A coalition of really sad people with obvious self-esteem issues has formed in support of drug-addled redneck Britney Spears.
♥LUSCIOUS~06♥ makes their case:
Everyone knows about all the troubles legendary Britney Spears has been through as of late, from her divorce from Kevin Federline, to her various so-called episodes of odd behavior, which, to respect her privacy, I shall not go into detail about (we all know said episodes) to her custody battle for her kids, to having to put up with continual and relentless slander and invasion of her privacy by the paparazzi, and so much more that we don’t know about, and it seems the new ‘in thing’ to trashtalk poor Brit, whether about her fitness as a mother or about her weight or about her music or about her partying or about her so-called lapses in judgment, and on top of all that legendary musical group The Eagles release their new album to be sold solely in Walmart, and the people running the Billboard charts ‘coincidentally’ simultaneously altered their rules so such a tactic could rob Britney’s new album "Blackout" of its rightful #1 spot on the charts, so it’s time for all us Britney fans/supporters to voice our unconditional support for her, and so I would love it if you’d sign this petition of support for Britney which, once the goal # of signatures has been reached, will be forwarded to Britney, so please sign and let others know about this petition…thank you!=]=]=]
P.S.–late-breaking news: the newest injustice against Britney is the fact that Jive Records is refusing to have a "Blackout" tour so they can funnel the money they would’ve spent on the tour on music video production…THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!=[=[=[
I’m admittedly biased, but you can tell a lot about a politician by how they treat the press.
A candidate who doesn’t at least pretend to respect the Fourth Estate — which, by the way, deserves its low approval ratings — typically doesn’t respect the voting public (see Nixon, Bush 43 and their natural successor, Hillbot):
Reporters’ jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They’re frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don’t see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."
And be wary of Hillbot’s media enablers (who happen to be former enemies):
Many reporters also suspect the Clinton camp of employing outside proxies to attack troublemakers in the media. After Hillary’s shaky debate performance late last month, the Drudge Report–whose author, Matt Drudge, the campaign has assiduously courted–quickly featured an unusual blind quote on its homepage in which an unnamed "top Hillary advisor" said debate moderator Tim Russert "bordered on the unprofessional." Joining in the attack on Russert was Media Matters, the liberal press-watching website founded by former Clinton-hater turned Clinton ally David Brock. Many in Washington believe the campaign feeds material to Brock’s site, as when Media Matters went after New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut last July after Kornblut misrendered a quote that led to an erroneous story claiming Hillary had criticized fellow Democrats. Not only did Clinton aides fume to the paper’s editors, but Media Matters pummeled Kornblut and the Times for several days. (A count of Media Matters stories from October found 39 headlines defending Clinton, compared to 15 for Obama and just one for John Edwards. A Media Matters spokesman strongly denied favoritism.
We’ve endured seven years of secrets from the executive branch. Can we afford four more?
(T)he Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House, which has treated the press with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation. "The Bush administration changed the rules," as one scribe puts it–and the Clintonites like the way they look.
