Viewing Thread:
"OMFG - Lesbian has job !!!!1111smokercommiedarkiesout!!11112222"

So I'm skipping through a paper that I found yesterday. It happens to be the Daily Mail. And although the Daily Mail is a tireless campaigner for celebrity privacy, it just so happens to have a huge story on how David Beckham may or may not have had an affair - as if anyone in the whole entire World gives two sh*ts. But the main headline for the article, the bait used to entice the reader into their crummy little world of biased opinions and ill-informed "fact", was that the girl (Rebecca Loos) was a lesbian.

Now I hate the cult of celebrity worship, just as much as anyone who thinks they have a unique perspective of the Universe, but I read the article to see what the Daily Mail "journalists" had to say on the matter. And it turns out that not only is this girl a lesbian, but she has a tatoo that her parents don't know about! Oh. My. God. I'm sure she's sweating over that one. It actually disturbed me (but didn't surprise) that the paper would stoop so low in the queer-bashing stakes. It's almost as if they were punishing her for being gay.

So what if she enjoys sex and experiments a lot? The paper was using this as ammunition for the closet gay-bashers that read it, and want Kurds, Turks, Iraqis and Blacks out of Great Britain, to start some sort of hate campaign. And to top the idiocy of the whole article, the bit about the tatoo - as if it's important or relevant!? It was more blatant than FF's lack of religious knowledge. Which is very blatant indeed.

So I'm skipping through a paper that I found yesterday. It happens to be the Daily Mail. And although the Daily Mail is a tireless campaigner for celebrity privacy, it just so happens to have a huge story on how David Beckham may or may not have had an affair - as if anyone in the whole entire World gives two sh*ts. But the main headline for the article, the bait used to entice the reader into their crummy little world of biased opinions and ill-informed "fact", was that the girl (Rebecca Loos) was a lesbian.

Now I hate the cult of celebrity worship, just as much as anyone who thinks they have a unique perspective of the Universe, but I read the article to see what the Daily Mail "journalists" had to say on the matter. And it turns out that not only is this girl a lesbian, but she has a tatoo that her parents don't know about! Oh. My. God. I'm sure she's sweating over that one. It actually disturbed me (but didn't surprise) that the paper would stoop so low in the queer-bashing stakes. It's almost as if they were punishing her for being gay.

So what if she enjoys sex and experiments a lot? The paper was using this as ammunition for the closet gay-bashers that read it, and want Kurds, Turks, Iraqis and Blacks out of Great Britain, to start some sort of hate campaign. And to top the idiocy of the whole article, the bit about the tatoo - as if it's important or relevant!? It was more blatant than FF's lack of religious knowledge. Which is very blatant indeed.

Did this topic really have to involve me somwhere in its opening post?

The Beckhams get more news coverage in the news than Cuba, Kenya, Kuwait, Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Peru and Italy combined

Don't know about Italy, but the other countries combined, certainly.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Did this topic really have to involve me somwhere in its
> opening post?

Yes, because you are an assclown, and I'll take any opportunity to take a dig at you. Troll.

That's nice.

Forest Fan wrote:
> That's nice.

So are your opinions of homosexuals.

Still don't know why yet another topic has to involve me.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Still don't know why yet another topic has to involve me.

Because you're a hate-monger. The Daily Mail are hate-mongers. And I hate hate-mongers.

Hate is usually a bad thing.