As long as he's not shooting people specifically underage (18 or whatever age necessary in the state of the model), and he has explicit permission to use their images, he's running a legit business. Boo hoo for the parents behind it. They should figure out what's wrong with their children first.
FoxNews is a disgusting breeding ground for unskilled, biased reporters. I expect nothing better than them nowadays. It was absolutely out of line of her to attack that girl that way, and on top of that, not let her answer by shouting "let her answer let her answer" the whole time.
Of course he wants young girls. Older women do not sell as well, and he even covers his ground by saying they are also beautiful. This was probably one of the least offensive "pornographers" I've ever seen in interview. He isn't even making sex tapes, it's only topless photos. The Adult Industry is an industry, like it or not. I'd rather have people making pornography legally than acting out pedophilia fantasies.
I'm flabbergasted this made news. If parents are upset their girls are exposing themselves on the internet, they need to raise their children in a way that teaches them the consequences of those actions.
The young man conducted himself quite well. Not exceptional but at least he didn't get angry or defensive, he kept his cool. The reporter is the one who is "skeezy to a T." Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Ah yes. Yet more ultra conservative witch hunting from the FOX network. I wonder what they'd find on the hard drives of their own executives, if they went looking.
The reason why Malkin has to interview people like this is because she's a right-wing, lying, GOP, Rev. Moonie-sent hypocritical media whore. No one of any legitimate stature would want to sit and have an "interview" with her.
BillO has no leg to stand on. Remember he thinks its ok to harrass female co-workers. This chick is also a closet freak. Notice how quick she spun out of there when she was outed.
and, i hate to say it, she's really hot. i wonder if she realizes its the only reason she has that job. i like watching people lose an argument and squirm their way out of it by ending the conversation very abruptly.
Wait...the title to this video reads, "Michelle Malkin gets owned..." I watched it twice looking for a moment where a cogent point was made by the web-porn guy and found none. I know Malkin is a bit snotty sometimes, but rooting for the pornguy?! Why is the very basic point always overlooked by the "hey-if-it's-legal-it's-ok" crowd: Selling human flesh is wrong. What kind of depraved mind (and soul) misses that entirely? I wonder if they feel the same way about a much less harmful act: smoking. It's legal to grow, legal to sell and legal to consume. Must be good for you then.
They're NOT selling flesh. They're selling PICTURES of flesh.
The last thing ANYONE needs, is some goddamn religious-zealot-taliban wannabe, forcing his/her own beliefs onto others.
I'm not a porn fan, but IF I was, I sure wouldn't need a cross-loving freak like yourself telling ME that it "it's wrong".
Maybe Stalin had that one aspect right: BAN all forms of institutionalized religion; practice whatever it is one would practice AT HOME, and leave everyone else the fuck alone.
well, to me, someone who is interrupting often, asking non-journalistic questions like "what are you doing with this loser?" and abruptly preventing someone from responding through the whole interview is clearly LOSING an argument. to me, thats the definition of getting owned.
honestly, the guy wasnt even given a chance to really win the argument. all she did was retreat and insult, versus openly debate.
Zamp, doesnt' that rhyme with tramp? Obviously that pic isn't of her, do you really think she would pull her top up, be real. Listen to what she said about the pic in the clip. You woman should think more of yourselves and stop letting these men make money on you, do you really think they have any respect for you, or stay true to you? Guess again. It's about time a real woman spoke up and says it like it is, and of course you feeble minded fools call her a bitch, thats because you don't know what else to call her because you don't have any sort of an education. She's an exceptionally smart woman, but you probably don't know any women like that or men for that matter, thats why you show your boobies, you think thats smart and the worst of it is, you let the men make the money on it, now whose the bitch?
regardless of the topic, it was very clearly NOT an interview so much as an opportunity to make fun of somoeone. Does legitimate news or its broadcasters really use words like 'Skeezy' and 'loser' when trying to ask a question? I can't remember a time Tom Brokaw or Diane Sawyer ever used the word 'skeezy'. Loser was typical only used in an interview when someone maybe lost a race or some type of competition.
What a tactless shill for the company. Yet another reason to not trust Fox 'News'.
What a surprise, I come to another clip and find yet another instance of canuck trying to belittle people.
I’m thankful that not all canadians are as narrow-minded and conceited as you. You’re a disgrace to your country.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with your attempts (note attempts) to ridicule people from all over the world. You’ve obviously failed in life and are bitter and insecure about it.
She should get fired. A journalist is meant to be unbiased in their reporting and impartial. She may not agree with but thats not the point.
She interupted him, was extremely rude to him when he was perfectly polite, isn't doing anything illegal and made his argument quite well.
I don't agree with what he's doing but he's in the right to do it and it's his call. Michelle shames journalism.
shames journalism? she isn't even practicing journalism in the first place. since when is cutting people off and calling them losers a professional journalist interview tactic? I wish he had had a chance to make his argument clearer for the (unfortunately) hundreds of people that are like minded with this hypocritical "news"caster. And the reason why it's not news is because not only is is this biased but it's not as if he's the only person in the world who does this.
oh man- this is why I don't have TV... seriously...
I can't believe these people get hired as anchorpeople. Is it really impossible to find someone attractive enough to put in front of a camera AND be able to read the news or conduct a civil interview? I'd rather have ugly people on the news if they knew what the hell they were doing. I can't imagine HER sex appeal didn't help her get into this career, because it sure wasn't her stunning journalistic talent.
Malkin was owned? If Michele was owned in that debate, I am Bill o"Reilly..
Anyways for anyone that cares, this is COMMENTARY. Meaning it is opinions. It has merit in any program.
For those that cry bias - PLEASE STOP - All the other networks, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS have former Clinton adminstration officals as newsmen. CNN is perhaps the worst in biased journalism. Eason Jordan CNN news exec wrote a piece in the NEW York Times admitting his bias in that he would not report the atrocites in Saddams Iraq because they would lose their status in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytimes.com/mem/gatekeeper.html
Wow, Michelle Malkin is a reporter? Is that what is passing for a journalist nowadays? No wonder Fox has a rep for crap if that is what passes for "fair and balanced." What a brainless b*t*h! The model had more class than that news whore.
Note the comment from a prior thread where I put you in your place:
"If you used your puny brain for a moment, you'd realize that barnsleyfc is perhaps Barnsley FC which is perhaps a reference to Barnsley Football Club which would perhaps indicate that I'm from the UK which would perhaps mean that I'm not american. Yet again, you jump to erroneous conclusions prematurely. Twat."
Therefore, you'd be sending me pounds sterling not bucks. Moron.
You're as incredibly stupid, as you are oblivious. I DID read your moronic post in the other thread, and I DID respond to it; but I guess ya might have been too afraid to acknowledge it. If so, here it is now, copied-and-pasted for your own short-sighted approval:
Ohhhhhh, well then, assuming you're telling the truth, then I guess you got me on that one. Totally. Although, seeing as how I'm not the one who hides behind the obscure name of a wanker sports team to disguise my nationality, I'd say that only one of us is the more forthright of the two.
Kudos to you.
Having said that, I find it supremely ironic, that you feel the need to label me as "arrogant", considering that you stuffed-shirts have done nothing but build up an entire society on a class-system for the past several centuries, based on....WAIT FOR IT!!......arrogance. As a result, many of you walk around with this stupid, pompous air of entitlement. Just ask the Aussies how they feel about ya; or even the South Africans. Plus, you had the stupidity to get sucked into Georgie-Boys war. Way to go.
Yes, thank you for clarifying who and what YOU are.
The Americans were at least 100% CORRECT to get rid of your ilk when they did.
You disgust me, you cowardly, hypocritical kipper-eater.
I hope if Jack ever makes a comeback, you live in dead-center of the Whitechapel district.
And don't talk me me about any pansy-ass "football" club, either.
When you and your buddies learn to strap on a pair of skates, wield a hockey stick and crack a few skulls on the ice, ya got nothing to brag about.
Doug Markwith talks like he is making a stand for the adult industry ... sorry Doug ... the words teen and pig tails that are included in the meta tags of websites like his... don't make an adult ...
For those who think he 'owned' this reporter .. he certainly didn't, but then neither did she ... none of them came even close to putting forward a decent argument for or against ...
I can't stand Fox News...they should have asked Bill O'Reilly about his time dabbling in the adult industry.
flowergirl, are you really arguing that it's inappropriate to market women online as girls? Really? So, how old are you flowerGIRL? Are you under 18? Having a hard time letting go of your girlhood? Or do you find that you get more attention from straight men because you use the word girl in place of woman?
Idiot canuck. You posted to the other thread AFTER I posted my above comment and are now trying to claim that it was there all along. Lying bastard. Fits though.
Hmmm. So now you're an expert on the history of Great Britain? You seem to know so much about everything. I'm surprised you have time to come to Glumbert at all.
Interesting that you guys copied our government and healthcare systems and many other things and interesting that the rest of the world things football is the greatest sport.
Holy fuck, man...haven't you ever heard of The Boar War? World War I? World War II? I kinda think we helped bail out your sorry guinness-slurping asses a few times, in a couple of...gee, lemme think...WORLD CONFLICTS!!!
You're just sore because you and your upper-crust snots barely manage to be able play SOCCER (not "football".....SOCCER......and Manchester sucks the bag). Ya just can't cut it on the ice. The first Brits that even attempt it........will be carved up like fucking christmas turkeys on the ice, and will WISH they were back at Dunkirk.
And I'm not bitter.
Just amazed that Britain (with all of it's resources) still managed to produce a moron like you, who probably really spends all his time fuckin' panhandling in Trafalgar Square......MATE.
Let's see. Disreali, Churchill, Thatcher, Darwin, Shakespeare, Keats, ... the list goes on.
And who've you got? Some gay guy called Gretzky and the guy that "invented????" insulin according to you. You must be proud.
Since it's the ENGLISH, not canadian language, we'll stick with football thank you very much. I know you have to make words up to establish an identify as a nation since you have no natural identity.
Keep that remark in mind, if you ever have a relative afflicted with diabetes, you upper-crust, pompous pufter.
And as for our "identity", what can I tell ya? Comparitively speaking, we're still a young nation, and we're working on it. Simple as that. YOU of all people should have been aware of that, especially since at your bastardized birth, Julius Caesar had to send in a couple of Legions to bitch-slap your backwards tribes into formation. So relax. Give us time, MATE. We're on our way. Trust me.
And THAT....immediately started after the sun set on your stinking, repressive Empire.
My oh my. How we live in the past. Unless you know 300 year old south africans, australians, and scotsmen that were undoubtedly frozen cryogenically by a machine that I'm assuming you'll claim a canadian invented, then you're sadly mistaken. Get your bookworm arse out of the history books and smell the 21st century.
And, erm, pay attention now, since my original post said that I'm from the UK which includes Scotland, your shit for brains is saying that the scots hate themselves.
Remember, better to do things such that people have a reaction to you - good or bad - than to sit on the fence such that people don't know how to define you and couldn't give a shit = you guys.
You are doing exactly what your ass bandit hero Michael Moore despises - pulling isolated, questionable pieces of journalism to suit your story. How do yuo expect him to get aroused the next yime you open your mouth for him.
As an objective observer, this one goes to Barnsley. Give it up eh.
May not believe it (nor do I really care), but I already knew this stuff for many, many years (courtesy of a certain politcial science professor, as well as extensive travelling) and the some people, places and things just back-up what I'm saying.
While I agree with many of your points, they are overshadowed by your foul and distasteful language.
As a fellow canadian and mother of three, I am asking you to refrain from such language. What purpose does it serve? Do you talk like this in person to people that you have just met?
As a family, we come to Glumbert primarly to be entertained and are occassionally informed. Since the ability to post comments, however, I am concluding that it's just not worth it due to the increasing risk of one my kids coming across the type of post that you regularly submit. Do they hear this stuff at school? Sure, but I can't control that - I can control this. I point to you since you appear to be the biggest culprit that simultaneously has a brain.
I don't expect this to make a difference and as such I'll unfortunately be asking my husband to add glumbert to the "blocked" sites on or computer. There, I've said it.
It is unfortunate that in my zeal to make a point or come across with a sound argument (or sometimes even to use my own twisted view of humour), that I have simply chosen to speak to a specific few with how I feel is the only thing they deserve and understand.
Having said that, your points, of course, are quite sound and reasonable.
It is in this spirit, that I ask you to reconsider your thoughts on avoiding this site, mostly because the debates and exchange of views can actually be quite informative, if not entertaining. It would actually bother me to know that I was, as you say, a "culprit", in potentially exposing your children to some of my, shall we say, 'colourful', ways of putting things. I have three kids of my own, and I take great care in how I speak around them, so I understand your point completely.
Again, sincerest apologies to yourself, and your lovely, family. It sounds like they have a Mom who they are very proud of.
Cancuk, seems a litlle weird then that your response with the questionable website references would be so delayed and much later than your original response. If the info was indeed on the tip of your tongue, it should have been in your initital response. Like I've been saying, it's much more likley then that you search the internet to fabricate your stories.
I made statements I knew (or believe) to be true already, and I simply went to substantiate what I've said. I could say whatever I want....it doesen't mean it's true, now does it? So, I'll happily go substantiate it.
I wasn't aware that you imposed a statute-of-limitations.
Well, it appears that under a diffferent stage name, you have this to say about my arguments, "your points, of course, are quite sound and reasonable".
Maybe it's because when you use one of your many childish aliases, you actually made sense; or, maybe you're even lying right now; or, maybe your meds kicked in, and actually gave you a temporararily sound mind and thought processs; or, maybe you DO have some common sense, and just took a break from the Nintendo. Who knows?
There's so many "maybe"s connected with you.
Try giving me some valid points, instead of playing childish games or throwing a temper-tantrum.
Michelle Malkin can rot in hell! For godsakes this is a free country, and these bastards question his legitimate business. Fox news pisses me off, they don't realize how hypocritical they are on so many levels.
What you slack-jawed inbreds don't understand is that the whole show is based on O'Reilly's opinion. They hired him to say what he thinks for an hour every evening. So what? I think he's wrong a lot of the time, but I'm not angry about it. Every newspaper and magazine has an opinion section, why shouldn't television? It's the same concept but a different medium.
Rofl, thats a new tactic. Telling the truth. She stood by the moral majority, which is normal for news. Sensationalist is pretty standard too. Going on about how her guest is a loser, and how he's getting his 15 minutes of fame, and why she asks a question she isn't willing to answer herself (why did you take your top off) was not. Pretty bad interview really.
What truly lead to the winning of the debate was that the guy kept the questions coming. Since she had to reply, a sensationalist arguement has a higher chance of just emphasing one point. And since it was done so fast and furious, it had an even higher chance.
Comments (93)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.