Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -
|Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
|Barfy Butt-kissing Pieces; - Gag Worthy Pro-Madonna Ramblings|
|Topic Started: Jul 22 2005, 01:13 PM (5,704 Views)|
|flea dip||Jul 16 2006, 12:04 PM Post #21|
Rock Star From Mars
I think what follows is a translation by a fan of an article from Italian into English.
If, like me, you're wondering what "indefadigable" means - it doesn't mean anything. Here's the dictionary definition of "indefadigable".
Some of their other descriptions of Madonna are funny - "political militant?"
Yes, flashing photos of Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush in a concert is so politically militant! Wearing a beret with camouflage shirts in photo shoots for American Life is very politically militant.
She's the "pioneer of post femminism [sic]" -?
They left out that she is single handedly responsible for...
- Fascinating that fans have to tell us, "Well, erm, yeah, she looks like a man, but really, she is a female, we assure you."
|The 1 Not Fooled||Jul 17 2006, 02:04 PM Post #22|
Licensed & Board-certified!
gay bowel movement perhaps?
|flea dip||Jul 19 2006, 11:10 PM Post #23|
Rock Star From Mars
This is some kind of review or commentary about Manny's tour. I would've put it in the COAD Tour thread, but I think this journalist left her lip imprints all over Madonna's butt.
About the only good thing about it is that without meaning to, she sort of rags on Madonna for being 48 and still trying to act like a 25 year old pop singer. She also mentions that Madonna isn't much of a singer.
Everything else is a great big barfy Madonna Love-Fest.
Hey, Lady Chadwick, where this journalist says,
"[Madonna is] An icon. The kind that just doesn't exist anymore,"
I'm keeping my fingers crossed you raise the Madonna - Mae West comparison
THE BEAT: Madonna won't rule forever; who's next?
|flea dip||Jul 26 2006, 05:47 PM Post #24|
Rock Star From Mars
If you're under the age of, let's say 30, here's a taste of the stereotypical pro-Madonna garbage that used to be printed in the 1980s.
After reading this, you can understand why 30 somethings such as 1NF and myself despise Man-donna, and why I began an anti-Manny site/board. Bear in mind this is only ONE article - 1NF and I were bombarded with billions of these things during our teen years.
If you're over 40, you were subjected to some of this too, but I think the teeny boppers of the '80s were exposed to this stuff even more.
The following sounds as though it was written in 1986 or 1987, but it was posted on 7/26/2006. The author writes as though she's in 1986/87, as she mentions the True Blue record in the present, not past, tense.
The author comments favorably on the song "Physical Attraction," hailing it as some kind of pro-feminist work by Manny - however, the credits for that song do not mention her, someone else wrote it. (Although some fan site claimed months ago that Manny wrote it.)
The more I skim it over, the more I think it's a 1986/7 review of True Blue. This review also refers to her as "Mrs. Sean Penn" or that she's married to him, which we all know was years ago.
The author says below:
Madonna alters female adolescence
The author writes,
Another quote by the author:
Meanwhile, women in some parts of the world have to endure honor killings because they're rape victims, or else they get their genitals mutilated, as local custom or the religion of their area dictates.
|The 1 Not Fooled||Jul 26 2006, 06:02 PM Post #25|
Licensed & Board-certified!
Maybe I'll address some of the nauseating bits later. But right here
reminded me of something I was trying to find when looking through pictures from the Virgin Tour. That is, this is one more way in which she has repeated herself, by showering the audience with balloons like she does in the Contusions Tour.
|flea dip||Jul 28 2006, 06:30 PM Post #26|
Rock Star From Mars
Morgan on the icon that's Madonna - Jul 28 2006, by Elaine Morgan
Despite a few disclaimers, such as
She pulled her original American Life video because she wimped out.
As for her personal life....
She lived with Sean Penn for quite some time, all the while he was slapping her around, beating her up.
Marilyn Monroe did it before Madonna did. Monroe created Marilyn Monroe Productions in the mid 1950s.
American culture in the 1950s was a lot more sexist than it was in the 1980s, meaning Monroe had more obstacles to contend with than Madonna - and succeeded in spite of those obstacles.
Morgan applauding Man-donna's habit of reinvention:
I had to take piano lessons when I was a kid, for five years - but I'm not very good at the piano. I guess in Morgan's book, though, I'd be considered a genuis just for having done it!
Morgan seems to frame Madonna as a failure at the movies because mean ol' movie critics personally have it in for Man-donna, and she quotes Madonna to that effect.
Er, hello, I think most people - including professional film critics - have agreed that Manny does a decent job of acting when she's in an ensemble (e.g. A League of Their Own), but her as lead or main actress? Nope, she can't carry a film on her own, as her "acting" isn't strong enough.
If critics are wiling to admit she does okay in some forms of acting, how is it that there's a personal vendetta against Manny?
---- EDIT ----
I wanted to address this part of Morgan's page again:
Madonna special hoped to lift ratings
|flea dip||Sep 8 2006, 01:15 AM Post #27|
Rock Star From Mars
Let's play a game: Spot the cliches! The author manages to cram in just about every one of them. It's a 2 -page barf-fest.
It contains some very over-blown praise, such as
Madonna - Pop Artist, Icon, Woman of Change
All of the reinvention crap this author drones on about - just Madonna ripping off other entertainers, or using fashion stylists, art directors, etc., such as Maripol.
Madonna was already setting herself up to get pats on the back for longevity way back when: she said in one early or mid 80s interview that she was not a "flavor of the month."
I didn't know back then if she would last or not. All I knew is that I didn't like her and I wanted her to go away.
It's my understanding that the techno pop stuff was already a trend over in Europe, and all Madonna did was hire some of the producers who had worked on such albums before.
What, exactly, has Madonna said about the Iraq war?
Other than some very vague visual references to the Iraq war in her unreleased "American Life" video, and other than a few "I wish for world peace" type statements in her current world tour, where has Madonna given a thougtful explanation of her supposed dislike of coalition forces being in Iraq?
According to some news reports, she requests Kabbalah "ego candles" to help her fight her natural proclivity to be egotistical. She needs a candle to be less self-centered? That's maturity?
Wearing a leotard at age 48 in a music video is maturity (even if you believe she has a nice figure)?
|Ironshadow||Sep 8 2006, 01:49 AM Post #28|
#1 mandona hater
sounds like she had to have a dildo in one end, a bong in the other, and some LSD in the middle to write that crap.
Let's hope it wasn't for minimum wage.
|flea dip||Oct 14 2006, 06:47 PM Post #29|
Rock Star From Mars
Not exactly a butt-kissing essay, but it is a barfy Madonna apologetic, so it's kinda the same thing in my book.
Why vilify Madonna's generosity? - by Carol Sarler, Oct 15, 2006
1. Nobody villifies Madonna for being "generous."
If she gives financial aid to charities, swell.
We are doubting Madonna's motives (and we're concerned about some of the ramifications of the adoption. Any kid from any part of the world being adopted by Madonna is a cause for concern, LOL... ).
(And it's not as though Madonna has not given us reasons to question her motives. The woman does not have a sterling character and is known for being self-obsessed and not altruistic. The "material girl" monkier is fitting.)
A recent article pointed out that most of Madonna's financial aid goes to Berg's Kabbalah group, while she threw out only a little to AIDS charities and the like. Here's the link: Madonna: More Money to Kabbalah Than AIDS, Education
We are concerned about the outcome of her so-called "generosity," that is, taking a small boy away from his father and grandmother - when she could just as easily send the father checks to care for the boy.
Note I did not say or suggest that Madonna donate money to the nation as a whole (if she does, fine), but I am saying Madonna should donate the money to the father or the grandmother personally.
Ms. Sarler writes,
(Also, Madonna is about as real as a plaid elephant.)
(I never asked to know about Madonna, or whether or not she's adopting any children. She was *thrust* on me by her celebrity and crammed down my throat going back to the 1980s, with the media playing her lap dog, thank you.)
Madonna, by the way, has given us all plenty of good reason to doubt and question her motives. We've posted numerous such examples at the Anti-Madonna Discussion Board of her questionable ethics and motives. I also discussed such issues at the Anti Madonna site.
Ms. Sarler doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that Madonna is a media darling and always has been. Stop painting Madonna as a victim of the mean ol' media.
Any criticism of Madonna in the media is rare.
The criticism Madonna is getting this time - regarding this adoption - is by and large, with very few exceptions, from a children's rights group in Malawi, and the media are simply repeating those criticisms - and not making them.
The author, Carol Sarler, writes
2. During her trip to Africa, Madonna dropped her kids, Lourdes and Rocco, off to be cared for by her ex-boyfriend.
This is strange when one remembers that Madonna dragged Lourdes and Rocco all over the world on her 2006 tour saying she likes to spend time with them.
The other reason Madonna gave for not bringing her tour to Australia is so that her little darlings would not miss school in Britain.
At other times when Madonna is too busy shooting music videos and attending social functions, the husband, Guy Ritchie, cares for them.
All of that does not appear to me as evidence that Madonna is an attentive parent.
(Notice that the birth of Lourdes coincided with the opening of her 1990s film Evita, so I've been told. Madonna *not* using her kids for publicity and as fashion accessories? How naive can one be?).
She says, for instance, she will not allow her own children to watch television (afraid that they may be exposed to 'improper' material, and that their time will be wasted), yet -
1. She allowed her daughter Lourdes to participate in the televised raunchy MTV Video Music Awards show, where she had Lourdes trot out as a flower girl for Madonna's "wedding" to Britney Spears, in which Madonna and Spears kissed.
2. Related to point #1, Madonna does not mind exposing other people's children to her smut, such as her Justify My Love video from the early 1990s, the Like A Virgin video and MTV live performance in the 1980s, and so forth.
3. While Madonna prohibits her kids from having sweets, she brought seven cakes to the orphans in Russia during her recent visit. Madonna doesn't allow her own kids to have sweets, but she has no problem giving them to other people's children.
There are more examples of this kind of thing at the Anti Madonna Discussion board.
The author ends her piece by saying,
The point is that *Madonna* apparently thinks that by 'saving one it's just as good as saving all,' when in the end the only one who will benefit - financially - is the boy she is adopting.
During her 2006 tour especially*, Madonna made a big "to-do" out of bringing attention to all starving, sick, poor Malawi children.
However, her efforts seem like a drop in a bucket for someone of her wealth. Adopting one child? Building a brain washing, tax write off facility in Malawi (i.e. Berg's Kabbalah Centre, which will assist 4,000 kids by teaching them Kabbalah).
Furthermore, the "Disco Cross"' act, with Madonna's being "nailed" to a mirror-covered "disco cross" while wearing a crown of thorns, which many Christians found offensive.
Offending Christians by besmirching their symbols and imagery, so the shoddy reasoning goes, is perfectly okay, as long as one flashes the URLs to charities while doing so.
Make no mistake; the "disco cross" bit was not about bringing awareness to a charity: it was an excuse to manufacture controversy to gain free publicity. Madonna has been doing this for literally years now.
Her quest to take a small boy is no different. Look at all the publicity Madonna has gotten from this, and don't tell me she didn't know she would not get the publicity.
|flea dip||Oct 15 2006, 06:54 PM Post #30|
Rock Star From Mars
See my rebuttal to Sarler. It's right above this post.
Here's another writer, Raybon Kan, who doesn't get it.
Kan thinks money, food, and shelter are the end-all, be-all in the life of a child. Spoken like a middle class guy who is living in a nice, middle class apartment who's biggest worry in life is scoring a date for Friday night.
I'd like to remind this author: the boy Madonna is trying to adopt, David Banda, already has a father and a grandmother. Furthermore, the family wants David to stay with them. They simply cannot afford - financially - to look after the boy.
Wouldn't it be, Mr. Kan, a sign of true compassion and altruism for Madonna to provide resources to the boy's family so that not only is the boy's material needs met, but that the family be kept together rather than needlessly torn apart?
I get the uneasy feeling it wouldn't bother this Raybon Kan person at all if a child- molesting, puppy- killing, practicing Satanist adopts a baby, as long as the guy has a six figure (or more a year) income.
There's a reason why adoption organizations take the couple's ethics and lifestyle into consideration when reviewing the couple and why they do not look only at their income.
You can tell this guy's article is going to contain backwards morals and sloppy thinking when you see its opening lines, which are:
Please Adopt Me Madonna
The title of the article itself should tip you off this is going to be bad.
Mr. Kan, did you take any of this information into consideration before you wrote your barfy defense of Madonna?
David Banda, the child Madonna supposedly wants to adopt, has a father who is a Christian.
David's father was lied to. He did not authorize his son to be adopted by Madonna. The workers at the orphanage, without consulting the father first and without his knowledge, told Madonna's people that David was available for adoption.
The father, confused and pressured by various people, relented and said he would allow the son to be adopted.
David's father wants his son raised as a Christian.
The father was lied to and was told by the orphanage workers (and I'm unsure of who else) that Madonna was a "nice Christian lady." Madonna is not nice, and she's not a Christian.
Kan, like so many of these Madonna apologists lately, raises a straw man argument:
Secondly, Madonna already is building an orphanage there in conjunction with Rabbi Berg's Kabbalah / Spirituality for Kids Foundation, and it's going to serve up to 400 children (some say the number is 4,000).
Given that Madonna is indeed building an orphanage, Mr. Kan, why would a critic fault her for not building one?
Authors like this remind me of the people from years back who didn't understand why conservatives were upset with Clinton having sex with Lewinsky in the White House: "Character doesn't matter, and his private life doesn't matter!" they'd say. I consider such people clueless.
The author writes,
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his own soul?
Also, Mr. Kan, you're what, in your 20s or 30s? We're talking about a boy, David, who is under two years old who has family who loves him and wants to keep him.
The author again,
Mommy and daddy spend more time at the office, playing golf, and being social luminairies than they do taking a genuine interest in the lives of those kids and spending time with them.
And then some of those kids then wind up turning to alcohol, sex, and drugs, and some may become deeply depressed and suicidal. Poor little rich girls and boys who have emotionally neglectful parents tend to find life meaningless.
And you'd wish that on a little baby from Malawi, all so he can live in a mansion and play games on an X-box, Playstation and Wii?
You may be in your 20s or 30s, Mr. Kan, but you seem to be mentally and emotionally 15 years old. (Maybe 12.)
Unlike you, I'm not impressed by wealth and fame. I am not the least bit jealous that Madonna has millions and that her children have access to it.
We are, I repeat again, questioning her motives and the ramifications of her actions. We recognize that actions have consequences, and that it matters.
In regards to spending habits, I will criticize Madonna for sending conflicting messages and the like:
Madonna spent six figures on a crystal-covered disco ball for her last tour (the "Confessions" Tour), and then, during that same tour, placed URLs to charity websites on a video monitor behind her.
Instead of spending a small fortune on a tacky concert prop, would it not have gone to better use being sent to those URLs she was advertising? You'd actually fault someone for pointing that kind of thing out?
At those same concerts, Madonna's stamp of approval was all over merchandise with her name stamped on it being sold at booths outside the concert.
Do you, Mr. Kan, think Madonna's fans donated money to the charities she flashed on the video montiors during her concert, or do you think they spent their $30 on a Madonna "Confessions Tour" t-shirt?
As someone who regularly skims the fan sites, let me tell you, their money goes to the Madonna trinkets.
Don't you find the timing a little too convenient for Madonna, Mr. Kan? Madonna has an upcoming televised concert deal with American television network NBC in November, and this month, she will begin publicity rounds for her new book, "The English Roses, Too Good To Be True."
Check your gullibility at the door, Mr. Kan: Madonna is out for herself, and is not out to make life better for David Banda or for African orphans. Madonna has a history of this behavior.
Mr. Kan again:
However, if you are a pop star who is, and has always been, a greedy, self- centered witch your entire life as she has been, including during your very public career, and then you go on afterwards to make an album ("American Life") preaching to the middle class and poor masses that we are the materialistic, greedy ones ... that pop star deserves to be called on her double standards, insincere posturing, and hypocrisy.
What a horrible thing to say and to wish on any child.
If Madonna gets to adopt David, he'll be raised by nannies and butlers. Count on it. Whatever time he has with Madonna will be used for publicity shots. She may also find the time to instill terrible values into him.
|flea dip||Oct 17 2006, 03:34 PM Post #31|
Rock Star From Mars
My replies to Raybon Kan, Carol Sarler are on the previous page, in posts before this one.
BTW, other pundits and reporters keep repeating the same arguments used by Sarler and Kan.
There was an overly- sarcastic editorial from some online British or Aussie rag the other night, spouting the same materialistic angle: 'Madonna is rich, the kid is lucky.'
If I can find the link again, I may edit this and post it.
As far as "Average Joe" comments on blogs go, while there seem to be more who are against the adoption than are for it, I keep seeing people who are in favor of it refer to David's situation as "winning the lottery" or "hitting the jackpot."
~Everything boils down to wealth for some people. Disgusting.
I remember when Madonna released her 'American Life' CD she preached to people that wealth can't buy happiness, and that all of us are too materialistic.
|flea dip||Oct 17 2006, 11:27 PM Post #32|
Rock Star From Mars
David's father, Yohane Banda, has said he used to ride on a bicycle to visit David at the orphange almost every day, and it was a 25-mile trip.
So none of these Madonna suck-ups can claim that he was a neglectful, uninterested parent. - Now that I've gotten that out of the way.
I see that the doting fans (or are they paid Madonna staff?) over at Drowned Madonna posted that overly-sarcastic article I was speaking of the other day, Madonna: How Dare She! - (by Naomi Toy)
It's another one of those
What better way to get free publicity for that than trying to do something such as adopt a child (or give birth, marry or divorce, or start dating someone new - celebrities do that stuff all the time to get free PR)?
Excerpt from the article:
The documentary isn't about those children. It's about her. (And possibly Rabbi Berg, so his pockets can get filled with more money.)
Does it not occur to Ms. Toy that maybe Madonna got pregnant with daughter Lourdes around the time the Evita movie came out for the free publicity?
Another excerpt, one that contains incorrect information:
It was the staff at the orphange who did so, and the family didn't know it until Madonna made a move to adopt the baby.
The father, Johane, said he had wanted to get his son, David, back eventually and the orphange stay was temporary until he could afford to take care of David again. The family, including an Uncle, have spoken out against the adoption and said that Johane was 'taken advantage of.'
The author, again with incorrect information:
Foreigners are not supposed to be permitted to adopt children from that nation, but some in the government there made a decision to exempt Madonna.
The father (and other relatives in the family) were misled. They didn't realize it was about a permanent adoption.
Nobody who is against Madonna and this adoption has denied that Madonna claims that she will be spending a few million in the future to build some kind of kiddie Kabbalah Center in Malawi (which is being referred to as an "orphanage").
If the thing actually gets built, and the kids get food, water, and shelter as a result, nobody would say that's a bad thing. (It will be good for Madonna too, because she'll get tax write-offs. She's so caring that way.)
Obviously if David lives with Madonna he'll have plenty of food to eat and more comfortable surroundings. Duh.
Most people, if given the choice, would most likely choose to live in a mansion as opposed to an orphanage with peeling paint.
I've never denied that the kid will have nicer, more, and better living conditions (concerning the necessities of life), nor have any of the anti-Madonna-adopts-David crowd.
Yet these Madonna cheerleaders keep dragging these points up, as this Ms. Toy does.
The author of that piece says,
Anyway, there may be some who are against Madonna have said rather than spend money on David alone, she should spend X amount on the entire nation.
I have argued that if Madonna is truly a caring, concerned person, she'll do the right thing: which means giving financial assistance to David's father so that the father can keep his own son.
The father said he wanted to keep David; he never wanted to give him up.
But it seems to be okay with the Madonna apologists for someone to be a home wrecker as long as the Home Wrecker has a big bank account.
- A hollow life of partying, being vapid, screwing around, possibly getting into drugs and drink later, who will never know the Christianity his Christian father wanted him to know.
Child traffickers who obtain children to sell off into prostitution have been made aware.
Poor children now look like another item in a department store, to pick and choose and purchase.
The author just glosses over tearing a family apart:
Does she mean it's not unusual to see kids with living parents put up for adoption when the parents don't want the child, neglect the child, or who abuse the child? None of that was true in David's case.
I have better morals than Madonna. I could do a better job of raising Rocco Ritchie than Madonna could, so I should seek to gain adoption of Rocco. It doesn't matter if both of Rocco's parents are alive, I could do a far better job raising him.
It would be Madonna who is using a child as a pawn / object in a tug- of- war. She's using the boy as a Publicity Prop.
|flea dip||Oct 18 2006, 06:55 PM Post #33|
Rock Star From Mars
The journalist who wrote this sludge, Jayne Dawson, hasn't been to this discussion board, that much is plain.
Otherwise, after reading our "Lourdes and Rocco" thread, "Madonna's a Hypocrite," "Madonna's a Pervert and Skanky 'Ho" etc. threads, she would not have dared to write some of the stuff she did:
Madonna's good record as a mum - by Jayne Dawson
Madonna also bans (she claims) newspapers and magazines from her home. So her kids are growing up ignorant.
Not to mention both her kids do get to watch TV:
(1.) Madonna says she lets the kids pick at least one video (i.e., a DVD movie) to watch per week;
(2.) and since the daughter Lourdes, mentions having seen things that have been on TV, she must be watching more TV than we - or Madonna - thinks.
For example: Madonna had daughter Lourdes act as a "flower girl" at Madonna's MTV VMA "wedding" to Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.
Madonna later said that Lourdes left the stage right before the 3-way kiss, which I guess, is supposed to imply that Lourdes didn't actually see the 3-way kiss.
However, a few months ago, Lourdes asked her Mom, 'Because you kissed Britney Spears on that awards show, are you homosexual?'
How did Lourdes find out about this televised event if she did not see it (in magazines, newspapers, or) on TV?
It's not that Madonna 'suddenly' became a wicked witch for trying to adopt a kid. She's always been a wicked witch.
Nobody "reveres" Madonna Ritchie except for liberal journalists (who comprise 99% of the media), feminist college professors, and Madonna's brain dead fans.
Then you have to look at the spoiled brat manner Madonna went about acquiring David Banda:
"I am the great Madonna who has millions. I don't have to follow the law or the rules other people do. I want a baby from a nation that does not permit such adoptions, but nobody can stop me. I am famous and wealthy, I get whatever I want."
Nobody believes that anyone can be so sick as to do "X" (exchange "X" for whatever disgusting thing Madonna has done, or is said to have done), so the reasoning goes, any bad things you hear about Madonna must be false.
Just one example:
This is a woman who has hinted at pedophilia in music videos and other deviant acts in her "Sex" book, and she gets away with it.
The media also aid Madonna.
I've already said that if Madonna gets to keep baby David, it will just be a matter of months to a year or so when most in the media change their tune to say, "How could we ever have doubted? Look at how well off David is!"
- especially when the Madonna PR- machine kicks into gear and Madonna gets her photos snapped while she's taking David out to nearby parks, Disney Land, or what have you.
(For an added bonus, the media will put a photo of an impoverished Malawi village right next to photos of Madonna pushing David Banda in a swing as he's wearing a Versace outfit.)
Also, the public has - and the media have -a short memory.
They tend to forget much of the negatives Madonna have done, and they spin the ones they do remember.
For instance, all the crotch-grabbing and the kissing of ten year old boys in music videos by Madonna is portrayed as being "empowering" for women or as "feminism" by her supporters.
None of the journalists have seriously investigated the allegations made by others that Madonna, while in her 20s, was having sex with Hispanic boys who were under age 18 back when she was in New York.
Charges of pedophilia, which have been made by biographers and other people (i.e., people who were Madonna's friends years ago), mean nothing to these people; instead they whine, 'how dare the critics speak out over this adoption fiasco.'
Madonna sees only the publicity she's going to get from it.
Further, she gets her nannies to take care of the kids.
So what responsibility does she really have, Ms. Dawson?
But supporters like this - Jayne Dawson and others - are the ones who act smug and morally superior when they launch into their "you critics don't really care about the little boy's fate, but we do!" mantras.
- Obviously we critics do care, which is why we have spoken up. Duh.
According to some news accounts, Madonna is breaking the law (with the help of some government workers) to adopt a baby, and the critics don't just brush aside important issues such as that all because Madonna is loaded and can buy the baby designer footie pajamas.
And for the billionth time, the critics know that David will have a better life as far as material possessions go, should he stay with Madonna. We're not contesting that.
|The 1 Not Fooled||Oct 18 2006, 09:14 PM Post #34|
Licensed & Board-certified!
|Notice how these sycophants try to make their pieces respectable by proclaiming "Lord knows I'm no fan of Madonna, but...."?|
|flea dip||Oct 19 2006, 03:29 AM Post #35|
Rock Star From Mars
I wanted to read why I'm so incredibly wrong to criticize laws being broken - as it's been said in the news - so Madonna can adopt a kid, but this page will not load, only the side bars:
Madonna's Critics Are So Wrong
BTW, that page is from an Australian source, I believe.
I've noticed that a fair share of these positive articles about her are coming from Oz. Any Aussies who hate Maddona want to log in and explain what is up with that?
The Brits are kind of bad. Seems like 2/3 are neutral or critical of Man-donna but 1/3 are in support of, and when these people - British and Aussie - are in support of Madonna, they write these overly positive, incredibly one-sided
|flea dip||Oct 19 2006, 07:02 PM Post #36|
Rock Star From Mars
"Huffington Post" is a liberal type blog, so it really pains me to visit there to refute a bit of what this guy there has written.
I don't know if this makes a difference to anyone or not, but the man who wrote this is black (his photo is at the top of the page).
Madonna Cast An Ugly Glare on Africa's Orphan Tragedy
Madonna can never have too much publicity. She loves it. She still seeks it. Why else do you think she goes along with Warner Bros. to pose for publicity photos to promote her records?
Why is she going to be going on a public relations tour in a few weeks to promote her new book, The English Roses Too Good To Be True?
Hmm, because she can't get enough publicity - even when the weenies in the media insist on covering every hair color change she makes.
This one line sums up the content of about 3 long paragraphs he wrote:
The author focuses on a white woman adopting a black child, so he seems to be missing the point.
It's not just that David Banda is black and Madonna is white: Madonna was raised in the U.S.A. and is living in Britain now, while David was born in Malawi.
Another issue: David's father is still alive.
I just posted an article yesterday that had a few interviews in it with people who grew up in the same situation as David -
- one guy was born in India and adopted by a white, middle class British family
who says it was difficult being a Non-British adopted kid in Britain.
If I recall correctly, this guy didn't even mention skin color.
I pesonally don't care if black people adopt whites, or vice versa.
I didn't realize we needed Madonna to educate the ignorant American public that there are poor and sick people in Africa! ( )
|flea dip||Oct 19 2006, 08:05 PM Post #37|
Rock Star From Mars
First it was said that critics have to give $50 million (or whatever the amount is) to Malawi before they can opine on all this, now I'm reading we critics have to adopt a baby boy from Malawi before we can have a view point (it's implied):
Africa: What Others Say - Give Madonna All Africa's Orphans
The other celebrities who have adopted foreign babies
(1.) seem to genuinely care for the kids they adopt, and
(2.) none of the other celebrities have been as publicly slutty and crass as Madonna;
(3.) none of the other celebrites are portrayed as being trend setters - Madonna is though, so yeah, you gotta wonder if Madonna views adopting an African kid as just another trendy thing to do;
(4.) I don't believe the other celebrities skirted the law in order to get their babies, unlike Madonna;
(5.) I haven't heard that Jolie, Meg Ryan, and all the rest paid $3 million dollars to purchase their kid / using bribery to get a baby;
I had a couple of other points, but I've forgotten what they are
I can't speak for all the critics, but yes, it is all about David Banda to me.
Okay, let me get this straight: this guy is arguing that the [NGO] critics of the adoption are publicity hungry?
Excuse me, but how many of those critics have an upcoming kiddie book coming out, The English Roses Too Good To Be True?
Madonna has spent 20+ years of her career chasing after publicity, and I'm supposed to believe that a bunch of 'nobodies' who work everyday kinda jobs are just trying to get face time on TV? Ah, right, sure.
If Madonna had adopted a white kid, you bet I'd still be objecting.
-- PS.-- Thank you, though, Mr. Nairobi, for not bringing up the old chestnut about "What's so wrong about Madonna adopting David when he came from such an impoverished background and she has millions and can buy him anything?"
|The 1 Not Fooled||Oct 19 2006, 09:17 PM Post #38|
Licensed & Board-certified!
That's funny, 'cause I heard that tool Perez went on some Fox show for the express purpose of defending his idol...
|flea dip||Oct 19 2006, 11:36 PM Post #39|
Rock Star From Mars
~~ EDITs BELOW ~~
Rosie DiMannos' article is responded to about half-way down in this post, while D. Parvaz's article is responded to towards the end - far, far below
Oh, you're saying that a Madonna adoption supporter (a MAS - I'm lazy ) will be getting publicity off the whole thing?
(I visited PerezHilton.com earlier, and yes, the guy who runs it is a proponent of famous, immoral trollops buying kids.)
Nobody's interviewing me. I don't do this to get any kind of publicity. I've been ripping on her since I was like 12 years old, and I made the anti-Madonna site in 2003, long before she adopted David.
Some of you here have disliked Madonna since the 1980s, too. We didn't just spring up over night upset about this adoption.
You're right, 1NF. Excellent point. The MAS are getting publicity off this.
~~~~ EDIT #1 ~~~~
RESPONSE TO ROSIE DIMANNO
Why All The Backlash Over Madonna, Baby?
(2.) David's father, Yohane Banda, sounds like he wants financial gain out of it. As I remarked before:
She doesn't have the kind of self sacrificing love a real mother would give. Her kids spend most of their time with nannies, as well.
Madonna did not bother to fly to Africa to get baby David herself but sent staff to do so.
Shortly after David arrived in Britain at the Ritchie residence, what happened?
Madonna went out to her pilates class for an hour and a half or longer, and her husband went for a bike ride. It's strange behavior for new parents of a child who claim they've been wanting that baby for months.
These Pollyannas such as Ms. Dimanno just want to see it in a simple formula:
(financially) poor baby gets adopted by rich lady, we should celebrate.
That's it, that's all to these people. It's as though they're incapable of more complex thinking or seeing beyond the obvious to the deeper issues.
There's more to consider here than "poor baby gets to live in big mansion."
~~ EDIT # 2, Oct. 20, 2006 ~~
RESPONSE TO D. PARVAZ
Madonna's adoption of David is not a crass act By D. PARVAZ
This guy (or lady?) "feels the need to defend Madonna."
Oh no you don't.
Madonna's mythology - which is protected by journalists such as you - is that she's strong, powerful, and an independent woman who doesn't need nothin' from nobody, including your defense.
The only points I will address... Mr. (or is it Ms.?) Parvaz writes,
We're the ones saying everyone should have to abide by the same rules, but people such as you say it's okay to bend rules because Madonna is a millionaire and the boy was destitute.
Everyone should have to go through the same laws and procedures as everyone else.
However, Madonna was exempted from that, or the Malawi government brushed aside their laws, because Madonna has lots of money (which is all you supporters care about).
I have a problem with ANYONE who has the financial means to aid a father so that the father can keep his son but who instead takes the son away from the father.
It would bother me just as much if "Average Joe" did this. It would bother me just as much if Angelina Jolie did it. If Angelina Jolie did in fact do it as well, then I think she too is a piece of scum.
And by the way Mr. Parvaz? -
The father of David Banda said specifically that he wants his son to be raised with CHRISTIAN VALUES. He did not say he wants his son to be raised as a Berg-Kabbalist.
Mr. Yohane Banda was lied to (that doesn't seem to matter to you at all!) and was told that the woman who wanted David (Madonna) is a Christian - but she is not a Christian!
It would be like telling a Jewish parent that his child is going to live with observant Jews but the kid actually is going to be raised by atheists or moderate Muslims (the other sorts of Muslims would kill the Jewish child).
Because so many of you journalists are leftists who despise Christians and Christianity, here's a crash course of sorts for you:
Berg-Kabbalah and Bible- based, traditional Christianity are totally incompatible.
|flea dip||Oct 21 2006, 06:24 AM Post #40|
Rock Star From Mars
~~~ EDIT BELOW ~~~~
Leave Madonna's Baby
You may not think she needs more publicity, but she would not agree with you. She still thinks she needs it - and more importantly, she still wants it.
Further, she still seeks publicity when hawking new products. When her recent "Confessions" record was released, she appeared on many TV shows promoting it, by wearing tacky leotards, dancing around, and lip synching.
Madonna will be promoting a new book she wrote, and she'll be promoting it within the next two months.
Madonna is also making a documentary about her trip to purchase a child from Malawi. Even if she does not make any money off of said documentary, she will love having her face on the movie screen.
So please, stop being so naive about Madonna's never ending hunger for publicity and fame. That is what she lives for.
I don't see how taking a son away from his father solves the oppression the Malawis face.
Madonna could have given the father of David a few bucks, and that way the child could have remained with his family. Instead, she takes the selfish route and runs off with the kid so she can keep him all to herself - for future publicity shots, of course.
~~~ EDIT ~~~
Comment: Sarah Carey: Don't preach at Madonna
You mean like the "sanctimonious tut-tutters" such as yourself printing nauseating after nauseating favorable, sometimes saccharine, maudlin columns about what a great mother skanky Madonna is and how wonderful it is a destitute boy was snatched from his daddy by a millionaire?
It goes both ways, sister.
~~~ EDIT ~~~
The author of this piece misses the point-
Malawi's other orphans: The children Madonna left behind
Madonna is not above the law
- even if she's supposedly doing a "good deed."
BTW, it's assinine to argue it's okay to break the law if it's for a good deed, (depending on the specific situation, and this is not one of those situations), especially since Madonna could have given financial aid to the father so that the father could raise his own son.
Anyway, someone who is truly good and is doing a good deed would abide by the law and go about things honestly.
Even should the courts and/or the Malawi government decide in Madonna's favor later on (and watch as the fans cheer, "See it was legal, it was legal!"), the "adoption" still had a questionable, seedy, underhanded background and begnning to it.
The courts declaring (and after the deed has been done, no less) that it is legal now (or was at the time) does not necessarily mean it was legal, or that it was kosher.
What about all the idiot judges we have in the U.S.A .who let proven pedophiles off with very light sentences (only two months in jail for a pervert having raped a seven year old girl, for example)?
Sometimes the courts the world over do not always do the legal, right, common sense, or honest thing.
I beg to differ with this author: Madonna adopting a kid from Malawi may or may not start a horde of white, middle class people who want to adopt a kid from Malawi, but, as had been observed before, the child traffickers - who view children as commodities for sexual services - will be sure to notice.
Finding children for pedophiles to have sex with is big business in places such as Thailand.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|Go to Next Page|
|« Previous Topic · Madonna Blows Chunks · Next Topic »|