrity Apprentice, but he also invited him to be a judge in the Ms. America pageant.

Okay, then he is successful. I thought you said that you liked those who spoke up against the successful. Yet here when some one says Perez was wrong, you stick up for him. The hypocrisy is astonding.

---So according to you, I should make no judgments whatsoever.

"Judging" is not the same a "pre-judging."

Once more you have exhibited your ignorance in infering that they are the same.

---Powerful with fame and money doesn't equal powerful with the fist.

Power with the fist has nothing to do with what we were talking about and you know it. It is a deflection from your original point which has been shown to be wrong.

---Yes, because that's usually the case.

Okay. You are prejudiced.

---No, I look at the world through statistics and generalities.

Which means you are prejudiced and prejudge a person before knowing them. Thank you for admiting that you are prejudiced.

---I never hate people for who they are, I only hate them for what they do.

Like be more successful than you are. I get it. I really do.

----In other words, we should end racial profiling, never mind that the average terrorist is more likely to be arab than caucasian, let's treat everyone like an individual and harass everyone equally.

Racial profiling is illegal in case you missed it. So your position seems to be that we should do things that are illegal.

The problem with profiling is that it ignores suspects. You would have looked at Timothy McVie and said "what a nice, clean cut young man" and never investigated him as he was not of Arabian descent. You would have skipped over Richard Reid for that same reason.

That's the problem with prejudice, bigotry and profiling..... it misses the real suspects.

---You don't like Fox News, you don't like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitti, Glen Beck, and George W. Bush. That says a great deal about you.

Wow. Another lie to try and support the lost argument here.

I guess when you are trying to say that history is wrong, prejudice is right, bigotry is right, the law is wrong, and hypocrisy is right, you have only lies left.

It says a great deal about you.

Anonymous said...

---Look, I don't like celebrities talking about gun control, environmentalism, and telling normal Americans how to live their lives. Perez and other gossip columnists challenge celebrities and put them back in their place as flawed humans rather than idols worthy of worship, ok?

And yet you seem to excuse and even celebrate Perez.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

And no, it is not okay what people like Perez do. While I have no problem with writing about what a celebrity does in public, Perez and his ilk go beyond that, into the private lives of those who he wants to tear down. (And those who you are jealous of.) Hilton, and those who sopport him are nothing but parasites.

---Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Wow. Proud of being prejudiced. Simply amazing.

---Illegal or not, good cops and homeland security personnel use racial profiling to get the bad guys and avoid wasting our tax dollars harassing people that are likely to be innocent.

Actually they don't. Your ignorance is showing again. They do use profiling, but race is not a part of it. Nice try though.

---White supremacists in America are already monitored heavily by the FBI and secret informants. We need to profile arabs until that culture changes and stops being so suportive of terrorism. If you study Islam you will know that 1. Killing infidels (christians, jews) is perfectly fine. 2. Waging Jihad is perfectly fine.

Once again, look at McVie and Reid. Neither were white supremacists. Neither were of Arab descent.

What is astounding about your line of "thinking" is that you tried to use the poem by Martin Niemöller to bolster your thoughts here. Now you are saying that it is okay to profile based on race. The irony is not lost that while you say that some gossip columinist who delights in tearing people down should be protected from the consequences of his use of "fighting words," you are actually advocating what Martin Niemöller talked about in his poem - that of prosecution and persecution of people based on their race and religious beliefs. You want the US government to do the same thing the Nazis did, which is to attack and monitor people based on their race and religion.

Thank God that there are cooler heads in this world who know that your ideas are not only illegal, they are morally reprehensible.

---I'm sorry if you live in the theoretical world of academia.

Another comment made out of ignorance from you. You don't have a clue as to what I do.

I happen to live in the real world which is harsh and cruel, the real world is full of name calling and slurs and you have to be stronger than your enemies and be willing to get down to their level if necessary.

The world is harsh and cruel. In your view, it is good to celebrate those such as Hilton who add to that harshness and add to that cruelity.

You say that the world is harsh and cruel and think that the only thing one can do is to sink to the level of those cruel people. Of course, that makes the world even more harsh and more cruel, but that fact escapes you.

Bobby said...

"And no, it is not okay what people like Perez do. While I have no problem with writing about what a celebrity does in public, Perez and his ilk go beyond that, into the private lives of those who he wants to tear down. (And those who you are jealous of.) Hilton, and those who sopport him are nothing but parasites."

---What's the difference between the media exposing Governor Sanford's adultery and Perez exposing a celebrity's adultery? Public figures are often held up as role models (I don't know why, but that's not the issue), the people wnat to know about them, the celebrity only wants positive news released while the gossip columnist and the fans want the truth. It's like E True Hollyood Story vs. a press release from a celebrity. Gossip is simply much more interesting.


"Wow. Proud of being prejudiced. Simply amazing."

---I am proud of being politically incorrect.


"Actually they don't. Your ignorance is showing again. They do use profiling, but race is not a part of it. Nice try though."

---Blacks have testified about being stopped for driving a nice car. Yes, if I see a black in a Mercedes, there's a chance that's a stolen car. Racist? Perhaps. But I'm sure the owner of the Mercedes would rather see a few innocent people stopped than his car to be gone forever.


"Once again, look at McVie and Reid. Neither were white supremacists. Neither were of Arab descent."

---They are the exception, most terrorism comes from arabs, that's a fact. And by terrorism I mean hundreds or thousands of lives, not the old fart who went shooting at the Holocaust museum, that was a horrible thing but it wasn't terrorism.


"What is astounding about your line of "thinking" is that you tried to use the poem by Martin Niemöller to bolster your thoughts here."

---Martin Niemöller new the difference between free speech and actual persecution.


"You want the US government to do the same thing the Nazis did, which is to attack and monitor people based on their race and religion."

---When was the last time a muslim had to wear a circle in his arm? Where are the concentration camps for muslims? Yes, we monitor people that may be dangerous, so what? Are we supposed to wait until they do something to start monitoring them?
How dare you compare the US government to the nazis?


"The world is harsh and cruel. In your view, it is good to celebrate those such as Hilton who add to that harshness and add to that cruelity."

---Most celebrities are evil, OK? They commit adultery, do drugs, drive drunk, assault strangers, and engage in all kinds of criminal mischief. If Robert Downey Jr. was a normal person he would be doing 20+ years for all the times he has been caught with drugs. Perez Hilton exposes the truth about those people. I feel no sympathy for them just like they feel no sympathy for evangelical Christians and others.

Anonymous said...

---What's the difference between the media exposing Governor Sanford's adultery and Perez exposing a celebrity's adultery?

You don't know? Sanford was away from his office and not in contact with his staff. He lied to his security detail. The chief executive of a state was out of the country without people in the chain of command knowing and you think that has the same relevance as a review of a CD?

---I am proud of being politically incorrect.

Who knew that being prejudiced was politically incorrect? What a shock that it. Here I thought it was morally reprehensible. I guess in your world, being morally reprehensible is a good thing.

---Blacks have testified about being stopped for driving a nice car. Yes, if I see a black in a Mercedes, there's a chance that's a stolen car. .

You REALLY have a problem with comprehension, don't you? We WERE talking about racially profiling in the fight against terrorism. Now you want to shift into the realm of traffic stops. No matter. It is still wrong and illegal to stop someone on the basis of race and many, many, many court cases have shown that to be the case.

Racist? Perhaps. But I'm sure the owner of the Mercedes would rather see a few innocent people stopped than his car to be gone forever

There ya go. Keep celebrating that racism.

---They are the exception, most terrorism comes from arabs, that's a fact. And by terrorism I mean hundreds or thousands of lives, not the old fart who went shooting at the Holocaust museum, that was a horrible thing but it wasn't terrorism.

So once again, you are willing to persecute someone on the basis of their race and ignore those of different races who commit the same crimes.

---Martin Niemöller new the difference between free speech and actual persecution.

I suspect that as you have used his writings in a manner that was totally against his point, you don't know a thing about Martin Niemöller. If you did, you would realize that you are advocating the same thing he was speaking against - the prosecution and persecution of people based on their race and religious beliefs.

---When was the last time a muslim had to wear a circle in his arm? Where are the concentration camps for muslims? Yes, we monitor people that may be dangerous, so what? Are we supposed to wait until they do something to start monitoring them?
How dare you compare the US government to the nazis?


This is funny. It really is. You are the one advocating that we watch and persecute Arabs and those of the Muslim faith. Prosecutions based on religious beliefs and race were exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and that is what you are advocating.

I am not comparing the US to Nazi Germany other than to say that we don't do the things the Nazis did. You, on the other hand, want the US to head down the same path they did. Your hatred of Arabs and Muslims is palatable.

---Most celebrities are evil, OK?

I have no idea what you mean by this. Man, by nature, is evil, so I guess you are saying that celebrities are no better or worse than the man on the street. I can agree with that. Where were differ is that I don't have the hate and jealousy that you have for anyone that is more successful than you are.

Perez Hilton exposes the truth about those people.

I need to step away from the keyboard to stop laughing.

WHEW!!!

Thank you for that.

That was funny.

I feel no sympathy for them

What a pity that you don't feel sympathy for your fellow man.

I have no idea if you have connections to or feel you are an Evangelical Christian, but if you do and are, I encourage you to repent. What you are advocating and what you believe in is not Christ like.

Bobby said...

"You don't know? Sanford was away from his office and not in contact with his staff. He lied to his security detail. The chief executive of a state was out of the country without people in the chain of command knowing and you think that has the same relevance as a review of a CD?"

---All that is true, yet the media decided to report on his adultery, which is a private matter.


"It is still wrong and illegal to stop someone on the basis of race and many, many, many court cases have shown that to be the case."

---Cops often have to use judgment calls, and yes, race plays a factor.


"So once again, you are willing to persecute someone on the basis of their race and ignore those of different races who commit the same crimes."

---Nobody's ignoring the crimes of other races, yet while blacks are 16% of the population they are 50%+ of the prisoners. Watch "Tales from the Hood," an African-American movie, my favorite scene features a white supremacist congratulating a black gangster, why? Because the black gangster has killed more blacks than the white supremacist. Even Bill Cosby admits that the black community has many problems with crime, drugs, unwed mothers, etc. Is he also a racist for telling the truth?


"This is funny. It really is. You are the one advocating that we watch and persecute Arabs and those of the Muslim faith. Prosecutions based on religious beliefs and race were exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and that is what you are advocating."


---Profiling people is not the same as arresting them, putting them in prison, and torturing them. Yes, it may be annoying for an arab to deal with airport security, but as long as they can make that flight, so what? I'm white and I've been profiled myself. Seriously, that's why you liberals get such a bad rap, you're always putting words in people's mouths.


"Your hatred of Arabs and Muslims is palatable."

---Wrong, I happen to love arab food and I don't mind arabs as individuals, I've met a few nice ones. But arabs have a lot of dangerous elements in their group. For example, gay bashing was unheard of in Holland yet the arabs brought it back with a vengeance. The same happened in France but with jews, before, religious jews could wear their skullcaps yet now arab youths have made them targets.


"Where were differ is that I don't have the hate and jealousy that you have for anyone that is more successful than you are."

---It's not hate, it's a desire to "humanize them" by exposing their peccadilloes. Nobody likes a Mr. Perfect or Ms. Perfect, nobody likes to hear that so and so is so perfect, so beautiful, so better than everyone else. Gossip journalism helps the masses know that these "stars" aren't so perfect after all, that they have great defects. Don't you see? When people have flaws they're more approachable, more appealing, more human. Say you met two missionaries, one says "I am a sinner" while the other one say "I am perfect." Which one are you going to like more?


"What a pity that you don't feel sympathy for your fellow man."

---Wrong, I do feel sympathy for those who deserve it, for the conservative victims of media defamation, for President Bush, for the college kid who gets thrown out of his newspaper for writing a controversial article, for the ugly guy that has to pay for sex to enjoy a woman. Those are the people I feel sympathy for, and yes, that includes some good celebrities such as Donald Trump and Joan Rivers, people who are ridiculed for being fat, old, ugly.

But do I feel sympathy for Madonna after she called Sarah Pallin a cunt in one of her concerts? Do I feel sympathy for Leonardo Dicaprio when he advocates environmentalism regardless of the human cost? No. Respect has to be earned, and not all celebrities deserve neither respect nor sympathy.

Anonymous said...

---All that is true, yet the media decided to report on his adultery, which is a private matter.

So you did know the difference. You did know that his adultery caused him to be away from the state, out of touch,m etc and yet you still say that it is the same as a lousy CD review.

---Cops often have to use judgment calls, and yes, race plays a factor.

"Judgement" is not "racial profiling."

---Nobody's ignoring the crimes of other races,

Profiling ignores crimes committed by other races. That is what you were advocating. Now that your position has been shown to be false, you keep trying to move the topic somewhere else.

---It's not hate, it's a desire to "humanize them" by exposing their peccadilloes.

You take a perverse delight in the pointing out the faults of others and yet you don't even look in the mirror to see your own. You and Hilton are birds of a feather.

---Wrong, I do feel sympathy for those who deserve it,

I see. Now you believe that you are in the position to judge who and who does not deserve sympathy.

That is where you and I differ.

You take joy in other people's failings.

I don't.

You take joy in watching others throw hateful invectives at people in order to tear them down.

I don't.

You relish and advocate prejudice, bigotry and profiling.

I don't.

You delight and support those who are bullies and live to destroy others.

I don't.

Bobby said...

"So you did know the difference. You did know that his adultery caused him to be away from the state, out of touch,m etc and yet you still say that it is the same as a lousy CD review."

---If society followed your principles, the Governor's out of state trip would have been the topic of conversation, not his adultery. Besides, the bureaucracy can ran itself without the governor for a few days, he does have a deputy.



"Judgement" is not "racial profiling."

---Yes it is, blacks have reported harassment by cops, specially if they're young and look like they're in a gang.


"Profiling ignores crimes committed by other races. That is what you were advocating. Now that your position has been shown to be false, you keep trying to move the topic somewhere else."

---So what you're saying is that everyone at the airport should be treated the same? Should an 65 year old woman be submitted to the same search an arab gets? Does that make sense to you? Punishing everyone for a sense of justice? That's like an airline saying "we're sorry that not everyone can afford First Class so from now on, everyone will have to fly coach."


"You take a perverse delight in the pointing out the faults of others and yet you don't even look in the mirror to see your own. You and Hilton are birds of a feather."

---They and the Hollywood establishment ridicule conservatives, fat people, people of faith, SUV drivers, smokers, and a host of other groups. So yes, they deserve to have their faults pointed out.


"I see. Now you believe that you are in the position to judge who and who does not deserve sympathy."

---Yes, we all are. Don't give me this bull that only God judges, we all judge. You have judged me a racist and a bigot, remember?

"You delight and support those who are bullies and live to destroy others."

---The last point is invalid, I went to high school and college, I've never been afraid of the Perez Hilton's of the world. I was afraid of the jocks, the football players, those who are stronger than you and can actually do damage.

Perez Hilton is not one of those gays in the military, he's a pussy, he doesn't even know how to throw a punch of defend himself. He fights with words because that's all he has. A real bully throws your wallet in the toilet, beats the crap out of you and then takes a piss on your body, forces you to watch every corner and makes the school day a living hell.

Maybe words hurt, but speech can be answered with more speech, with violence it's not so easy.

Anonymous said...

---If society followed your principles, the Governor's out of state trip would have been the topic of conversation, not his adultery. Besides, the bureaucracy can ran itself without the governor for a few days, he does have a deputy.

The "deputy" is not empowered to run the state. Secondly, in case you missed it, the governor used state funds to have the affair. That makes the misappropriations of the funds the people's business.

---So what you're saying is that everyone at the airport should be treated the same? Should an 65 year old woman be submitted to the same search an arab gets?

Thank you. One of the Al Queada documents coming out of Iraq had the scenario of outfitting a grandmother as a suicide bomber.

You would have let her go because she doesn't fit a "profile."

Good investigations have the investigators following where the clues lead them.

Punishing everyone for a sense of justice? That's like an airline saying "we're sorry that not everyone can afford First Class so from now on, everyone will have to fly coach."

No, it is treating everyone the same as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Once again, you seem to want to just throw that document out the window.

Secondly, your analogy on first and second class on an airline is so bizarre and ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a response.

---They and the Hollywood establishment ridicule conservatives, fat people, people of faith, SUV drivers, smokers, and a host of other groups. So yes, they deserve to have their faults pointed out.

Thanks for agreeing that you take perverse pleasure in the faults of others.

---Yes, we all are. Don't give me this bull that only God judges, we all judge. You have judged me a racist and a bigot, remember?

Clearly you don't understand the concept of "judging." I have discerned that you are a rascist and a bigot based on your words and actions here in this forum. I don't pronounce a judgement on you which would be something akin to saying "you will not get any sympathy."

---The last point is invalid, I went to high school and college, I've never been afraid of the Perez Hilton's of the world. I was afraid of the jocks, the football players, those who are stronger than you and can actually do damage.

The last point was dead on. You support and believe that Hilton is doing a good thing. He lives to destroy people. He lives to ridicule people. He lives to make the lives of others miserable and you support him.

Maybe words hurt, but speech can be answered with more speech, with violence it's not so easy.

Then Hilton shoudl have known that the doctrine of "fighting words" would have precluded his speech from being protected. If you are going to enter into the realm or wordsmithing, it is a good idea to know the rules. Clearly you and Hilton do not.

Bobby said...

"The "deputy" is not empowered to run the state. Secondly, in case you missed it, the governor used state funds to have the affair. That makes the misappropriations of the funds the people's business."

---What's the difference between Obama flying to New York to see a Broadway show and Sanford flying to Argentina to sleep with a woman? They both used public funds for personal business. Now yes, I do agree that what Sanford did was wrong, my point is that both celebrities and politicians are public figures and thus accountable to public judgment. Being a public figure is really profitable, some celebrities even manufacture sex scandals just to get coverage in the tabloids and cash in at the box office. If you can ever rent the TV show "Dirt," do it, it's based on real life and it shows you that celebrities aren't as innocent as they pretend to be.


"Thank you. One of the Al Queada documents coming out of Iraq had the scenario of outfitting a grandmother as a suicide bomber."

---So that means every white grandmother has to be searched thoroughly? Buddy, the line at airport security is already too long and too slow. We don't need further aggravation.


"Clearly you don't understand the concept of "judging." I have discerned that you are a rascist and a bigot based on your words and actions here in this forum. I don't pronounce a judgement on you which would be something akin to saying "you will not get any sympathy.""

---Discernment means judging. A racist is someone that hates a race, I don't hate any races, I've had black friends, black roommates, arab friends, etc. That's like calling someone a homophobe just because they don't support same-sex marriage or because they believe homosexuality is a sin. Real bigotry is based on whether you hate someone, and if I ever hate is based on ideology, not race, not sexual orientation, not religion.


"He lives to destroy people. He lives to ridicule people. He lives to make the lives of others miserable and you support him."

---No, he lives to gossip and to challenge the powerful. When JFK was president he got away with adultery because the media wanted to protect the myth of Mr. Nice Guy. I don't believe in myths, I don't believe in protecting those who don't deserve protection. Instead of hating what Perez reports we should hate what his "victims" do.



"Then Hilton shoudl have known that the doctrine of "fighting words" would have precluded his speech from being protected. If you are going to enter into the realm or wordsmithing, it is a good idea to know the rules. Clearly you and Hilton do not."

---Fine, you're right about that. He should have had the common sense to know that calling someone that slur normally creates a fight. However, I understand where his coming from, Americans are very spoiled when it comes to civility. In Latin America people are very polite because insulting someone can lead to a physical fight, in America it's not that way. At work I've been called an "asshole" by a junior employee, I've seen bosses harass coworkers and vice-versa, I've seen people shouting obscenities from passing cars.

Perez's mistake was that he forgot he wasn't at his blog but in the real world where violence may or may not take place.

Still, what he did took guts. It takes guts for the weak to insult the strong, it's like a skinny white guy calling Mike Tyson the n-word. Maybe Perez was an asshole, but the world is full of assholes. Maybe Perez says and writes mean things, but others say and write mean things about Perez.

You feel sympathy for Perez's victims, a bunch of attractive and rich celebrities love by most. I feel sympathy for Perez, I know what it's like to be different, to be ridiculed, to be ignored. People like Perez have to fight twice as hard to be successful. If Perez was a beautiful woman with big boobs, you think she would be hated by the media? But because Perez is somewhat fat and effeminate, even the gays turn against him. So seriously, how can I not feel sympathy for him?

Anonymous said...

---What's the difference between Obama flying to New York to see a Broadway show and Sanford flying to Argentina to sleep with a woman?

Everytime I think that you can't say something more ridiculous, you manage to do it.

Obama has constituants in New York. Sandford does not have constitutants in Argentina. Obama still was in communication with the government. Sanford was not. Obama says he was going to New York. Sanford just disappears.

If you can't see that difference, than literally there is no hope for you. At this point all you are doing is arguing for the sake of argument and not thinking.

---So that means every white grandmother has to be searched thoroughly? Buddy, the line at airport security is already too long and too slow. We don't need further aggravation.

No, it means that just because you are a grandmother or whatever doesn't give you protection from investigators and security people doing their job. Your remark here is simply an indication that you would rather have terrorist attacks rather than investigators doing their jobs and trying to protect ALL of us.

---Discernment means judging.

Factually incorrect, especially in the Biblical context you tried to use it in.

A racist is someone that hates a race, I don't hate any races,

All evidence to the contrary.

---No, he lives to gossip and to challenge the powerful.

There ya go. Gossip is good in your world. Of course, when Hilton's power is challanged, you think that is a bad thing. So does he. You think that challanging people is a good thing until they are people you admire being challanged. You have tried unsuccessfully to defend Hilton just as your defense of O'Reilly was unsuccessful. Your perception is at best, hypocritical.

In Latin America people are very polite because insulting someone can lead to a physical fight, in America it's not that way.

Thanks again for the laugh. Really. Thanks. You have NO idea what you are talking about here. None.

Perez's mistake was that he forgot he wasn't at his blog but in the real world where violence may or may not take place.

No, Perez;s mistake was that he thought that someone would back down from him. He hides behind the writings of his blog and then feels that when he is held accountable for those writings, the other guy is a bully.

Hilton lives to destroy. Period.

The fact that you support him and his ilk is truly contemptable.

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.

Still, what he did took guts.

It took guts to shout an invective and then run away to tweat about the incident? It took guts to run and record an emotion, illogical, rant on a blog?

Man, you REALLY need to get a better definition of "guts."

You feel sympathy for Perez's victims, a bunch of attractive and rich celebrities love by most.

Have you not understood ANYTHING I have said in this thread? From this comment, it is clear that you have not. I don't care about the status of Hilton's victims. (and it is interesting that you admit they are victims. Funny how you are supporting a guy that lives to make other people "victims.")

I feel sympathy for Perez, I know what it's like to be different, to be ridiculed, to be ignored.

Yet when he points out the differences in others, ridicules others, tries to get the world to ignore others, he is a hero in your eyes? That's ridiculous.

People like Perez have to fight twice as hard to be successful.

So that gives him the right to tear as many people down as he can? That is what you are saying, right? That on the way to "the top," he has the right to leave as many dead bodies in his path? The hypocrisy is simply astounding.

But because Perez is somewhat fat and effeminate, even the gays turn against him. So seriously, how can I not feel sympathy for him?

The Gay community turned against him because of his attacks. Not just the general attacks on people, but also his specific attacks on gay people.

What you don't seem to get is that he threw out the term "faggot" and "gay" as an INSULT. How can the gay community support anyone who thinks being gay is an insult?

Perez isn't hated for whether he is effeminate or whatever. He is hated because of his actions. He is hated because he lives to destroy.

And you support him.

Pitiful.

Bobby said...

"Obama has constituants in New York. Sandford does not have constitutants in Argentina. Obama still was in communication with the government. Sanford was not. Obama says he was going to New York. Sanford just disappears."

---Obama did not go to New York to see his constituents, he went there to wine and dine himself and enjoy a nice Broadway show at taxpayer expense. Sanford's airline ticket to Argentina was lot cheaper than Obama's trip.

Besides, the argument was about privacy, you think celebrities are entitled to their privacy, that people like Perez are evil for reporting their misdeed. Yet you have no problem with the mainstream media reporting on Sanford's adultery.



"Your remark here is simply an indication that you would rather have terrorist attacks rather than investigators doing their jobs and trying to protect ALL of us."

---I'm all for security, but to a certain point. There is a limit.



A racist is someone that hates a race, I don't hate any races,

All evidence to the contrary.

---That's a judgment. You don't know all the facts yet you have no trouble calling me a racist. A racist would never support the second amendment, a racist would demand gun control for blacks. Thus, I'm not a racist. I encourage law abiding blacks to keep and bear arms.



"There ya go. Gossip is good in your world. Of course, when Hilton's power is challanged, you think that is a bad thing. So does he. You think that challanging people is a good thing until they are people you admire being challanged. You have tried unsuccessfully to defend Hilton just as your defense of O'Reilly was unsuccessful. Your perception is at best, hypocritical."

---O'reilly doesn't need my defense, he has the #1 rated show in cable news, his books are always on the New York Times bestseller list, sometimes for months at #1. His success speaks for itself. I think challenging powerful people is a good thing, yes. It is when those who are less powerful are challenge that I do take sympathy. Celebrities are always more powerful than gossip columnists, that's a fact.


"Thanks again for the laugh. Really. Thanks. You have NO idea what you are talking about here. None."

---I lived in Venezuela for 20 years, I KNOW what I'm talking about.


"Hilton lives to destroy. Period."

---Destroy? With what? Words? Haven't you ever heard "stick and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me."


"The fact that you support him and his ilk is truly contemptable."

---Tell me, where you one of the popular kids in high school? Where you down with the in crowd? Your kind always protects their own. Just like the Kennedy family, they get away with everything using their power and influence to silence anyone who would criticize them. You hate people like Perez because they threaten the power structure, Perez and every other blogger represents voices that can't be silenced.

Bobby said...

cont.

"It took guts to shout an invective and then run away to tweat about the incident? It took guts to run and record an emotion, illogical, rant on a blog?"

---Yes, it takes guts to communicate your feelings to the entire world, to cry in front of others. Hiding your emotions is easier, everyone does it.


"(and it is interesting that you admit they are victims. Funny how you are supporting a guy that lives to make other people "victims.")"

---I was being sarcastic, they're not really victims.


"Yet when he points out the differences in others, ridicules others, tries to get the world to ignore others, he is a hero in your eyes? That's ridiculous."

---Don't you get it? He attacks the in-crowd, the popular kids, the beautiful people, the A-listers.


"So that gives him the right to tear as many people down as he can? That is what you are saying, right? That on the way to "the top," he has the right to leave as many dead bodies in his path? The hypocrisy is simply astounding."

---No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that he is at a disadvantage and I simpathize with how hard he had to struggle to get that blog to be among the most popular blogs.


"Perez isn't hated for whether he is effeminate or whatever. He is hated because of his actions. He is hated because he lives to destroy."

---His actions are no more hateful than those of John Stewart. You want hate? Watch The Daily Show, it's full of hate towards republicans and even democrat Jim Kramer (his sin was disagreeing with Obama's economic policies).

Like I said, Perez has to fight twice as hard. Michael Musto didn't get in trouble when he ridiculed Ms. California, Keith Olberman doesn't get in trouble when he refers to Bill O'reilly as the "worst person in the world," all the other gossip columnist and entertainers do their thing with no accountability. Yet Perez Hilton loses his cool with a black singer, and all hell breaks lose.

Anonymous said...

Besides, the argument was about privacy, you think celebrities are entitled to their privacy, that people like Perez are evil for reporting their misdeed.

I missed where Perez does any reporting. Once again, all he does is tear people down. That isn't reporting, that is just being a jerk, a twit and a bully. And yes, people are entitled to their privacy. Please show me in the Constitution where it says otherwise.

---I'm all for security, but to a certain point. There is a limit.

Of course your limit is letting actual terrorists completing their attacks while you want police, the FBI and Homeland Security profiling Arabs.

--- Thus, I'm not a racist. I encourage law abiding blacks to keep and bear arms.

I'm sorry, but are you really that naive to think that one can only be a racist if the race they hate is blacks?

---I lived in Venezuela for 20 years, I KNOW what I'm talking about.

You mean in Venezuela where insulting a policeman,. Chavez or any other official will get you thrown in jail? THAT Venezuela? And by the way, I have lived in Mexico and Peru. I have a different experience than you do. As your statement was all inclusive, any crack, and difference in expereinces shows that your statement was wrong.

---Destroy? With what? Words? Haven't you ever heard "stick and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me."

Haven't you ever heard "the pen is mightier than the sword?" Or how about "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on?"

---Tell me, where you one of the popular kids in high school?

Actually I wasn't. I was one of the people that others picked on. I saw the devestation of bullies such as Hilton did to people I knew.

Your kind always protects their own.

"Your kind?" You mean the kind of person who has empathy and sympathy for those who are attacked by others? That kind? The kind of person that thinks that Hilton and other people like him are boils on the butt of the world? The kind of person who refuses to buy into your hatred of those who are more successful than you?

You hate people like Perez because they threaten the power structure, Perez and every other blogger represents voices that can't be silenced.

You write some of the funniest stuff. Hilton has more "power" than you give him credit for. He lives to destroy people. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. You support him. You are trying to be just the same type of bully that he is.

cont.

Anonymous said...

---Yes, it takes guts to communicate your feelings to the entire world, to cry in front of others. Hiding your emotions is easier, everyone does it.

Good grief. First you say he "stood up to them," and then when you see that he ran away and tried to make a story out of it, you say that takes guts. Please tell me how much "guts" does it take to run away?

---I was being sarcastic, they're not really victims.

Sorry, this statement is a lie. You weren't being sarcastic. You know that Hilton creates victims of all types. You got caught in writing the truth and now know you have to lie to try and cover it. You just like that he does what he does. You are no different than he is in that regard. You revel in the suffering of others.

---Don't you get it? He attacks the in-crowd, the popular kids, the beautiful people, the A-listers.

Don't you get it? He IS part of the in-crowd. He IS part of the "popular kids." He IS part of the "beautiful people." He IS an "a-lister." Yet when HE is held accountable for HIS actions. you rush to his aid. You support him because he destroy and hurts people. You like it when he supposedly stands up to people, but when people stand up to him, you think they are wrong. Your position is, as usual, hypocritical.

---No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that he is at a disadvantage and I simpathize with how hard he had to struggle to get that blog to be among the most popular blogs.

So his means justify the ends? Is that really what you mean?

---His actions are no more hateful than those of John Stewart. You want hate? Watch The Daily Show, it's full of hate towards republicans and even democrat Jim Kramer (his sin was disagreeing with Obama's economic policies).

Ah yes. The "they did it so we can do it too" defense. Most people stop using that in second grade.

Stewart being a jerk doesn't justify Hilton being a jerk as well.

Grow up.

Like I said, Perez has to fight twice as hard. Michael Musto didn't get in trouble when he ridiculed Ms. California,

Well, let's see...... who started the attack on Carrie Prejean? My goodness!! It was your buddy Hilton!! Who called her the "c-word?" My goodness!! It was your idol Hilton!!

If you think Musto was wrong in his attack on Prejean, then why wasn't Hilton just as wrong? At least I am consistant in saying they are both wrong.

You aren't.

Yet Perez Hilton loses his cool with a black singer, and all hell breaks lose.

"All hell breaks loose" because of what was said, the manner in which it was said, and Hilton's childish and amateurish attempt to not only play the victim, but to get more positive publicity from it.

Hilton created this mess, and he is responsible for its aftermath.

Would it really be too much to at least be consistant with your comdemnation of those who act like bullies? Or is it too much for you to say Hilton and O'Reilly are wrong just as Musto, Stewart and Olberman are wrong for their attacks?

In case you are wondering, those questions are rhetorical. We both know the answers.

Bobby said...

"I missed where Perez does any reporting."

---Don't be coy, if I run a blog and I post a story about a celebrity arriving in Paris with a dog, that's reporting!


"Once again, all he does is tear people down."

--Is this tearing people down?
Brad Pitt's motorcycle doesn't work
http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-04-brad-pitt-makes-a-pit-stop

Obama's likeness at Disney World
http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-04-mom-president-obama-is-freaking-me-out

Michael Jackson's Extravagant Casket
http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-04-michaels-extravagant-casket

This isn't tearing people down, it's legitimate reporting + gossip.



"I'm sorry, but are you really that naive to think that one can only be a racist if the race they hate is blacks?"

---I already told you, I hate people based on ideology, not race. I would have voted for Condoleeza Rice if she had run for President against Obama, or Hillary Clinton.


"You mean in Venezuela where insulting a policeman,. Chavez or any other official will get you thrown in jail? THAT Venezuela?"

---I left the country before Chavez became president.


"And by the way, I have lived in Mexico and Peru. I have a different experience than you do."

---Then you shouldn't be contradicting me since you have seen that latinos tend to be very polite until you cross them.


"Actually I wasn't. I was one of the people that others picked on. I saw the devestation of bullies such as Hilton did to people I knew."

---Then I don't get it, you where a victim yet you sympathize with the people that would have victimized you in high school if given a chance?


"Don't you get it? He IS part of the in-crowd. He IS part of the "popular kids." He IS part of the "beautiful people." He IS an "a-lister.""

---Please, gays are rarely part of that crowd. Why do you think the lead role in Brokeback Mountain was played by Heath Ledger and not some gay actor? The moment a gay actor comes out his career is over, he'll get stuck playing the friend in stupid romantic comedies. Perez Hilton will never be Liz Smith no matter how hard he tries.


"Well, let's see...... who started the attack on Carrie Prejean? My goodness!! It was your buddy Hilton!! Who called her the "c-word?" My goodness!! It was your idol Hilton!!"

---And he was WRONG in that case which is why I didn't bring it up except to mention that when Michael Muston when on TV and said horrible things about her, only Fox News complained.


"If you think Musto was wrong in his attack on Prejean, then why wasn't Hilton just as wrong? At least I am consistant in saying they are both wrong."


---They both where wrong because Carria Prejean gave a polite answer when asked that question, she's not will.I.am., she's not a cunt.

Anonymous said...

---Don't be coy, if I run a blog and I post a story about a celebrity arriving in Paris with a dog, that's reporting!

Actually its not. But I know that escapes you.

---I already told you, I hate people based on ideology, not race. I would have voted for Condoleeza Rice if she had run for President against Obama, or Hillary Clinton.

The problem is that you continue to make remarks about people based on their race. You can protest all you want, but your actions here speck louder than your words.

---I left the country before Chavez became president.

In other words, you were wrong on your point.

---Then you shouldn't be contradicting me since you have seen that latinos tend to be very polite until you cross them.

So are most people. (Unless of course, you are Perez Hilton.)

---Then I don't get it, you where a victim yet you sympathize with the people that would have victimized you in high school if given a chance?

A bully is a bully. Two wrongs don't make a right. I sympathize with anyone who is attacked by someone else just for the fun of it - you know.... like Hilton and O'Reilly do.

---Please, gays are rarely part of that crowd. Why do you think the lead role in Brokeback Mountain was played by Heath Ledger and not some gay actor?

Geez, another prejudical statement from you. The fact of the matter is that the Black Eyed Peas were at two parties when the incident with Hilton took place. Hilton was invited to and attended the SAME parties. In other words, Hilton was getting the same perks and same treatment that the Black Eyed Peas were getting - that of being the "in crowd."

You have a nasty habit of not letting reality get in the way of your perceptions.

Why do you think the lead role in Brokeback Mountain was played by Heath Ledger and not some gay actor?

So you are saying that Ledger was chosen for the movie because he was straight as opposed to his acting ability? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? By the same token, no gay man should ever play a heterosexual man because he could never pull it off.

The bigotry you exhibit is astounding at times. Directors and producers want the best actor for the role.

Perez Hilton will never be Liz Smith no matter how hard he tries.

Of course he won't. Liz Smith has some class and won't cross certian lines. Hilton has no class and doesn't believe that anything (well, except his writings and his life) are above his attacks.

---And he was WRONG in that case which is why I didn't bring it up except to mention that when Michael Muston when on TV and said horrible things about her, only Fox News complained.

Actually, lots of people complained, but don't let the truth get in your way.

You are still hung up on this idea that because one person does something despicable, that justifies others doing similar despicable things.

Grow up.

---They both where wrong because Carria Prejean gave a polite answer when asked that question, she's not will.I.am., she's not a cunt.

Yet you don't see that Hilton was in a much more powerful and authoratative position when he attacked Prejean. You can say he was wrong all you want, but you still follow and worship him.

The Prejean / Hilton incident only serves to illustrate once again your hypocrisy.

Bobby said...

"Actually its not. But I know that escapes you."

---Reporting can be pretty much anything. If I say "Obama arrived at the White House at 11:50 pm" that's reporting!


"The problem is that you continue to make remarks about people based on their race. You can protest all you want, but your actions here speck louder than your words."

---So if I say "black people like hip hop" is that a racist statement just because a few black people like classical music? Come on!


"In other words, you were wrong on your point."

---No, my point had nothing to do with Chavez.


"A bully is a bully. Two wrongs don't make a right. I sympathize with anyone who is attacked by someone else just for the fun of it - you know.... like Hilton and O'Reilly do."

---Here's the difference between you and me. If Perez Hilton calls me an f-g, I laugh my ass off. If a group of neo-nazi does it, then I get scared and if I have a gun with me, I take it out just in case they intend violence.


"In other words, Hilton was getting the same perks and same treatment that the Black Eyed Peas were getting - that of being the "in crowd."

---I give up if you don't understand the difference between an A-list celebrity and a D-list celebrity.


"So you are saying that Ledger was chosen for the movie because he was straight as opposed to his acting ability?"

---No, but it helps with the marketing. It has become a trend for straight actors to play gay roles, then they get to go on Letterman and talk about how disgusting it was to kiss a man. Then everyone praises them for their "courage."


"By the same token, no gay man should ever play a heterosexual man because he could never pull it off."

---No, gay actors stay in the closet because the minute they come out they will no longer get great roles. That's reality, I'm not making a bigoted statement, I'm just telling the truth.



"The bigotry you exhibit is astounding at times. Directors and producers want the best actor for the role."

---Ever heard of typecasting? This is Hollywood, not the theater, looks, sexual orientation, race, they all play a part in casting. Look at Joe Pesci, he's a great actor but they only give him roles in mafia and crime movies.



"Of course he won't. Liz Smith has some class and won't cross certian lines. Hilton has no class and doesn't believe that anything (well, except his writings and his life) are above his attacks."

---You think Liz Smith has class? That woman has written the meanest things about everyone, from presidents to celebrities. She may have style and grace, but she's python just like any other gossip columnist.


"The Prejean / Hilton incident only serves to illustrate once again your hypocrisy."

---Their different incidents, one is not related to the other. Hilton was wrong about Prejean, but I know where he's coming from. Hollywood is very PC, this people are not used to having their ideas challenged, so they go ballistic when anyone offers an independent thought.

Will.I.Am is a different story, there's a lot of bad blood between gays and black rappers.
http://www.afterelton.com/music/2006/6/hiphop.html

So when will.i.am told Perez to stop calling his bandmates "fugly" on his blog, he had a hissy fit and exploded.

The Carrie Prejean situation is different because Carrie never approach Perez, never told him how to do his job, never told him what to say, so his tantrum against Carrie was completely unfair and wrong.

Anonymous said...

---Reporting can be pretty much anything. If I say "Obama arrived at the White House at 11:50 pm" that's reporting!

Uh .... no.

---So if I say "black people like hip hop" is that a racist statement just because a few black people like classical music? Come on!

It may not be racist, but it certainly is prejudical. You make statements about people in general base don their race without taking into the account the individual. You lump people together and paint them all with the same prejudiced paintbrush.

---No, my point had nothing to do with Chavez.

No, but it had everything to do with your perception of people. That perception has been shown to be false.

---Here's the difference between you and me. If Perez Hilton calls me an f-g, I laugh my ass off. If a group of neo-nazi does it, then I get scared and if I have a gun with me, I take it out just in case they intend violence.

No, the difference is that you think that Hilton's comment is accecptable. I don't. You think that his dengrating a whole group or people is acceptable. I don't. You laugh at his bigoted statements.

I don't.

---I give up if you don't understand the difference between an A-list celebrity and a D-list celebrity.

First, I understand the difference. Secondly, your jealousy of either is loathesome. Lastly, you have yet to established that Hilton was treated any differently than any member of the Black Eyed Peas. In fact, we know that he wasn't. So whatever "list" the Peas were on, Hilton was there as well.

---No, gay actors stay in the closet because the minute they come out they will no longer get great roles. That's reality, I'm not making a bigoted statement, I'm just telling the truth.

No, you are voicing your bigotry. There are plenty of gay actors and actresses that get good roles based on their ability.

What you fail to understand is that even now, you judge people by their sexual orientation. All through this discussion you have continually tried to make points about Hilton because he is gay. I never stooped that low because it is wrong.

---Ever heard of typecasting? This is Hollywood, not the theater, looks, sexual orientation, race, they all play a part in casting. Look at Joe Pesci, he's a great actor but they only give him roles in mafia and crime movies.

Your ignorance is astounding. "The Good Shepherd," "Gone Fishin'," "With Honors," "Home Alone," "The Super," "JFK," "Man on Fire," and "My Cousin Vinny" are all Pesci films that are neither mafia or crime films.

Hollywood is about money. If you think that a director or producer is going to take one actor over another because the actor is or is not gay, you are dellusional. It ia about the MONEY.

cont

Anonymous said...

cont

---You think Liz Smith has class? That woman has written the meanest things about everyone, from presidents to celebrities. She may have style and grace, but she's python just like any other gossip columnist.

Please take a reading course. Really. Then you can actually respond to what I say, rather than what you think I said.

---Their different incidents, one is not related to the other. Hilton was wrong about Prejean, but I know where he's coming from. Hollywood is very PC, this people are not used to having their ideas challenged, so they go ballistic when anyone offers an independent thought.

Yes they are different incidents. Yet your reaction is totally different in the two. Pure hypocrisy on your part.

So when will.i.am told Perez to stop calling his bandmates "fugly" on his blog, he had a hissy fit and exploded.

So why do you have any resepct or support anyone that throws a hissy fit like Hilton did? Why do you support his immature and childish rants?

If Hilton were mature, all he would have said is "you want me to respect you? How about you taking a monment and respecting me as a gay person and the gay community?"

THAT would have been mature and an adult thing to do But he didn't do that, did he? He yelled an bigoted invective and then ran away when his writings were questioned by someone.

And you think the guy is "courageous."

What a joke.

The Carrie Prejean situation is different because Carrie never approach Perez, never told him how to do his job, never told him what to say, so his tantrum against Carrie was completely unfair and wrong.

Yet he was telling PREJEAN what to say, do and think, wasn't he? He was telling the Black Eyed Peas what to say, do and think in his blog. So when someone stands up to his bullying, he freaks out. He freaked out when Prejean stood up to him in the days following the Miss America padgent.

You stil think he is "brave" despite his actions.

Like most bullies, when confronted, Hilton folds like a house of cards.

Bobby said...

"It may not be racist, but it certainly is prejudical. You make statements about people in general base don their race without taking into the account the individual."

---If that's your standard, then we can never say anything about any group of people. While some stereotypes are due to misinformation, others are based on observation and others on statistics. Just because Tiger Woods plays golf doesn't mean I have to acknowledge the tiny minority of black golfers among a huge majority of basketball fans. When it comes to marketing, we don't target the exception, we target the rule.


"No, the difference is that you think that Hilton's comment is accecptable. I don't. You think that his dengrating a whole group or people is acceptable. I don't. You laugh at his bigoted statements."

---In our politically correct society people rarely say what they think anymore, I celebrate his honesty and candor. Maybe it's not nice to degrade people, but I'm sick of PC. Besides, he wasn't denigrating an entire group of people, he was attacking one person. His feelings where hurt and he wanted to give the pain back.


"No, you are voicing your bigotry. There are plenty of gay actors and actresses that get good roles based on their ability."

---Name one. Nathan Lane doesn't count, he only gets stupid comedies. Tell me the gay equivalent of Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Angelina Jolie. It doesn't exist.


"What you fail to understand is that even now, you judge people by their sexual orientation."

---Ever heard of don't ask don't tell? That's the world we live in. We are judged by all kinds of reasons.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to marketing, we don't target the exception, we target the rule.

You aren't making statements trying to sell anything Bobby. You are making accusations based on someones' race.

---In our politically correct society people rarely say what they think anymore, I celebrate his honesty and candor.

You celebrate his saying that being gay is an insult? You celebrate his calling Prejean the c-word? And of course, his "honesty and candor" was on display when he wrote about the rumor that Michael Jackson was dead.

In other words, this is another case where the facts dispute your perception.

"Honesty and candor" are anathema to Perez.

Besides, he wasn't denigrating an entire group of people, he was attacking one person.

He was attacking a person by using a slur that denigrated an entire group of people - even himself. In essence, he must be saying that he hates himself so much that calling someone what Perez is an insult.

So much for your "honesty and candor."

His feelings where hurt and he wanted to give the pain back.

Thank you for proving that Hilton is immature. Not only was he resulting to the "you did this, so I can do that" childish rational, it should be remembered that what he was racting to was someone critizing his writings.

According to you, you are excusing his rant and homophobic statements because someone criticized what he wrote.

---Name one. Nathan Lane doesn't count, he only gets stupid comedies. Tell me the gay equivalent of Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Angelina Jolie. It doesn't exist.

I am not sure why I have to continually try to cure your ignorance.

Go here:

http://tinyurl.com/n3rv9y

Unless you are an idiot, you should recognize major players in all areas of the entertainment industry.

By the way, I notice that you didn't respond to the blowing up of your ridiculous statement on "type casting" and Joe Pesci. I guess it was just another case of your ignorance being cured.

---Ever heard of don't ask don't tell? That's the world we live in. We are judged by all kinds of reasons.

Yes I have heard of "don't ask, don't tell."

Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with what you are talking about, but that doesn't surprise me.

One thing that I have gotten very used to is your continually avoidance of actual points. Very much like liberals, you write one thing, and when that is disproven, you go onto something else that is unrelated.

This whole "stereotyping" cunnard is good example.

Grow up, man. Just friggin' grow up.

Bobby said...

cont


"So why do you have any resepct or support anyone that throws a hissy fit like Hilton did? Why do you support his immature and childish rants?"

---If they keep happening, I will stop supporting him, but right now, the good outweights the bad. And yes, I know you don't think gossip is ever good.


"Yet he was telling PREJEAN what to say, do and think, wasn't he? He was telling the Black Eyed Peas what to say, do and think in his blog. So when someone stands up to his bullying, he freaks out. He freaked out when Prejean stood up to him in the days following the Miss America padgent."

---No, he never told the Black Eye Peas what to said, he simply called them "fuglies" on his blog. With Prejean he acted like Joseph McCarthy, persecuting her for having a politically incorrect view on marriage. With will.i.am he blogged the same crap he blogs about every other celebrity. Besides, blogging is not bullying, I realize the internet is extremely important now, and some states are ever prosecuting cyber-bullying, but this is getting ridiculous.


"You stil think he is "brave" despite his actions."

---He has balls, what he did was the equivalent of the high school nerd insulting the school quarterback while he's sorrounded by all his jock friends. Dude, think about it. You're too focused on what slurr he used and what he did afterwards, I'm focused on the moment. At that moment, he was courageous, later on he lost his courage and became a crying pussy, but I celebrate the moment when he wasn't a pussy, when he stood up like a man and said "hey, you're not going to intimidate me, you're not going to put me down, I can be just as mean as you" using only one word.


"Like most bullies, when confronted, Hilton folds like a house of cards."

---No, maybe from now on he'll watch himself more in public, but in his blog he will continue to trash celebrities just like before. Eventually he'll run a story of will.i.am driving drunk or photos him snorting coke. And then will.i.am will be forced to go to rehab, he'll come out a better person and he'll thank Hilton for publishing those pictures. See how gossip does good in the end?

Anonymous said...

---If they keep happening, I will stop supporting him, but right now, the good outweights the bad. And yes, I know you don't think gossip is ever good.

Whew. Then with his latest rant against Michael Jackson, you should now stop supporting him.

But we both know you won't. You'll find some justification to keep supporting him.

And by the way, his childish rants have never stopped, so excuse me for thinking that you'll stop supporting him is just more hot air.

---No, he never told the Black Eye Peas what to said, he simply called them "fuglies" on his blog.

Wrong again. He attacked their music, and their lyrics and in essence, telling them what to say.

And of course, calling someone "fuglies" is sooooooo mature. First grade mature.

---He has balls, what he did was the equivalent of the high school nerd insulting the school quarterback while he's sorrounded by all his jock friends.

Calling Prejean the c-word takes "balls?" That is a funny definition of guts you have.

Dude, think about it. You're too focused on what slurr he used and what he did afterwards, I'm focused on the moment.

The "moment" is the whole episode. There was NOTHING brave in what Hilton did. Not one thing. He got insulted by what was said to him and like a child, he yelled something and then ran away.

At that moment, he was courageous,

It doesn't take courage to yell something and then run away.

later on he lost his courage and became a crying pussy, but I celebrate the moment when he wasn't a pussy,

Then you have nothing to celebrate as there was not such a moment.

when he stood up like a man and said "hey, you're not going to intimidate me, you're not going to put me down, I can be just as mean as you" using only one word.

If he had said that, he might have gotten more respect. As he did not, your point is moot. All he did was yell something and then ran away.

---No, maybe from now on he'll watch himself more in public, but in his blog he will continue to trash celebrities just like before.

Well, there ya go. At least you admit now that his blog exists simply to trash people.

You support him out of jealousy for others.

See how gossip does good in the end?

No.

And neither would you if you were the focus of his hatred.

That is another difference between you and I. You like when people get trashed. I don't.

You support a man who lives to destroy and trash others for sport.

That is all there is too it.

Anonymous said...

You know Bobby, I have been giving this statement from you some thought:

See how gossip does good in the end?

It is time to end this line of thought as well.

One of the "foundations" of your support of Hilton is that you say that he is just sticking up for all the people in schools or wherever that were bullied by what people said and did to them.

That would include bullies that "gossip" about people, spread rumors about people, or lie about people.

You condemn the attacks in one breath and applaud ut in another. The only difference seems to be the target of the attacks and the people doing the attacking.

To any normal person, the behaviour is despicable no matter when. We don't make the distinction that it is okay to gossip, lie and spread rumors about someone because we don't like them, or disagree with them.

We carry the same moral standards across the board.

You support Hilton and his methods because of his targets - targets that you arae jealous of because of their success and success.

Of course, the conservative viewpoint in this is that true conservatives want all people to be successful.

We think that is a good thing.

You, on the other hand, see successful people as targets.

It is amazing to me that you condemn that type of behaviour in one breath and then applaud it in another.

Your defence of people that do this type of thing is despicable. It really is. For you to applaud someone like Hilton who deliberately targets people for rumors, lies and gossip shows a lack of character.

That is all there is too it.

Bobby said...

"You celebrate his saying that being gay is an insult?"

---He used the f-g word as an insult, he had no choice. Our culture favors heterosexuality, "cuntsucker" is not an insult, "cocksucker" is. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but I'm willing to bet Perez must have been really pissed off to use that word.


"He was attacking a person by using a slur that denigrated an entire group of people - even himself. In essence, he must be saying that he hates himself so much that calling someone what Perez is an insult."

---Watch "The Celluloid Closet" and you'll see that f-gg-t has been used hundreds of times in film as a word to degrate individuals. Even Ann Coulter used it to denigrate John Edwards, she admited her usage had to do with a childhood taunt rather than anything about Edward's sexual orientation.


"According to you, you are excusing his rant and homophobic statements because someone criticized what he wrote."

---When two people get angry, that anger clouds their judgment and they use words they wouldn't use otherwise.

"I am not sure why I have to continually try to cure your ignorance."

---I saw the link, they're all minor celebrities. Ruppert Everett? Lance Bass? Give me a break, they're all C and D list celebrities.


"By the way, I notice that you didn't respond to the blowing up of your ridiculous statement on "type casting" and Joe Pesci. I guess it was just another case of your ignorance being cured."

---Fine, I was wrong about Pesci.


"Then with his latest rant against Michael Jackson, you should now stop supporting him."

---Jackson had a history of canceling concerts, he said that before he died and whatever Perez said afterwards was based by sources close to Jackson. Look, the man was troubled, now we know he abused prescription drugs. At least Perez didn't call him a pedophile, which is an unproven allegation.


"Wrong again. He attacked their music, and their lyrics and in essence, telling them what to say."

---How is that telling them what to say? That was a critique, no different than a movie critique or a theater critique. The fact that the Black Eyes Peas got offended show me they're clueless about the media and bloggers.

Bobby said...

"Calling Prejean the c-word takes "balls?" That is a funny definition of guts you have."

---No, I was talking about will.i.am.

"It doesn't take courage to yell something and then run away."

---He was punched, he didn't know how to fight, what do you want him to do? Stay there until he dies?


"Then you have nothing to celebrate as there was not such a moment."

---It takes guts to insult will.i.am when he's surrounded by a posse of strong men.


"If he had said that, he might have gotten more respect. As he did not, your point is moot. All he did was yell something and then ran away."

---You know something, in the end he won, he was able to provoke a reaction.


"Well, there ya go. At least you admit now that his blog exists simply to trash people."

---So does The New York Times.


"That is another difference between you and I. You like when people get trashed. I don't."

---Trashed is not the right word, I like it when people get challenged, it makes them more sympathetic. I remember not liking Clay Aiken when he was in the closet pretending to be a born-again Christian and a virgin. I hated him when he evaded questions about his sexual orientation, acting like it was beneath him. Well, after he came out, I respected him more because he's no longer Mr. Perfect. Flaws make people charming.


"You support a man who lives to destroy and trash others for sport."

---He levels the playing field. Celebrities have no problems trashing gun owners, embracing Cuba and Venezuela, thrashing religious people, referring to pro-lifers as terrorists, among other bad things they do. What Perez, People, US Weekly, TMZ and others do is bring the idols back to earth, expose their flaws, show that in spite of their fame and power they're not that different from us.

Celebrities need to be questioned. Is it healthy for Madonna to adopt that baby? Are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt good parents? Is Britney Spears doing drugs again?

Think about it, the media is doing them a favor, celebrities are already surrounded by people kissing their asses, that's how Michael Jackson was able to get all those drugs. If the media had know about Jackson's drug problems, maybe he would still be alive today.

Bobby said...

Would you like my e-mail? Maybe we should continue this debate somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

---He used the f-g word as an insult, he had no choice.

In a language with over 650,000 words, this is the best he can do?

Your assertion that "he had no choice" is laughable.

I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but I'm willing to bet Perez must have been really pissed off to use that word.

Why do you think that? It is not the first time that he has gone off on a childish, immature name calling rant when his ideas and writings are challanged.

---When two people get angry, that anger clouds their judgment and they use words they wouldn't use otherwise.

Another lame justification from you. I deal with angry people all the time. What he did was despicable and there is really no justification for it.

---I saw the link, they're all minor celebrities. Ruppert Everett? Lance Bass? Give me a break, they're all C and D list celebrities.

Madonna, Lindsay Lohan, Rock Hudson, Clive Barker, and the list goes on and on.

---Jackson had a history of canceling concerts, he said that before he died and whatever Perez said afterwards was based by sources close to Jackson.

Bull.

Let's review the post he made and the facts, shall we?

Lavandeira wrote:

"Michael Jackson was taken by ambulance from his Holmby Hills home to a nearby Los Angeles Hospital on Thursday afternoon!!"

Of course, he was dead at the time they moved his body, but that doesn't matter to Lavandeira or you. So much for "sources," eh?

"Supposedly, the singer went into cardiac arrest and the paramedics has to administer CPR!!!

His mother is even on the way to visit him!!!

We are dubious!!"

We now know that Jackson did indeed suffer a heart attack. Once again, so much for those "sources" that were "close to Jackson."

On fact, Lavandeira got NOTHING on the Jackson story right. His cheap attack on Jackson by writing "heart atack or cold feet?" on Jackson's picture after Jackson's death is despicable. There is not other way to sugar coat it.

You celebrate what he did which means you celebrate his getting the "story" wrong, and his hearless attack on a guy that was dead.

The fact that the Black Eyes Peas got offended show me they're clueless about the media and bloggers.

They were offended about his lack of class and professionalism. You celebrate that he attacked them for no other reason than to get people like you to revel in his childish rants. When they confronted him about his childish writings (the ones that you support) he got mad and did what children do.

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.

---No, I was talking about will.i.am.

I know you were. Yet you have maintained that confronting people or "bringing them down" shows a great deal of courage. You consider his attacks worthy of your respect. Yet here we have Lavandeira attacking Prejean and Jackson simply because it was fun for him and they couldn't defend themselves in the moment.

He is a coward.

---He was punched, he didn't know how to fight, what do you want him to do? Stay there until he dies?

If he had the courage you claim he does, he would have stayed.

But he didn't, did he.

He ran away.

That isn't courage in any sense of the word and you know it.

---You know something, in the end he won, he was able to provoke a reaction.

Yeah, his blog numbers are showing how much he has "won." (You do know that he has been lying about his twitter numbers, right? Another classy and mature thing to do on his part.)

However, to address your point, if we use the standard of "getting a reaction," then the Black Eyed Peas won because they certainly got a reaction from Lavandeira. The reaction they got was childish and immature. The reaction HE got was ...... well.... one of cowardness in running away.

---So does The New York Times.

There ya go. Keep trying to deflect by the first grade justification of "they did it too!!"

---He levels the playing field.

So lying about people is a noble thing?

Good grief.

Celebrities need to be questioned.

Of course, since he doesn't "question" celebrities, your point is moot.

Is it healthy for Madonna to adopt that baby? Are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt good parents?

Quite frankly, who the hell are you or Lavandeira to demand those questions be answered? Who the hell is Lavandeira to lecture anyone on "parenting?" Given your bigotry displayed here, who the hell are you to say anything about kids or parenting?

Face it. You like Lavandeira because you feel a kinship with his trashing people. You allow that feeling to encourage and feed your jealousy of other's success.

If the media had know about Jackson's drug problems, maybe he would still be alive today.

Right. So to exhibit this great compassion for others, Lavandeira writes that Jackson is faking it and people need to get their ticket money back.

Some compassion your hero has.

Bobby said...

"In a language with over 650,000 words, this is the best he can do?"

---Ann Coulter is a master of the language yet she used the same word against John Edwards. Don't you get it? It's a provocative word.


"Why do you think that? It is not the first time that he has gone off on a childish, immature name calling rant when his ideas and writings are challanged."

---It is the second time he has made headlines for doing something awful, the first time was Ms. California.


"On fact, Lavandeira got NOTHING on the Jackson story right. His cheap attack on Jackson by writing "heart atack or cold feet?""

---I had family in Venezuela who had tickets to see Michael Jackson when he canceled the tour due to "exhaustion." That's the way Michael was, completely self-centered and self-involved without giving a damn to anything but his own sick needs of being a child again.


"They were offended about his lack of class and professionalism."

---Most of the media lacks class and professionalism, they should be used to it.


"When they confronted him about his childish writings (the ones that you support) he got mad and did what children do."

---You don't know how he was confronted, what they actually told him.

cont.

Bobby said...

cont.

"Yet here we have Lavandeira attacking Prejean and Jackson simply because it was fun for him and they couldn't defend themselves in the moment."

---So he's not perfect, so he makes mistakes, so he attacks the wrong people sometimes. Does that mean I can't enjoy him when he does things I agree with? Even my idol Bill O'reilly pisses me off when he attacks horror movies like Saw.


"If he had the courage you claim he does, he would have stayed.
But he didn't, did he.
He ran away.
That isn't courage in any sense of the word and you know it."

---Sometimes you have to know when to retreat, even in the military sometimes the generals call for a retreat to avoid further loses. If Perez had known that his outburst would have resulted in violence he wouldn't have uttered that word.


"Yeah, his blog numbers are showing how much he has "won." (You do know that he has been lying about his twitter numbers, right? Another classy and mature thing to do on
his part.)"

---Just look at the comment section, some of his stories get 1,000 comments, I can assume that for every comment there's at least 10 readers, or even 100 readers.


"However, to address your point, if we use the standard of "getting a reaction," then the Black Eyed Peas won because they certainly got a reaction from Lavandeira."

---Punching an effeminate gay guy in the face is not exactly courageous, although in our sick anti-gossip columnist culture I guess some people will celebrate one. That's the funny thing, everyone hates the paparazzi and the gossip columnist but everyone looks at the pictures.


"So lying about people is a noble thing?"

---He doesn't lie, he reports information, sometimes the information he gets is wrong. The New York Times makes those mistakes as well.


"Of course, since he doesn't "question" celebrities, your point is moot."

---He questions their fashion, political opinions, behavior, etc.

Have you ever heard the expression "the worst thing about being talked about is not being talked about."
He's doing them a favor.



"Quite frankly, who the hell are you or Lavandeira to demand those questions be answered?"

---A concerned citizen. When Joan Crawford adopted a baby she was allegedly a horrible mother. I read "Mommie Dearest," the things Christina Crawford suffered are unforgivable so the old days of not questioning celebrities, of painting them as great people, of ignoring the evil they do behind closed doors are gone.


"Who the hell is Lavandeira to lecture anyone on "parenting?" Given your bigotry displayed here, who the hell are you to say anything about kids or parenting?"

---Who the hell is anyone? Bad parents can produce bad kids, the future drunk drivers who might kill my future kids. We're all connected in a way, we don't live in an island.


"Right. So to exhibit this great compassion for others, Lavandeira writes that Jackson is faking it and people need to get their ticket money back.
Some compassion your hero has."

---If he had not died, maybe Hilton would have been right about him faking it. Michael Jackson was not a normal man, why do you think his kids are white? Two of them are even blonds! He obviously didn't use his own sperm with that surrogate mother. Don't you get it? People like you hate the gossipers but the gossipers ask the right questions. Could Michael Jackson be a self-hating black man?

All I'm telling you is to stop hating the messenger just because you don't like his message. I know you don't like to see people trash, but if Michael Jackson had not been so weird he wouldn't have been trashed as much as he did. Nobody forced Michael to be weird, nobody forced him to build Neverland. And sharing the same bed with boys? Even if he wasn't having sex with them, are you kidding me?

I feel no sympathy for Michael, if the man didn't abuse others then he certainly abused himself. If you don't want to be trashed, don't be trashy. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

---Ann Coulter is a master of the language yet she used the same word against John Edwards. Don't you get it? It's a provocative word.

Except she didn't use the word to describe Edwards nor did she use it in a fit of rage. She did not use it and then run away.

Lastly, she was roundly condemned for her comment.

You, on the other hand, have celebrated Lavandeira's use of the word.

I do get it. Lavandeira was wrong to use the words he did. Coulter was wrong as well. But there is a difference in the settings and the context which is something that you fail to understand.

---It is the second time he has made headlines for doing something awful, the first time was Ms. California.

Please learn to read. This is just a deflection from you.

---Most of the media lacks class and professionalism, they should be used to it.

There ya go. Another justification by saying "they do it too!!"

Grow up.

---You don't know how he was confronted, what they actually told him.

You must have missed the video of the incident. We do know.

---So he's not perfect, so he makes mistakes, so he attacks the wrong people sometimes. Does that mean I can't enjoy him when he does things I agree with?

The problem is that your view is based upon who is being attacked, rather than the attack itself.

---Sometimes you have to know when to retreat, even in the military sometimes the generals call for a retreat to avoid further loses. If Perez had known that his outburst would have resulted in violence he wouldn't have uttered that word.

First, you have no idea what Lavandeira was thinking when he ran away. None. Secondly, it is absolutely insulting for you to even try to compare the actions of Lavandeira to that of a military situation where men and women die.

---Just look at the comment section, some of his stories get 1,000 comments, I can assume that for every comment there's at least 10 readers, or even 100 readers.

So? That doesn't mean that he hasn't lied about his twitter numbers.

Can you ever answer a straight question? Geez.

---He doesn't lie, he reports information, sometimes the information he gets is wrong. The New York Times makes those mistakes as well.

So his "report" on Jackson was correct?

No, it was a lie. It was a lie designed to attack.

Your sad attempt to say that he is like the New York Times is laughable. The Times is still held to a standard of law where sources are verified, and if a false report is made with malace, the paper is held accountable.

Read what he writes. He says things that are lies and does it with malace.

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.

---He questions their fashion, political opinions, behavior, etc.

By attacking them? By lying about them? By invading their privacy?

That is how he "questions" them?

---A concerned citizen.

Bull. You aren't concerned about the child at all. All you are concerned with is whether people that are more successful than you are attacked.

If you are a concerned citizen, how many times have you worked in a home for battered and abused kids? How many hours have you devoted to social work with kids?

Or is it a case where you only care about kids when the parents are people you envy to the point where you want to see the parents torn down?

Gee, how noble of you to want to attack the parents of a kid.

He's doing them a favor.

You're an idiot if you believe this. You truly are.

---Who the hell is anyone? Bad parents can produce bad kids, the future drunk drivers who might kill my future kids. We're all connected in a way, we don't live in an island.

This is priceless. While in the abstract you might be right, in the real world, we both know that Lavandeira is not doing this for the kids. He is doing it to attack the parents. You buy into it because you are jealous.

He attacks to make money and you like it because you are jealous.

Grow up.

---If he had not died, maybe Hilton would have been right about him faking it.

Are you really that stupid? That is your defense? "Maybe he would have been right?"

Let's use the same standard and apply it to you. You see, I have heard from sources that you are so ashamed of being a bigoted black man that you are going to have a sex change operation, lighten your skin, and then join the KKK where your hatred and biogotry is accepted.

I could be right.

If you don't want to be trashed, don't be trashy. Simple as that.

Fine.

Now have the moral guts to apply that sentiment to Lavandeira.

We both know you won't.

Bobby said...

"Please learn to read. This is just a deflection from you."

---No, you imply that Perez is constantly doing evil things that give him bad press, I'm saying I only know of 2 evil incidents. And Michael Jackson doesn't count, not if you heard that congressman calling MJ a pervert and a pedophile, Perez was kind in comparison.


"The problem is that your view is based upon who is being attacked, rather than the attack itself."

---I'm a very fair-minded person, when Donald Trump made fan of Rosie O'donnel for her weight and said that her girlfriend needed a real man, I defended Rosie even though I have more in common with Trump than I do with Rosie.



"First, you have no idea what Lavandeira was thinking when he ran away. None. Secondly, it is absolutely insulting for you to even try to compare the actions of Lavandeira to that of a military situation where men and women die."

---You ever use the word "SNAFU?" That's a military acronym from WW2,the same with FUBAR. In the business/marketing world people sometimes use expressions from the military. We talk about a "target" audience for example, about conquering territory, etc. Retreating is retreating whether you're in the military or not.


"So? That doesn't mean that he hasn't lied about his twitter numbers.
Can you ever answer a straight question? Geez."

---I DON'T FOLLOW TWITTER, OK?


"So his "report" on Jackson was correct?"

---No, it was based on opinion and analysis over past behavior. Jackson has canceled concerts before, Perez assumed this was another Jackson episode of personal drama. Was he responsible?


"The Times is still held to a standard of law where sources are verified, and if a false report is made with malace, the paper is held accountable."

---Bullshit, the times have reported stories with unverified sources, remember what they did to John McCain with the story about his alledged adultery? They would never do that to Obama, but when it comes to republicans, they will print any allegation that fits their mood.


"Read what he writes. He says things that are lies and does it with malace."

---You meant "malice," again, I don't see malice, I only see a little smirk at reporting gossip.


"By attacking them? By lying about them? By invading their privacy?
That is how he "questions" them?"

---Excuse me, but if you show up to the Oscars wearing a garbage bag, you weren't in a private place and Perez, Joan Rivers and pretty much everyone else has the right to trash you.

Bobby said...

"Bull. You aren't concerned about the child at all. All you are concerned with is whether people that are more successful than you are attacked."

---Please don't tell me what I'm concerned about. You don't know me.


"If you are a concerned citizen, how many times have you worked in a home for battered and abused kids? How many hours have you devoted to social work with kids?"

---I get it, if you support the war in Afghanistan you have to join the army, and if you support good health and fitness you have to become a personal trainer, and if you care about the battered and abuse you have to devote hours to them. Your line of logic is really impractical. But here's what I do, when Bill O'reilly told me to write my congressman to pass Jessica's Law in Florida, I did just that.


"Or is it a case where you only care about kids when the parents are people you envy to the point where you want to see the parents torn down?"

----No, there are good celebrity parents out there. I think Donald Trump is a wonderful father who has raised wonderful kids. But I insist Joan Crawford was a horrible mother and the civility of the era prevented the abuse Christina Crawford suffered from being known. If Christina had been born in 1980, one of the maids would have taken a picture, sell it to a gossip broker, get it distributed and the child would have been saved before further damage was done.


"This is priceless. While in the abstract you might be right, in the real world, we both know that Lavandeira is not doing this for the kids. He is doing it to attack the parents. You buy into it because you are jealous."

---It's all black and white with you, all gossip is bad, all gossipers are bad, you can never give Lavandeira any credit whatsoever.


"He attacks to make money and you like it because you are jealous."

---So what? Some people join the military to have job security or go to college someday, some become investment bankers to become millionaires, millions of Americans hate their jobs yet do them everyday because they want to make money and not be jobless.

#1. Perez does something he loves, when he started that blog he wasn't making any money blogging.

#2. Perez deserves to reap the rewards from his hard work.

Let the marketplace of ideas set the price.


"Now have the moral guts to apply that sentiment to Lavandeira.
We both know you won't."

---I won't because it's too easy. It's the difference between speaking against Sara Palin and against Obama. The media loves Obama but hates Palin, the media thinks everything Obama does is right and everything Palin does is wrong. I will not join the crusade against Perez, I will not vilify him when others do what he does and get away with it.

Anonymous said...

---No, you imply that Perez is constantly doing evil things that give him bad press,

Once again, please learn to read. I don't care about his "bad press." I care about his hateful actions toward others - actions of which you approve.

---I'm a very fair-minded person,

All evidence to the contrary.

---Retreating is retreating whether you're in the military or not.

Except you equated Lavandeira's running away with a military retreat where men and women are dying. You tried to equate his childish actions with those of men and women who protect this country.

That's despicable.

---I DON'T FOLLOW TWITTER, OK?

I don't either. Now please tell me how that relates to his lying about his Twitter numbers? Remember, the point was that he is a liar.

---No, it was based on opinion and analysis over past behavior.

Another change in your story.

Pathetic.

---Bullshit, the times have reported stories with unverified sources, remember what they did to John McCain with the story about his alledged adultery?

The story on McCain had a source (two in fact) so unless you can come up with another example, you're wrong again.

---You meant "malice," again, I don't see malice, I only see a little smirk at reporting gossip.

Excuse me, but once again your ignorance is showing. If you don't think that his writing was intended to hurt Jackson or his reputation, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. Remember that he said that people should demand a refund because Jackson was going to cancel the show because of a fake heart attack. His post hurt Jackson by claiming 1) a fake medical condition and 2) tried to hurt him financially by spreading a rumour that was verifiably untrue.

---Excuse me, but if you show up to the Oscars wearing a garbage bag, you weren't in a private place and Perez, Joan Rivers and pretty much everyone else has the right to trash you.

If that was all he did, you would be right. Yet you and I know that he delves more into the private lives of people and that is off limits by any standard.

---Please don't tell me what I'm concerned about. You don't know me.

I know you by your writings. I stand by my assertion that you don't care about the kids celebrities have, but rather using those kids to tear their parents down.

You get off on it.

---It's all black and white with you, all gossip is bad, all gossipers are bad, you can never give Lavandeira any credit whatsoever.

What has he done that deserves credit?

He is a boil on the butt of the world. The fact that you kiss up to him say a great deal about you in the pecking order as well.

---So what?

So this: People that make money off the misery of others are despicable. People like that you love to see other people in misery are just as bad. You give them a market for their actions.

You and Lavandeira love not only to take people down, but to kick them when they are down.

The idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is totally against your morals.

---I won't because it's too easy.

I was right.

You're a hypocrite.

I will not join the crusade against Perez, I will not vilify him when others do what he does and get away with it.

And once again you bring out the "others do it so that makes it right" excuse.

I want to amend my previuus statement:

You're not just a hypocrite - your an immature hypcrite. No wonder you support Lavandeira.

Birds of a feather.

Anonymous said...

This is my last post in this thread Bobby.

I am not going to check back to see if you respond or not.

You last comment was:
---I won't because it's too easy. ....... I will not join the crusade against Perez, I will not vilify him when others do what he does and get away with it.

This is really where you and I disagree.

It is easy to respond in the same manner as those who are attacking people you like. That has been a constant theme of your posts. You have continually said that since "they do it," it is okay for Lavandeira to attack in the same manner.

You say that it is "easy" to pile onto Lavandeira and in some respects you are correct.

He makes an easy target.

What you fail to grasp, however, is that those who attack Palin, Bush, etc are easy targets as well. Just because one can attack an "easy" target doesn't make it right.

You say that I view the world in black and white and on many issues that is correct. The main thing that I strive for is to be consistant in labeling those things that are black and those things that are white.

I don't separate or justify actions based on idealogy. I don't condemn or show appproval of someone's action based on a D, R, or I after their name.

What I condemn in one person is the same thing I condemn in another.

It is not an easy thing to do.

It is not easy to say "I am not going to stoop to the same level as those who disagree with me."

It is not easy to say, "I am not going to do the same things that I know and say are wrong when others do them."

When something is wrong, it is wrong across the board.

It is difficult to take that stance and maintain it.

I hope that someday you find the character to not justify what is wrong because you agree or disagree with the person saying it.

Bobby said...

"Except you equated Lavandeira's running away with a military retreat where men and women are dying. You tried to equate his childish actions with those of men and women who protect this country.
That's despicable."

---No, you where accusing Perez of retreating like a coward while I pointed out that even courageous soldiers know when to quit.



"I don't either. Now please tell me how that relates to his lying about his Twitter numbers? Remember, the point was that he is a liar."

---Like I said, I'm not informed about that story so I have nothing to comment.


"The story on McCain had a source (two in fact) so unless you can come up with another example, you're wrong again."

---And yet the New York Times lost because accusing someone of adultery is not enough, eventually you have to reveal your sources or offer a picture, a tape recording, anything to prove your allegations. Do you think the NYT would publish a story about Obama commiting adultery just because they had two sources? And how credible are those sources anyway? They could be pissed off employees looking to hurt their employer.


"Excuse me, but once again your ignorance is showing. If you don't think that his writing was intended to hurt Jackson or his reputation, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about."

----No, his writing is designed to: 1. Entertain. 2. Please his target audience. 3. Win more visitors.


"If that was all he did, you would be right. Yet you and I know that he delves more into the private lives of people and that is off limits by any standard."

---Let's say you're right, he's not doing anything that TMZ, E, US Weekly, US, and every other tabloid online and off is doing. You're blaiming the messenger when in reality you should be blaiming the people who read that stuff. I on the other hand blame celebrities for being deceitful. Mel Gibson is a great example, he used to claim he was a christian yet later on he was exposed as an anti-semite, drunk driver, and philanderer who got his mistress pregnant. You may think Gibson has the right to go on TV and lie to people, I don't. When you go on TV to talk about "The Passion of the Christ" you become a public figure, and if you're going to call yourself a Christian you'd better live as a Christian or admit your weaknesses before someone takes a picture.

"What has he done that deserves credit?"

---Everyone has done something that deserves credit, if you can't visit perezhilton.com and find something you like, then you're completely biased.


"So this: People that make money off the misery of others are despicable."

---Is Larry King despicable? Is Dr. Phil despicable? Is Jerry Spring despicable? What about professional psychologists? They make money of the misery of others just like doctors make money of sick people.

Bobby said...

--------CONTINUES--------

"People like that you love to see other people in misery are just as bad. You give them a market for their actions."

---Whatever, go be self-righteous and pretend that you're a saint that never feels any schadenfreude. You hate Bill O'reilly, you don't watch his show yet you had no problem mentioning his alleged harassment of an intern.


"You and Lavandeira love not only to take people down, but to kick them when they are down."

---Madonna called Sarah Palin a "cunt" during a concert, in front of everyone, and yes, this was recorded on video. And by the way, Palin has never criticized Madonna in her life. So if Madonna is ever down, I will kick her, she deserves it and so do others.


"The idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is totally against your morals."

---That philosophy doesn't work in the real world. Most people spent a life doing unto others, for what? You're a good employee yet you get fired while the bad employee keeps his job, you're kind to people yet the asshole gets promoted, you write a brilliant application essay yet some jerk with connections gets into the masters he wants.

I like the style of Ann Coulter, if I see 9/11 Widows thrashing President Bush, I don't want to make excuses for them. If I see Cindy Sheehan meeting with Hugo Chavez, I don't want to be nice to her just like she isn't nice to me.


"And once again you bring out the "others do it so that makes it right" excuse."

---That's how it works. Otherwise you're like the people who hate Jerry Springer but love Dr. Phil. IF you love Dr. Phil, don't condemn Jerry Springer because they both do the same crap except one makes it seem nice while the other drops the pretense.

Perez Hilton is the Jerry Springer of gossip, that's part of why his famous, whenever you're a revolutionary people notice and sometimes people hate you for it. Political correctness always fears what is new and different.

Perez reminds me of a song from the musical Evita.

"The actress hasn't learned the lines you'd like to hear
She won't join your clubs, she won't dance in your halls
She won't help the hungry once a month at your tombolas
She'll simply take control as you disappear"

That's what Perez Hilton is, a lone wolf who plays by his own rules and defies convention. That's why you hate him, because he isn't "nice."