What Britney Playin at?

DilbertPartII · 03-12-2006 06:51AM

oRlyYaRly wrote:

You could even see the c-section scar! :eek:

did you? really? :eek: hmmm..missed that part:D

admiralofthefleet · 03-12-2006 07:00AM

i always had a thing for her, that 'thing' i had for her grew stronger after the toxic video but after seeing 'those' pictures i now think she is minging, really, she could have wiped better, she has a right big panda's eye down there. horrible

darkflower · 03-12-2006 02:02PM

Britney's loved by most of us. A major turn on. Haven't seen her wild pics and videos evryone's talking about. She still got an A+ from me...:rolleyes:

CuLT · 03-12-2006 02:58PM

People who obsess over the personal lives of celebrities are pathetic.

If you like her music, why can't you just like her music? Why does her personal life have to have a bearing on it?

Just because Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedo every other day doesn't make his music any less awesome.

skywalker · 03-12-2006 03:29PM

CuLT wrote:

Just because Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedo every other day doesn't make his music any less awesome.

No, but it does make a lot of people want to stop supporting him, or buy his music.

OliviaM · 03-12-2006 04:24PM

skywalker wrote:

No, but it does make a lot of people want to stop supporting him, or buy his music.

got it.;)

Catari Jaguar · 03-12-2006 08:36PM

Oh god, they made me so sick. She's such a ming. Look, you've squeezed two sprogs out of that in a less than a year, please don't show it. And going around in teeny outfits with her milk t1ts hanging out. *shudder* Fuxn minger. Who's minding your kids when you're out getting pist n slutting around eh Britney???

Seriously if you realise that you have that little talent or appeal that you have to go showin off your nasty, nasty vag then you have serious problems. She should be put down.

End rant

CuLT · 03-12-2006 08:46PM

skywalker wrote:

No, but it does make a lot of people want to stop supporting him, or buy his music.

Who buys music these days anyway

I guess Michael Jackson was a poor choice as paedophilia evokes pretty strong reactions (justifiably).

Rb · 03-12-2006 08:52PM

Lil Kitten wrote:

Oh god, they made me so sick. She's such a ming. Look, you've squeezed two sprogs out of that in a less than a year, please don't show it. And going around in teeny outfits with her milk t1ts hanging out. *shudder* Fuxn minger. Who's minding your kids when you're out getting pist n slutting around eh Britney???

Seriously if you realise that you have that little talent or appeal that you have to go showin off your nasty, nasty vag then you have serious problems. She should be put down.

End rant

I'd be more worried about little teenage girls going around in outfits like that and without underwear , than a fully grown woman (Britney).

Do you think all the nasty little whores who go to Wesley on a friday night without their panties should be put down too?

Lil Kitten wrote:

Who's minding your kids when you're out getting pist n slutting around eh Britney???

I would guess either a child minder or a relative, or perhaps K-Fed. Shes a relatively young woman, though this seems to be a little attention seeking I fail to see the problem with her going on nights out and meeting other guys as long as her children are being looked after properly.

CuLT wrote:

People who obsess over the personal lives of celebrities are pathetic.

Fully agree.
There must be a massive amount of them though!They're keeping such trash as Ok! Magazine and others in business. Quite sad really.

CuLT · 03-12-2006 08:54PM

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't rag on people like that really; means less people trying to be more than they are (and therefore less competiton!)

skywalker · 04-12-2006 11:27AM

CuLT wrote:

Who buys music these days anyway

I guess Michael Jackson was a poor choice as paedophilia evokes pretty strong reactions (justifiably).

Yep. I definitely agree with your original sentiment on celebrity worship though.

xzanti · 04-12-2006 12:50PM

Maybe her new friend Paris put her up to it.. Hasn't she been known to play peek-a-poodey with the papz on occasion

Binomate · 04-12-2006 02:35PM

So where do you draw the line between admiring someone and taking interest in that person and obsessing over that person?

I'm a long time fan of Michael Jackson, and I'd consider myself to be a fan of the man himself as well of his music and dancing. Is admiration of the man because of what he has gone through, what he stands for and his actions not justifiable for taking an active interest in him? Does that mean I'm obsessive or mentally unhealthy?

Thrill · 04-12-2006 10:28PM

My idea of a fan is someone who buys their idols latest album, going to a gig or two when he/she is playing somewhere close and sticks the odd poster on the bedroom wall.

Modeling your life on these people or trawling through the internet for every scrap of news on a daily basis and ignoring these peoples faults while holding them up as a shining example of humanity is obsession imo.

Admiring Michael Jackson for what he stands for and his actions, sleeping naked with children, would, for me, be way beyond obsession.

Binomate · 05-12-2006 01:29AM

thrill wrote:

Admiring Michael Jackson for what he stands for and his actions, sleeping naked with children, would, for me, be way beyond obsession.

Well considering he never has slept with a child naked, then I guess it's not obsessive. Do you really think I think that kind of thing is admirable?

Thrill · 05-12-2006 03:12AM

Binomate wrote:

Well considering he never has slept with a child naked, then I guess it's not obsessive. Do you really think I think that kind of thing is admirable?

No i don't. I do think however that any man who believes that its o.k. to sleep with underage children, which he himself stated publicly, is sick, and does not deserve to be admired, no matter how good his music is.

Imo, anyone who would turn a blind eye to his belief would have to be obsessed with him.

I still like some of his songs, but admire him, never.

Binomate · 05-12-2006 11:57AM

There's a hell of a difference between what you had said before and what you have just said there. Sleeping naked in the bed with children implies that it's sexual, where as sleeping in the same bed or room in bed clothes as someone does not.

Applying your logic to that situation (which by the way the nature of the way you say the children sleep in his room is completely out of context.), if you've ever slept in the same bed as anyone, including your parents as a child, then they deserve no respect at all and should not be admired in anyway. What you are saying is that the act of sleeping in a bed with a child in a non sexual way is a bad thing, even if all they are doing is sleeping. It says more about the state of your mind than anything else. Just because something has potential to happen, doesn't mean that it will happen. It dosesn't even mean it's remotly probable to happen. You yourself have potential to molest a child, or rape a woman, but it doesn't mean that it's probable to happen at all.

I don't like the fact that he used to allow children to fall asleep in his room, because it looks bad to so many people who can't fathom a man sleeping in the same room as a child in a non-sexual way. These are probably the same people who think it is right for airlines to disallow the seating of a male passenger beside a child who is flying alone. The same logic applies and the same line of thinking in that there is a complete lack of trust when it comes to men.

For an accurate discription of the sleeping arrangments that sometimes occured at Neverland, read the transcripts of the testimony that Macaulie Culkin gave during the trial.

That is why I still find him worthy of admiration. If he invited children in to his bed I wouldn't find him still worth of admiration. But I supose that's a product of taking an interest in the man, I'd be more willing to look in to things and examine the facts and details rather than assume about it.

leche solara · 05-12-2006 10:28PM

I was talking to Brit that night and even though she was quite pissed she told me that the commando look was to show the husband's lawyers that she wasn't very rich.

Thrill · 06-12-2006 12:08AM

Binomate wrote:

But I suppose that's a product of taking an interest in the man, I'd be more willing to look in to things and examine the facts and details rather than assume about it.

The cases of child molestation against Michael Jackson have all involved boys.
All the boys were underage.
He says its o.k. to sleep with boys, none of which he was even remotely related to.

No underage girl has accused him of abuse, only boys.

If that doesn't make you suspicious then nothing will.

Binomate wrote:

Applying your logic to that situation (which by the way the nature of the way you say the children sleep in his room is completely out of context.), if you've ever slept in the same bed as anyone, including your parents as a child, then they deserve no respect at all and should not be admired in anyway.

Theres a big difference between a loving parent and a strange 40+ year old man.

Binomate wrote:

For an accurate description of the sleeping arrangements that sometimes occurred at Neverland, read the transcripts of the testimony that Macaulay Culkin gave during the trial.

It is interesting also that you would have me read about Macaulay Culkin, while leaving out the 1993 case involving Jordan Chandler, who was paid around $20 million dollars to keep his mouth shut and keep the case from going to court.
As i said in an earlier post, a fan will ignore their idols faults, otherwise they wouldn't be a fan.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40305

I would like to hear what chandler cannot talk about.

Also, regarding culkins testimony...

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/blog/mj.html

The testimony of a string of children who had contact with an accused sex offender who were not molested is a very common defense strategy for the accused. The success of this strategy is dependent on acceptance of the popular myth that child molesters can't help their behavior and therefore abuse impulsively and indiscriminately.

Interviews with sex offenders reveal that most are selective, picking victims who are vulnerable to be exploited because they come from troubled families. Children with involved, attentive parents are usually passed over. Instead, molesters target lonely, troubled children with few adults to whom they can turn. They often gain the child's trust and devotion by befriending them and showering them with attention and gifts. Only later, and only if the child responds well to the grooming process, do molesters start making overt sexual overtures.

Parading children into courtrooms to say they weren't abused makes about as much sense as parading the owners of every shop an accused robber ever shopped in to testify that because he never robbed them, he must be innocent.

You state:

Binomate wrote:

What you are saying is that the act of sleeping in a bed with a child in a non sexual way is a bad thing, even if all they are doing is sleeping. It says more about the state of your mind than anything else.

If, by this, you mean i wouldn't sleep with underage children , then you would be right.
Even parents stop their children sleeping with them past a certain age, except maybe if their child becomes ill or something. Children are usually encouraged to sleep in their own beds.At least me and my brothers and sisters were when growing up. We would, like most kids i suppose, try to sleep with our parents every now and again, but almost always they would take us to our own beds and talk to us or tell us a story until we fell asleep.

They certainly wouldn't let their child sleep in the same bed with a strange man.

The fact that parents allowed their children on sleep overs with a man who had previously been accused of child abuse says a lot about the state of the minds of those parents.

All they saw was the celebrity and not the man. As most fans do.

Binomate · 06-12-2006 01:51AM

thrill wrote:

The cases of child molestation against Michael Jackson have all involved boys.
All the boys were underage.
He says its o.k. to sleep with boys, none of which he was even remotely related to.

Again, read the context of the sleeping with in both the interviews of Macaulay Culkin in the witness box, and Michael Jackson himself in the interview "Living with Michael Jackson" of which the commonly derived 'he sleeps with little boys' idea was derived from. Read what was actually said and try understand the context of it a little more. You have it wrong from what I understand from your posts.

thrill wrote:

No underage girl has accused him of abuse, only boys.

If that doesn't make you suspicious then nothing will.

Little boys, Girls, the Parents of these children and adults have all fallen asleep in Michael Jackson's bedroom. Again context is an issue. His bedroom in Neverland was like a two story duplex. Jordan Chandlers was the first to accuse, which got the ball rolling for accusations because of the vulnerability that was a product of the first accusation. If you're looking to defraud someone for money, why make up a new claim, when something that they've been accused of in the past would make your claim a hell of a lot more believable?

thrill wrote:

Theres a big difference between a loving parent and a strange 40+ year old man.

Yes, but again you've taken it out of context. Michael Jackson isn't a stranger to these people. Most of the relationships hes had with people who have slept in his room he was as close to as family.

thrill wrote:

It is interesting also that you would have me read about Macaulay Culkin, while leaving out the 1993 case involving Jordan Chandler, who was paid around $20 million dollars to keep his mouth shut and keep the case from going to court.

Oh right, so an out of court settlement is now a signed confession of guilt is it? First of all, do you realise how much a trial would have cost him in 1993 when he was at one of the many peaks of his career? It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to have settled out of court. He would have had to have canceled the rest of his on going Dangerous world tour, and a lengthy trial would have set him back as well in his further career development.

Also, Sony had an investment in him for a little under $1 billion. Do you think they'd take a gamble with that investment, whether or not they believed he was innocent or guilty? By the way, Michael Jackson never paid a cent to anyone, it was all his insurance company. Was it Michael Jackson who settled out of court, or was it Sony?

thrill wrote:

As i said in an earlier post, a fan will ignore their idols faults, otherwise they wouldn't be a fan.

I disagree. I can acknowledge his faults, like when he hung blanket over the balcony. That was pretty stupid and irresponsible. I think being a fan is taking an active interest in that person and giving them your support so long as you think they are worthy of your support.

thrill wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40305

I would like to hear what chandler cannot talk about.

I have a copy of "All that Glitters" and personally I found it absolutely shite. There are too many contradictions in the whole thing, the biggest being the portrayal of Jordy Chandlers father as a man who will do anything to get what he wants until he gets what he wants. Funnily enough he plied his own son with a 'truth serum' which has a long history of creating false memories based upon subconscious thoughts. Then all of a sudden as soon as hes on this 'truth serum' he comes out with this story. How does that sound?

thrill wrote:

Also, regarding culkins testimony...

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/blog/mj.html

......

thrill wrote:

If, by this, you mean i wouldn't sleep with underage children , then you would be right.

Is that because it's weird to you or because you think it's morally wrong?

thrill wrote:

The fact that parents allowed their children on sleep overs with a man who had previously been accused of child abuse says a lot about the state of the minds of those parents.

Yes this is true, but again the context of sleepover is wrong, so it doesn't apply to this situation.

letterman · 06-12-2006 03:38PM

Anybody else think this is wandering off topic

Terry · 06-12-2006 03:49PM

letterman wrote:

Anybody else think this is wandering off topic

i'd do lindsay lohan. even if she is a skank.

letterman · 06-12-2006 03:58PM

julep wrote:

i'd do lindsay lohan. even if she is a skank.

You have issues!!

Terry · 06-12-2006 04:33PM

letterman wrote:

You have issues!!

no way, man. check her out here.

06-12-2006 06:53PM

Karoma wrote:

Link removed. Don't post direct links to the photographs. kthxbye.

Can we attach it though

heh heh.

Uhm, Britney was great when she was younger.. she was a goodie-goodie two-shoes, but now she's just become a slut.

Terry · 06-12-2006 07:06PM

i wouldn't call her a slut. that would imply she is sleeping around with any man she finds.
Attention seeking whore would be more appropriate in this case.

06-12-2006 07:11PM

julep wrote:

i wouldn't call her a slut. that would imply she is sleeping around with any man she finds.
Attention seeking whore would be more appropriate in this case.

Point taken ... attention seeking whore is pretty good I guess.

Though this image change just isn't right for her. She is becoming the worst possible icon for young girls.

Terry · 06-12-2006 07:14PM

meh. maybe she's just copying the other skangers she sees in her home town or the "stupid spolied whore" hereself, paris hilton.

either way, it's funny watching people crash and burn.

BubbleBoy · 13-12-2006 01:07PM

Does anyone know how to get the Britney photos, have trawled true internet with no joy, only blacked-out versions.
This I gotta see.

thebaz · 13-12-2006 03:27PM

BubbleBoy wrote:

Does anyone know how to get the Britney photos, have trawled true internet with no joy, only blacked-out versions.
This I gotta see.

probably get banned for re-entering link -- so just google it - its easily available !

I think its sexy when ladies go commando -- no sure if Britney is a lady --

What Britney Playin at?

Comments