WaterInYourBath said:

babynoz said:

Well since he probably won't be seeing the Prez, perhaps he'll drop by Fox for a chat with O'reilly.

I would love for him to finally be interviewed by someone who would actually be tough enough to challenge him straightforwardly when he says something absurd, but I'm not trying to see him get verbally annihilated, lol.

Please!

Again not to defend P or any of his silly remarks (personally I think he should just shut up & play his guitar - now I see why he didn't give interviews back in the day and just concentrated on his music which was good to a point until he started talking like Sarah Palin!), but BillO is nothing more than a cowardly bully dweeb as fellow Minnesotan Jesse Ventura has pointed out who simply preys on whom he considers weak and unable to defend themselves. Of course our hero hasn't called out P - YET! Again, P has said crazy things in the past, but BillO (Mr. Pot calling the kettle black) takes the cake in that department and all P has to do is call him out on his crazy Teabagging ways. Again as Jesse mentioned earlier BillO is the "Larry" of the Three Stooges. And if P doesn't watch out he's going to end up joining those clowns.

[Edited 6/28/11 10:50am]

metallicjigolo said:

Oooohhweee!! Prince made it all the way to.. http://blog.beliefnet.com...l#comments

They are really twisting it around now.

welcome 2 the media world....

lezama said:

Spinlight said:

You're a complete tool. Championing LESS rights as a black woman is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this ridiculous site. You are an embarrassment to your gender and your ethnicity.

Actually, a prohibition on the wearing of a piece of religious garment (as occured in France) IS less rights, not more. If the west is really concerned with gender equality then it can do so by doing so in the workplace by paying them equally for the same work (which still doesnt happen in the US or France) or by giving them the same opportunities for promotion as men (which still doesn't happen in France). The controversy around the burqa in Europe IMO is largely just a legacy of the old world fearing they're being taken over by immigrants.

Well, no, it's not less rights to remove the necessity to wear burqas. Taking Prince's words as they were spoken, he sympathizes with Muslim countries who enforce these rules upon their people so that they don't.... get "confused". You don't need to interpret too much beyond what Prince actually says because the truth is stranger than fiction. He didn't specifically mention France, whether or not he meant this stuff as a barb towards French politics.

And were he to be speaking about France, he argued it from a nonsensical angle by suggesting that the reason they should NOT ban burqas is because some countries force people to wear burqas and only annoying people complain about it.

BlackandRising said:

Spinlight said:

If that is your opinion of the internet, then you have a very narrow view.

I think that criticism is spot on. Case in point; the gov't and certain corporations have been found to literally hire people to invade comment threads and inject their POV into the mix. There was a story not long ago about a security firm that was busted doing just this by Anon, and they had quite a rolodex of clients. Of course, there are worthy things on the internet, but people are finding effective ways of usurping very popular websites, as they find that peopel reading comment sections are really swayed by whatever prevailing POV they read.

None of that matters if you stay away from the sensationalist side of the internet. If you choose not to, that's fine, but I (personally) only spend perhaps 45% of my internet time on websites which may or may not be salacious enough to have wild commenters (the org being one of them and, hey, wasn't the username "blackandrising" associated with a lot of trolling on either here or AMP? i forget, its been a while).

I'm with Spinlight. I personally stay away from that sensationalist stuff. Especially concerning issues related to politricks/zealots.

I wonder what the iranian refugee stand-up comedian Zinat Pirzadeh would say about this?

She had to marry an old man that her parents in Iran chosed for her at the age of 15. When she was 16 she gave birth to a son. She was locked up indoors all day long. One day she saw a female cat moving her kittens from a rooftop when young kids threw rocks at them, and decided she had to do the same thing. With help of her symphatizing granny, she managed to escape all the way to Sweden together with her son.

According to the burqa she said that at first she hardly had the guts to take it off. She felt secure in it and wasn't used to be without it. But when she finally got used to go outdoors without it, she instead got crazy about jewelry and make-up that she had not been allowed to use. So from hiding herself completely she became a walking "christmas-tree", totally covered with bling-bling at first. So not having to cover herself up anymore became a totally life-changing experience for her. And what a shame to hide such beauty.

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/denise5/zina2_92270018.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 6/28/11 11:12am]

Smittyrock70 said:

WaterInYourBath said:

I would love for him to finally be interviewed by someone who would actually be tough enough to challenge him straightforwardly when he says something absurd, but I'm not trying to see him get verbally annihilated, lol.

Please!

Again not to defend P or any of his silly remarks (personally I think he should just shut up & play his guitar - now I see why he didn't give interviews back in the day and just concentrated on his music which was good to a point until he started talking like Sarah Palin!), but BillO is nothing more than a cowardly bully dweeb as fellow Minnesotan Jesse Ventura has pointed out who simply preys on whom he considers weak and unable to defend themselves. Of course our hero hasn't called out P - YET! Again, P has said crazy things in the past, but BillO (Mr. Pot calling the kettle black) takes the cake in that department and all P has to do is call him out on his crazy Teabagging ways. Again as Jesse mentioned earlier BillO is the "Larry" of the Three Stooges. And if P doesn't watch out he's going to end up joining those clowns.

I can agree with that in some cases. However, you must not have seen his recent interview with Lupe Fiasco from a few weeks ago. As intelligent as Lupe raps, he was overtaken quick by O'Rielly and could not recover, causing the episode to be cringeworthy. And Lupe isn't weak at all, but just wasn't fit for that type of discussion. No matter how repugnant O'Rielly's statements/actions can be, a person has to know exactly what he/she is saying and how to debate efficiently in order to go against him without getting jumbled and embarrassed. Any random cryptic jargon would NOT work with someone as aggressive as him. The only thing Prince would be able to do is get stunned, go quiet, and walk off set.

Vanity45 said:

I wonder what the iranian refugee stand-up comedian Zinat Pirzadeh would say about this?

She had to marry an old man that her parents in Iran chosed for her at the age of 15. When she was 16 she gave birth to a son. She was locked up indoors all day long. One day she saw a female cat moving her kittens from a rooftop when young kids threw rocks at them, and decided she had to do the same thing. With help of her symphatizing granny, she managed to escape all the way to Sweden together with her son.

According to the burqa she said that at first she hardly had the guts to take it off. She felt secure in it and wasn't used to be without it. But when she finally got used to go outdoors without it, she instead got crazy about jewelry and make-up that she had not been allowed to use. So from hiding herself completely she became a walking "christmas-tree", totally covered with bling-bling at first. So not having to cover herself up anymore became a totally life-changing experience for her. And what a shame to hide such beauty.

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/denise5/zina2_92270018.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 6/28/11 11:12am]

Oh wow she's beautiful.

And I think she would not take this well lol

Spinlight said:

BlackandRising said:

I think that criticism is spot on. Case in point; the gov't and certain corporations have been found to literally hire people to invade comment threads and inject their POV into the mix. There was a story not long ago about a security firm that was busted doing just this by Anon, and they had quite a rolodex of clients. Of course, there are worthy things on the internet, but people are finding effective ways of usurping very popular websites, as they find that peopel reading comment sections are really swayed by whatever prevailing POV they read.

None of that matters if you stay away from the sensationalist side of the internet. If you choose not to, that's fine, but I (personally) only spend perhaps 45% of my internet time on websites which may or may not be salacious enough to have wild commenters (the org being one of them and, hey, wasn't the username "blackandrising" associated with a lot of trolling on either here or AMP? i forget, its been a while).

True, but my point is that corporations/gov't has found a way to manipulate opinion on the internet without 99.9% of the users knowing, and given that this is where more and more people go for "unfiltered" information, that has important ramifications, especially in today's hyper-polarized political climate.

And yes, I was called a troll on AMP and here, but only because I like to tell it like it is, which some peopld can't seem to handle. So the more I did it the funnier it got, so the more I did it. Until it became boring. So now I simply post when I see someone posit something worth commenting on.

Timmy84 said:

I'm with Spinlight. I personally stay away from that sensationalist stuff. Especially concerning issues related to politricks/zealots.

Fair enough, but the story I am referencing actually laid claim to affecting sites that most wouldn't consider salacious, or senationalist. That's their M.O., to effect change where it most matters, and in a way where most wouldn't notice it. Their power lies in the fact that most people believe they are unaffected by their efforts.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

mimi02 said:

He doesn't look darker...he looks dirty! Old and dirty.

....some other stuff was here....but I had to reply to this...

YES.....Dirty Deeee...dammit!!!!!

I swear my first thought was....

[Edited 6/27/11 18:13pm]

BlackandRising said:

Spinlight said:

None of that matters if you stay away from the sensationalist side of the internet. If you choose not to, that's fine, but I (personally) only spend perhaps 45% of my internet time on websites which may or may not be salacious enough to have wild commenters (the org being one of them and, hey, wasn't the username "blackandrising" associated with a lot of trolling on either here or AMP? i forget, its been a while).

True, but my point is that corporations/gov't has found a way to manipulate opinion on the internet without 99.9% of the users knowing, and given that this is where more and more people go for "unfiltered" information, that has important ramifications, especially in today's hyper-polarized political climate.

And yes, I was called a troll on AMP and here, but only because I like to tell it like it is, which some peopld can't seem to handle. So the more I did it the funnier it got, so the more I did it. Until it became boring. So now I simply post when I see someone posit something worth commenting on.

Well, yeah, you are right. However, personal culpability makes up for most of that. If you -choose- to partake in those activities you open yourself up to being manipulated anywhere from your words being taken out of context to you being incited to react in a verbal way (or nonverbal, even). Do most of the dumbos out there go right to those famous venues? Yes. Can't save them all, though. These are the same fools who would continue touching the burner to see if it remained hot after the first go 'round.

And yeah, I can relate to your 2nd paragraph. Which even touches on my point a bit more - people, in an unfiltered and open setting, will often take your words and feel hurt by them because of THEIR insecurities and those insecurities manifest in countless other ways, too. People like that, the finger pointing troll detectives, are typically pretty insecure and love the safety of a government arm around their shoulders.

Timmy84 said:

Vanity45 said:

I wonder what the iranian refugee stand-up comedian Zinat Pirzadeh would say about this?

She had to marry an old man that her parents in Iran chosed for her at the age of 15. When she was 16 she gave birth to a son. She was locked up indoors all day long. One day she saw a female cat moving her kittens from a rooftop when young kids threw rocks at them, and decided she had to do the same thing. With help of her symphatizing granny, she managed to escape all the way to Sweden together with her son.

According to the burqa she said that at first she hardly had the guts to take it off. She felt secure in it and wasn't used to be without it. But when she finally got used to go outdoors without it, she instead got crazy about jewelry and make-up that she had not been allowed to use. So from hiding herself completely she became a walking "christmas-tree", totally covered with bling-bling at first. So not having to cover herself up anymore became a totally life-changing experience for her. And what a shame to hide such beauty.

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/denise5/zina2_92270018.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 6/28/11 11:12am]

Oh wow she's beautiful.

And I think she would not take this well lol

Beautiful???? shes a good wank at best then its whos next!!!!!!!

davetherave6767 said:

Timmy84 said:

Oh wow she's beautiful.

And I think she would not take this well lol

Beautiful???? shes a good wank at best then its whos next!!!!!!!

Whatever you say.

[Edited 6/28/11 18:07pm]

Spinlight said:

lezama said:

Actually, a prohibition on the wearing of a piece of religious garment (as occured in France) IS less rights, not more. If the west is really concerned with gender equality then it can do so by doing so in the workplace by paying them equally for the same work (which still doesnt happen in the US or France) or by giving them the same opportunities for promotion as men (which still doesn't happen in France). The controversy around the burqa in Europe IMO is largely just a legacy of the old world fearing they're being taken over by immigrants.

Well, no, it's not less rights to remove the necessity to wear burqas. Taking Prince's words as they were spoken, he sympathizes with Muslim countries who enforce these rules upon their people so that they don't.... get "confused". You don't need to interpret too much beyond what Prince actually says because the truth is stranger than fiction. He didn't specifically mention France, whether or not he meant this stuff as a barb towards French politics.

And were he to be speaking about France, he argued it from a nonsensical angle by suggesting that the reason they should NOT ban burqas is because some countries force people to wear burqas and only annoying people complain about it.

Lol.. sorry, there's two different issues here. I kinda went off track from your original statement. The first issue though, based on his first comment was an appreciation of muslim culture and the use of the veil. My response to you was actually in reference to this. Referencing the actual law implemented in France and the additional attempts to ban burquas (e.g. Netherlands), not something hypothetical. I mean, I assume his first comment was based on actual events and not anything hypothetical, (where he says something along the lines of 'why do people have a problem with people wearing what they want'). In this cases its not removing any necesity of wearing them but prohibiting their use that the non-muslims in Europe (including the UK) are pushing for.

The second issue (raised by the question of if there are women who do not like to wear it, what then), I'd view that separately because there he seems to be expressing an appreciation for a type of religious/cultural homogeneity you find not only in muslim monarchies but also in many of the more homogeneous catholic countries as well. I mean if you've ever been to some of these countries the majority of the people you see men or women aren't disatisfied with their religion or their culture. In Morocco the women who wear it do it because they want to. Its actually become more frequent to see women wearing the hijab recently than it was in the previous decade because of the growth in islamism. For them its a religious or political decision to do so, and hey, thats their decision, just like its any Westerners decision is they want to join the JW's or not. Who's the say they're wrong for wanting to do that. Why stand in judgment of them? For some people it brings them comfort or something.

Are there minorities within these populations that dislike things like the hijab and many of the religious/cultural aspects that make women subservient to men? Definitely, but Prince thinks that the religious solidarity should trump that. I would never defend him on that. My point is simply that the muslim world doesnt have a monopoly on this type of thing. Thats what bothers me about things like this Fox carrying of the story. Everyone makes a big deal about it because its referencing the big evil menace of Islam. If his rambling comments were in reference to Christian piety, Im sure a vast portion of America's heartland and the bible-belt would be all lovey-dovey with him right now. I dont see what he's saying now about Muslim culture any different from anything hes said previously about the culture of JW Christianity. Are their aspects of the abrahamic religions that are massively repressive to women (from an outsiders perspective), sure. But for most of the women who grow up in these cultures its nothing they see as repressive. Its just their "culture" plain and simple.

BlackandRising said:

Timmy84 said:

I'm with Spinlight. I personally stay away from that sensationalist stuff. Especially concerning issues related to politricks/zealots.

Fair enough, but the story I am referencing actually laid claim to affecting sites that most wouldn't consider salacious, or senationalist. That's their M.O., to effect change where it most matters, and in a way where most wouldn't notice it. Their power lies in the fact that most people believe they are unaffected by their efforts.

I agree 100% and I wonder sometimes by the imflammatory rhetoric seen on this site that it has not happened here both now and in the past. We have posters here that do not appear until a Prince faux pax. Now if you hate/no longer a fan/ ripped off by ____ of Prince why do you still have to make 89 threads talking about something that happened in 1998?

thisisit said:

pepper7 said:

It would be if he didn't use such a sensitive and contoversial issue to make this point.

they're not supposed to have an emotional reaction. they're supposed to remain objective.

objective people understand whats been said. blood-thirsty media hounds do not.

they thrive on the thrill of the jugular vein getting cut open as wide as possible.

they deliberately create spin and hype and shock-value headlines no matter who it hurts.

thisisit said:

pepper7 said:

I disagree the media are just reporting on the story because what he says is controversial in our society

sure. that would explain their headline.

sambluedolphin said:

thisisit said:

pepper7 said:

It would be if he didn't use such a sensitive and contoversial issue to make this point.

they're not supposed to have an emotional reaction. they're supposed to remain objective.

objective people understand whats been said. blood-thirsty media hounds do not.

they thrive on the thrill of the jugular vein getting cut open as wide as possible.

they deliberately create spin and hype and shock-value headlines no matter who it hurts.

Oh my god. You are absurd and silly. Kind of like a child, but more delusional.

Prince bans any sort of recording instrument for his interviews because HE does not want people "profiting off his likeness" - which is interesting because it's a fucking interview and his likeness on a mini recorder isn't going to be sold any fucking where but PRECISELY WHERE THE INTERVIEW HE IS CONDUCTING IS SOLD.

Come to your senses. Think with your brain. Stop immediately associating with prince simply because you buy his products in a store. You have no idea, no idea whatsoever, about just how easy it would be for a publication to not just slightly skew, but to really open a vein like you suggest. However, the truth is fucking stranger than fiction with Prince because it doesn't matter what his intentions are - he never speaks his intentions, he speaks his bitter bitch language where he can't even be fucked to say something nice about damn near anyone 1) that isn't black or 2) isn't prefaced by some sort of finger wagging.

Spinlight said:

thisisit said:

they're not supposed to have an emotional reaction. they're supposed to remain objective.

objective people understand whats been said. blood-thirsty media hounds do not.

they thrive on the thrill of the jugular vein getting cut open as wide as possible.

they deliberately create spin and hype and shock-value headlines no matter who it hurts.

Oh my god. You are absurd and silly. Kind of like a child, but more delusional.

thats how i feel about certain 'media' and nasty-tongued people who come here purely to vent their inner hate on someone they dont even know.

Spinlight said:

BlackandRising said:

True, but my point is that corporations/gov't has found a way to manipulate opinion on the internet without 99.9% of the users knowing, and given that this is where more and more people go for "unfiltered" information, that has important ramifications, especially in today's hyper-polarized political climate.

And yes, I was called a troll on AMP and here, but only because I like to tell it like it is, which some peopld can't seem to handle. So the more I did it the funnier it got, so the more I did it. Until it became boring. So now I simply post when I see someone posit something worth commenting on.

Well, yeah, you are right. However, personal culpability makes up for most of that. If you -choose- to partake in those activities you open yourself up to being manipulated anywhere from your words being taken out of context to you being incited to react in a verbal way (or nonverbal, even). Do most of the dumbos out there go right to those famous venues? Yes. Can't save them all, though. These are the same fools who would continue touching the burner to see if it remained hot after the first go 'round.

And yeah, I can relate to your 2nd paragraph. Which even touches on my point a bit more - people, in an unfiltered and open setting, will often take your words and feel hurt by them because of THEIR insecurities and those insecurities manifest in countless other ways, too. People like that, the finger pointing troll detectives, are typically pretty insecure and love the safety of a government arm around their shoulders.

Not to prolong this, but your initial post about my being a troll kind of makes my point. You based your opinion on my being a "troll" on posts that were probably from people who simply didn't like what I have to say, thus labelling me a "troll". You were affected by this by simply assuming that I was, in fact, a "troll" without doing your due diligence and maybe doing a search and reading my posts on AMP to see if what I wrote would indeed be the work of someone "trolling". This is the same premise of the corps/gov't who hire people to post on political sites to drown out the logic and interject whatever they think will have an immediate effect on the casual reader's mind.

BlackandRising said:

Spinlight said:

Well, yeah, you are right. However, personal culpability makes up for most of that. If you -choose- to partake in those activities you open yourself up to being manipulated anywhere from your words being taken out of context to you being incited to react in a verbal way (or nonverbal, even). Do most of the dumbos out there go right to those famous venues? Yes. Can't save them all, though. These are the same fools who would continue touching the burner to see if it remained hot after the first go 'round.

And yeah, I can relate to your 2nd paragraph. Which even touches on my point a bit more - people, in an unfiltered and open setting, will often take your words and feel hurt by them because of THEIR insecurities and those insecurities manifest in countless other ways, too. People like that, the finger pointing troll detectives, are typically pretty insecure and love the safety of a government arm around their shoulders.

Not to prolong this, but your initial post about my being a troll kind of makes my point. You based your opinion on my being a "troll" on posts that were probably from people who simply didn't like what I have to say, thus labelling me a "troll". You were affected by this by simply assuming that I was, in fact, a "troll" without doing your due diligence and maybe doing a search and reading my posts on AMP to see if what I wrote would indeed be the work of someone "trolling". This is the same premise of the corps/gov't who hire people to post on political sites to drown out the logic and interject whatever they think will have an immediate effect on the casual reader's mind.

No, I was around back then on AMP and I remember some of your posts. You were classified as a troll then because of the things you said, not because of other people's wrongful interpretations. Another reason why personal culpability needs to remain intact on the internet - take responsibility for your own income and outgo, so to speak. Avoid the salacious shit if that's not your cup of tea and if you're a troll, own up to it because in all likelihood some of what you say is true (if a bit lubricated).

if prince got fox news to go after him it means he did something right.. i dont agree with what he said but fox news are full of shit

[Edited 6/29/11 21:03pm]

Spinlight said:

BlackandRising said:

Not to prolong this, but your initial post about my being a troll kind of makes my point. You based your opinion on my being a "troll" on posts that were probably from people who simply didn't like what I have to say, thus labelling me a "troll". You were affected by this by simply assuming that I was, in fact, a "troll" without doing your due diligence and maybe doing a search and reading my posts on AMP to see if what I wrote would indeed be the work of someone "trolling". This is the same premise of the corps/gov't who hire people to post on political sites to drown out the logic and interject whatever they think will have an immediate effect on the casual reader's mind.

No, I was around back then on AMP and I remember some of your posts. You were classified as a troll then because of the things you said, not because of other people's wrongful interpretations. Another reason why personal culpability needs to remain intact on the internet - take responsibility for your own income and outgo, so to speak. Avoid the salacious shit if that's not your cup of tea and if you're a troll, own up to it because in all likelihood some of what you say is true (if a bit lubricated).

You do the same thing I do, so are you a troll? I think throwing "troll" around is intellectually deficient. So why would I own up to something I am not? Be that as it may, my point still stands. All it takes is for a few people to interject something into a thread that appeals to people's emotions as opposed to their intellect, and it goes to shit. HBGary hires an army of people to hijack threads, call people "trollls" or whatever other hot button catch phrases they can use, and the dynamics of the conversation changes.

2freaky4church1 said:

Ha, ha, our lil buddy is getting dissed by Fox news now that he made his boneheaded comments about burqas:

http://www.foxnews.com/en...test=faces

If you notice, the one picture they use makes P look more darker skinned. Wonder why they did that? Wink.

I guess Prince forgot about the Lovesexy cover. I guess Muslim women don't have the same freedom. I fear this could finally end his career.

I hope you're correct on that point. Think about it. If this scandal ruins him then there'll be no need to open The Vault. No point in doing any remasters, who'd buy them? He could finally stop touring since no one would pay to see him. He'd be washed up.

C'mon. Does anyone really take Fox News seriously? Ok, aside from the Right Wing crazies, does anyone ELSE take them seriously? Bill O'Reilly, as has been pointed out, is a bully and only goes after people he knows can't defend themselves or won't waste their time defending themselves. Prince is a little bit of both. Aside from his cd's, he doesn't have a pulpit to speak from, and he wouldn't dignify O'Reilly or Fox by going on his show - and he'd get steam-rolled if he did.