Export thread

I first got wind of this from the grocery check-out aisle, so, you know... yeah.

So, a bunch of questionable news sources and news blogs (including one that can't even spell National Enquirer correctly), are bringing up allegations that Obama is having an affair with Vera Baker, someone who helped raise money for his senate campaign.

The story started with the National Enquirer, who says that a limo driver said that "in 2004 he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous in a Washington hotel where Obama was staying."

The National Enquirer is apparently looking to [STRIKE]bribe people for[/STRIKE] find some security camera footage that would prove this. Do hotels even keep 6-year-old security footage?

I mean, it's probably all bull crap, and there obviously are more important things in the world to be concerned about, but still... huh.

I'm glad to see that none of the mainstream media is picking up on the "story," but since this is just a small forum on the outer reaches of the internet, I figure I might as well bring it up.

Also: some fun out-of-context photos:

Michelle Obama Glaring at Vera Baker:



and a photo that's bound to be used more often if there proves to be anything to this rumor:

This was alleged a LONG time ago and nothing came of it. Like the birth certificate thing, I rather doubt Hillary or the GOP would have kept quiet about it during the last election cycle.

...huh. Wonder why the National Enquirer is picking up on it now, of all times.

edit: Of course, you can guess why Hillary wouldn't have spoken about it, at least

Soliloquy said:

...huh. Wonder why the National Enquirer is picking up on it now, of all times.

edit: Of course, you can guess why Hillary wouldn't have spoken about it, at least

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? She would have done nearly anything to be the nominee.

Dave;380911][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

...huh. Wonder why the National Enquirer is picking up on it now, of all times.

edit: Of course, you can guess why Hillary wouldn't have spoken about it, at least

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? She would have done nearly anything to be the nominee.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree. If human sacrifices were helpful to her platform, she would have slaughtered people by the hundreds.

Pffft, why would Obama cheat with a woman? Having access to Rahm Emanuel in the office :sneaky:

Krisken said:

Oh, I agree. If human sacrifices were helpful to her platform, she would have slaughtered people by the hundreds.

Click to expand...

You saying she didn't?!

And isn't it weird how she never came out and denied sacrificing people to the dark gods?!

the woman in the picture is Carla Bruni-Sarkozy...

Math242 said:

the woman in the picture is Carla Bruni-Sarkozy...

Click to expand...

Which explains the stink eye...

Wait, the National Enquirer comes up with this story and people take them seriously? Don't they also run stories of Alien Elvis Babies as front-page news?

This is one of my favorite gifs and I almost never get to post it.



But in all seriousness, I don't think a politician's sex life should be what we hire or fire him based upon. Not even Obama.

General Specific said:

Wait, the National Enquirer comes up with this story and people take them seriously? Don't they also run stories of Alien Elvis Babies as front-page news?

Click to expand...

Apparently so.

General Specific said:

Wait, the National Enquirer comes up with this story and people take them seriously? Don't they also run stories of Alien Elvis Babies as front-page news?

Click to expand...

But they were the ones that got it right about Clinton. Even though it was none of our business then.

ah, the NE now has as much credibility as major cable news companies...


oh, wait

General Specific said:

Wait, the National Enquirer comes up with this story and people take them seriously? Don't they also run stories of Alien Elvis Babies as front-page news?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Unless the story is about John Edwards. Then you sit on it for weeks before finally having to run it on your news station. All other stories are to be covered the second the issue hits news stands.

GasBandit said:

But in all seriousness, I don't think a politician's sex life should be what we hire or fire him based upon. Not even Obama.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It says something about your integrity if you cheat on your spouse (either way, not just men cheating on wives, the opposite is just as reprehensible). If you're willing to betray the person you swore to above all others, what else are you willing to do? That's why IMO infidelity shows WAY more than virtually all other forms of dishonesty just how much of a scum bag you are.

And people SHOULD be ostracized for such actions. If somebody's unhappy in a relationship, either work it out, or get a divorce, but do NOT cheat on your significant other (even if not married yet). There's no excuse for cheating IMO.

Eriol;381878][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

But in all seriousness, I don't think a politician's sex life should be what we hire or fire him based upon. Not even Obama.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It says something about your integrity if you cheat on your spouse (either way, not just men cheating on wives, the opposite is just as reprehensible). If you're willing to betray the person you swore to above all others, what else are you willing to do? That's why IMO infidelity shows WAY more than virtually all other forms of dishonesty just how much of a scum bag you are.

And people SHOULD be ostracized for such actions. If somebody's unhappy in a relationship, either work it out, or get a divorce, but do NOT cheat on your significant other (even if not married yet). There's no excuse for cheating IMO.[/QUOTE]

55% of all women and 65% of all men are scum bags. Sometimes sex is just sex. The troubling ones are the cheaters that have committed relationships outside of the marriage.

Eriol;381878][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

But in all seriousness, I don't think a politician's sex life should be what we hire or fire him based upon. Not even Obama.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It says something about your integrity if you cheat on your spouse (either way, not just men cheating on wives, the opposite is just as reprehensible). If you're willing to betray the person you swore to above all others, what else are you willing to do? That's why IMO infidelity shows WAY more than virtually all other forms of dishonesty just how much of a scum bag you are.

And people SHOULD be ostracized for such actions. If somebody's unhappy in a relationship, either work it out, or get a divorce, but do NOT cheat on your significant other (even if not married yet). There's no excuse for cheating IMO.[/QUOTE]

What can I say, I disagree. I don't think marital fidelity is an indicator of professional effectiveness. I didn't hold Clinton's blowjob against him (his squad of state troopers intimidating his other conquests is another matter, but that's for a different thread). Personally, I wished Clinton had gone in front of a camera at the first hints of the scandal coming out and said "Yes, I banged her ass so hard she's still got rug burns front and back, and it's none of your business!" On top of awesomeness, it also would have given the republicans nowhere to go, and could have spared us all an interminably asinine impeachment procedure.

sixpackshaker said:

55% of all women and 65% of all men are scum bags.

Click to expand...

Is this a "75% of statistics are made up on the spot" kind of thing? Seems like!

sixpackshaker said:

Sometimes sex is just sex. The troubling ones are the cheaters that have committed relationships outside of the marriage.

Click to expand...

Try that with your significant other, if they'd be fine with outside stuff, as long as it's not a relationship. Get back to us with his/her answer! Edit: or better yet, how would YOU react to them if they told you they were having "just sex" with somebody else?

If you know that somebody cheated on their spouse, how can you really trust them? They're willing to betray the person who is closest to them, and so why is it not just as logical that they'd betray you just as easily for whatever reason? They don't HAVE integrity anymore. Cheating is the most heinous breaking of trust possible IMO and says things about the rest of your character. Maybe they should be forgiven (if repentant), but the actions should never be forgotten.

Eriol;381941][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

55% of all women and 65% of all men are scum bags.

Click to expand...

Is this a "75% of statistics are made up on the spot" kind of thing? Seems like![/quote]

No.

Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

Click to expand...

If you know that somebody cheated on their spouse, how can you really trust them? They're willing to betray the person who is closest to them, and so why is it not just as logical that they'd betray you just as easily for whatever reason? They don't HAVE integrity anymore. Cheating is the most heinous breaking of trust possible IMO and says things about the rest of your character. Maybe they should be forgiven (if repentant), but the actions should never be forgotten.

Click to expand...

Because, as I said, marriage is a biologically and evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers. It is unreasonable to expect the most "successful" examples of our species to not also exhibit the tendencies of the most "successful" individuals regardless of species.

Gas, I'll accept the stat wasn't made up on the spot. Disturbing to the extreme, but OK.

GasBandit said:

Because, as I said, marriage is a biologically and evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers. It is unreasonable to expect the most "successful" examples of our species to not also exhibit the tendencies of the most "successful" individuals regardless of species.

Click to expand...

First of all "Because, as I said" is disingenuous, as you haven't in this thread at all.

Setting that aside, if you have problems with your marriage, leave the marriage or work it out (as I said above). It's still about honesty. It's if you're willing to screw around WHILE IN the marriage, versus calling it off, and then screwing around as much as you please. One is still honest, the other is not. Or is honesty ALSO an "evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers" or not? I'm not defending life-long marriages in this thread (though I do believe in the idea, and plan to have such with my wife, and yes I'm married), only that screwing around on your partner is reprehensible, and if you don't like your situation, leave honestly.

Eriol said:

Or is honesty ALSO an "evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers" or not?

Click to expand...

In the ancient world, it would have been a disadvantage. So yes, honesty IS another social contract fostered onto society by people who can't deal with being occasionally (read: constantly) mislead.

Eriol said:

Gas, I'll accept the stat wasn't made up on the spot. Disturbing to the extreme, but OK.

GasBandit said:

Because, as I said, marriage is a biologically and evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers. It is unreasonable to expect the most "successful" examples of our species to not also exhibit the tendencies of the most "successful" individuals regardless of species.

Click to expand...

First of all "Because, as I said" is disingenuous, as you haven't in this thread at all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, as I have said elsewhere on this site previously.

Setting that aside, if you have problems with your marriage, leave the marriage or work it out (as I said above). It's still about honesty. It's if you're willing to screw around WHILE IN the marriage, versus calling it off, and then screwing around as much as you please. One is still honest, the other is not. Or is honesty ALSO an "evolutionarily unnatural institution foisted upon us by genetic losers" or not? I'm not defending life-long marriages in this thread (though I do believe in the idea, and plan to have such with my wife, and yes I'm married), only that screwing around on your partner is reprehensible, and if you don't like your situation, leave honestly.

Click to expand...

If only it were so simple. Society, despite everything, still attaches a stigma to the divorcee. And many of these problem marriages happen young, when all their peers are also getting married and their elders are constantly badgering "so when are you getting married?" It's a gotcha. You're "supposed" to get married, and for so very many, they find out later they shouldn't have, but for any number of reasons (from kids, to not wanting to "admit defeat," to financial concerns, to whatever) keep plugging along... and plugging the secretary/tennis instructor.

Some people love their spouses. Just not in a lights out kind of way.

GasBandit said:

If only it were so simple. Society, despite everything, still attaches a stigma to the divorcee. And many of these problem marriages happen young, when all their peers are also getting married and their elders are constantly badgering "so when are you getting married?" It's a gotcha. You're "supposed" to get married, and for so very many, they find out later they shouldn't have, but for any number of reasons (from kids, to not wanting to "admit defeat," to financial concerns, to whatever) keep plugging along... and plugging the secretary/tennis instructor.

Click to expand...

That's all true, and I accept most of that, but again, the honest thing to do is LEAVE. To NOT plug said secretary or tennis instructor until AFTER that has happened. Yes you're dealing with other consequences of divorce, but at least it's honest. Infidelity (even when done between two people in a relationship and not even married yet) is still horrid, and should be treated as such through societal stigma IMO. And that stigma should be far in excess of anything that a divorcee might get. Divorce is when something good went bad, or many other reasons as to why it occurs. Tragic, but OK. Cheating doesn't have an excuse. It just shows you're a scumbag, and you should have that stigma attached to you if you partake.

Eriol;382019][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

If only it were so simple. Society, despite everything, still attaches a stigma to the divorcee. And many of these problem marriages happen young, when all their peers are also getting married and their elders are constantly badgering "so when are you getting married?" It's a gotcha. You're "supposed" to get married, and for so very many, they find out later they shouldn't have, but for any number of reasons (from kids, to not wanting to "admit defeat," to financial concerns, to whatever) keep plugging along... and plugging the secretary/tennis instructor.

Click to expand...

That's all true, and I accept most of that, but again, the honest thing to do is LEAVE. To NOT plug said secretary or tennis instructor until AFTER that has happened. Yes you're dealing with other consequences of divorce, but at least it's honest. Infidelity (even when done between two people in a relationship and not even married yet) is still horrid, and should be treated as such through societal stigma IMO. And that stigma should be far in excess of anything that a divorcee might get. Divorce is when something good went bad, or many other reasons as to why it occurs. Tragic, but OK. Cheating doesn't have an excuse. It just shows you're a scumbag, and you should have that stigma attached to you if you partake.[/QUOTE]

And we've come full circle to, if 65% of us are scumbags, is it really that we're scumbags or that the standard is set unrealistically? And furthermore, what evidence do we have that "faithful" politicians (or any other profession) are more dependable than those who have philandered?

GasBandit;382023][QUOTE=Eriol;382019][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

If only it were so simple. Society, despite everything, still attaches a stigma to the divorcee. And many of these problem marriages happen young, when all their peers are also getting married and their elders are constantly badgering "so when are you getting married?" It's a gotcha. You're "supposed" to get married, and for so very many, they find out later they shouldn't have, but for any number of reasons (from kids, to not wanting to "admit defeat," to financial concerns, to whatever) keep plugging along... and plugging the secretary/tennis instructor.

Click to expand...

That's all true, and I accept most of that, but again, the honest thing to do is LEAVE. To NOT plug said secretary or tennis instructor until AFTER that has happened. Yes you're dealing with other consequences of divorce, but at least it's honest. Infidelity (even when done between two people in a relationship and not even married yet) is still horrid, and should be treated as such through societal stigma IMO. And that stigma should be far in excess of anything that a divorcee might get. Divorce is when something good went bad, or many other reasons as to why it occurs. Tragic, but OK. Cheating doesn't have an excuse. It just shows you're a scumbag, and you should have that stigma attached to you if you partake.[/QUOTE]
And we've come full circle to, if 65% of us are scumbags, is it really that we're scumbags or that the standard is set unrealistically? And furthermore, what evidence do we have that "faithful" politicians (or any other profession) are more dependable than those who have philandered?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there's no hard data, but the fact is that cheating politicians are ones who are willing to lie to and betray those who are closest to them for the sake of their own personal desires. You can't really deny that that's what cheating on your spouse shows about your character. And personally, I would prefer that the country, state, county, etc. were not run by someone who lies to and betrays those closest to them.

Sure, there are probably plenty of other non-cheating politicians who are willing to do the same, but in these instances, we have hard evidence that the politician is that sort of person.

I will not vote for anyone about whom there is hard evidence that they are unfaithful to their spouse. Well, unless they're running against someone with hard evidence of even worse problems, such as allowing torture and starting unprovoked wars. Then I might vote for them.

Soliloquy said:

Perhaps there's no hard data, but the fact is that cheating politicians are ones who are willing to lie to and betray those who are closest to them for the sake of their own personal desires. You can't really deny that that's what cheating on your spouse shows about your character. And personally, I would prefer that the country, state, county, etc. were not run by someone who lies to and betrays those closest to them.

Sure, there are probably plenty of other non-cheating politicians who are willing to do the same, but in these instances, we have hard evidence that the politician is that sort of person.

I will not vote for anyone about whom there is hard evidence that they are unfaithful to their spouse. Well, unless they're running against someone with hard evidence of even worse problems, such as allowing torture and starting unprovoked wars. Then I might vote for them.

Click to expand...

What you've just said undermines everything you have purported to believe. You've just provided evidence that marital fidelity is no measuring stick for political ability or good (because there is no correlation between marital fidelity and politician truthfulness/effectiveness), AND you've just basically undone your own position by saying you'd vote for a "cheating, lying scumbag who can't be trusted" over a thinly veiled reference to George W. Bush, who has not committed any acts of marital infidelity of which we were aware (and you know there were people looking for them, and looking hard).

GasBandit;382116][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

Perhaps there's no hard data, but the fact is that cheating politicians are ones who are willing to lie to and betray those who are closest to them for the sake of their own personal desires. You can't really deny that that's what cheating on your spouse shows about your character. And personally, I would prefer that the country, state, county, etc. were not run by someone who lies to and betrays those closest to them.

Sure, there are probably plenty of other non-cheating politicians who are willing to do the same, but in these instances, we have hard evidence that the politician is that sort of person.

I will not vote for anyone about whom there is hard evidence that they are unfaithful to their spouse. Well, unless they're running against someone with hard evidence of even worse problems, such as allowing torture and starting unprovoked wars. Then I might vote for them.

Click to expand...

What you've just said undermines everything you have purported to believe. You've just provided evidence that marital fidelity is no measuring stick for political ability or good (because there is no correlation between marital fidelity and politician truthfulness/effectiveness), AND you've just basically undone your own position by saying you'd vote for a "cheating, lying scumbag who can't be trusted" over a thinly veiled reference to George W. Bush, who has not committed any acts of marital infidelity of which we were aware (and you know there were people looking for them, and looking hard).[/QUOTE]

So... you're saying that because there are people who don't cheat and are still bad, we should ignore the fact that cheating does, in fact, reflect on someone's character and trustworthiness?

Really? That's what you're saying?

Soliloquy;382126][QUOTE=GasBandit;382116][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

Perhaps there's no hard data, but the fact is that cheating politicians are ones who are willing to lie to and betray those who are closest to them for the sake of their own personal desires. You can't really deny that that's what cheating on your spouse shows about your character. And personally, I would prefer that the country, state, county, etc. were not run by someone who lies to and betrays those closest to them.

Sure, there are probably plenty of other non-cheating politicians who are willing to do the same, but in these instances, we have hard evidence that the politician is that sort of person.

I will not vote for anyone about whom there is hard evidence that they are unfaithful to their spouse. Well, unless they're running against someone with hard evidence of even worse problems, such as allowing torture and starting unprovoked wars. Then I might vote for them.

Click to expand...

What you've just said undermines everything you have purported to believe. You've just provided evidence that marital fidelity is no measuring stick for political ability or good (because there is no correlation between marital fidelity and politician truthfulness/effectiveness), AND you've just basically undone your own position by saying you'd vote for a "cheating, lying scumbag who can't be trusted" over a thinly veiled reference to George W. Bush, who has not committed any acts of marital infidelity of which we were aware (and you know there were people looking for them, and looking hard).[/QUOTE]

So... you're saying that because there are people who don't cheat and are still bad, we should ignore the fact that cheating does, in fact, reflect on someone's character and trustworthiness?

Really? That's what you're saying?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying how many women you screw other than your wife has been shown to have no correlation to your ability to execute your duty as a statesman, or any other career. George Dubya Bush was faithful to the point of sexlessness. John F. Kennedy was a notorious philanderer. Nixon: Faithful. Eisenhower? Cheated. THOMAS JEFFERSON? CHEATED. Using one's sex life to judge their professional life is akin to Orks thinking DA RED STROIPE MAKES IT GO FASTA!

GasBandit;382150][QUOTE=Soliloquy;382126][QUOTE=GasBandit;382116][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

Perhaps there's no hard data, but the fact is that cheating politicians are ones who are willing to lie to and betray those who are closest to them for the sake of their own personal desires. You can't really deny that that's what cheating on your spouse shows about your character. And personally, I would prefer that the country, state, county, etc. were not run by someone who lies to and betrays those closest to them.

Sure, there are probably plenty of other non-cheating politicians who are willing to do the same, but in these instances, we have hard evidence that the politician is that sort of person.

I will not vote for anyone about whom there is hard evidence that they are unfaithful to their spouse. Well, unless they're running against someone with hard evidence of even worse problems, such as allowing torture and starting unprovoked wars. Then I might vote for them.

Click to expand...

What you've just said undermines everything you have purported to believe. You've just provided evidence that marital fidelity is no measuring stick for political ability or good (because there is no correlation between marital fidelity and politician truthfulness/effectiveness), AND you've just basically undone your own position by saying you'd vote for a "cheating, lying scumbag who can't be trusted" over a thinly veiled reference to George W. Bush, who has not committed any acts of marital infidelity of which we were aware (and you know there were people looking for them, and looking hard).[/QUOTE]

So... you're saying that because there are people who don't cheat and are still bad, we should ignore the fact that cheating does, in fact, reflect on someone's character and trustworthiness?

Really? That's what you're saying?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying how many women you screw other than your wife has been shown to have no correlation to your ability to execute your duty as a statesman, or any other career. George Dubya Bush was faithful to the point of sexlessness. John F. Kennedy was a notorious philanderer. Nixon: Faithful. Eisenhower? Cheated. THOMAS JEFFERSON? CHEATED. Using one's sex life to judge their professional life is akin to Orks thinking DA RED STROIPE MAKES IT GO FASTA![/QUOTE]

Huh. Well, Kennedy's not a great example, since all he really did was look good, make good speeches, and get shot, (and the Kennedy family as a whole is pretty rife with corruption, I understand) but you do raise an interesting point.

Red stripes totally make it go faster, though.

Not for humie trukks though.

Actually, the Ork example doesn't work: The Red Trukks DO go faster because the Orks believe they will, due to the cumulative effects of the WAAAGH!!! You are right otherwise though.

AshburnerX said:

Actually, the Ork example doesn't work: The Red Trukks DO go faster because the Orks believe they will, due to the cumulative effects of the WAAAGH!!! You are right otherwise though.

Click to expand...

WAAAAAAAGH!!!

Sorry, it just seemed like a good time for it.

It's actually refreshing to see someone take Gas' points without just plugging their ears and screaming "YOU'RE A TROLL I CAN'T HEAR YOU" because, at least in this case, he's completely right. Sex life is a private matter that has no effect whatsoever in an individual's abilities or morals.

The Mex said:

It's actually refreshing to see someone take Gas' points without just plugging their ears and screaming "YOU'RE A TROLL I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...

Click to expand...

I'm hoping you're not talking about me. If so, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the last year of he and I going back and forth until one of us lost interest.

I agree with him on this. The persons private life does not reflect their time in office. I will say it only bothers me when they specifically run on a platform that is essentially 'holier than thou' family values.

GasBandit said:

Not for humie trukks though.

Click to expand...

Actually i think in some novels the trukks taken from Orks by some Ig worked just as well as they did for Orks... for a while. and Red does go faster, just ask Char...

The Mex said:

It's actually refreshing to see someone take Gas' points without just plugging their ears and screaming "YOU'RE A TROLL I CAN'T HEAR YOU" because, at least in this case, he's completely right. Sex life is a private matter that has no effect whatsoever in an individual's abilities or morals.

Click to expand...

Well, I try to make it a point to not argue in order to prove myself right, but to argue in order to figure out who's right.

And, gorramit, Gas had a point.

I still think that cheating on a spouse reflects very poorly on someone's morals, but maybe that has nothing to do with whether someone can govern effectively.

Soliloquy said:

I still think that cheating on a spouse reflects very poorly on someone's morals, but maybe that has nothing to do with whether someone can govern effectively.

Click to expand...

Their morals when it comes to personal relationships... which are very different to having what it takes to lead a country or run a company.


Of course hiring hookers while sponsoring anti-prostitution bills is another kettle of fish.

Yes, I suppose I should amend my position to say that I don't think anybody's sex life should impact their professional (or political) life, unless of course, they're pushing something about banning/not legalizing aspects of sex and marriage. THEN it becomes pertinent, and only if there is a contradiction.

But that's true of everything. Someone whose campaign rallies strongly against marijuana being found blazing up would be just as pertinent. It stops being purely a private matter and is a glaring contradiction in the politician's position.

Which is why it's "another kettle of fish"!

Obama is a hottie with a smokin' little body: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8682175.stm

Why David, we didn't know you liked him so much...

I'm just the messenger. :humph:

And thought the news was funny in light of these allegations.

They put pass laws to deny the ability for this 3rd rate newspapers from writing this type of shit. In fact, do something about the fucken paparazzis as well. They are a bane to society. As a Canadian, I find it fucken weird as fuck to see 50-100 people following people around as they go about doing normal things, like get a coffee at Starbucks or doing some Groceries then pass judgment on them on a fucken loser show like TMZ and make slow-wit sarcastic comments about what they are wearing, what they were doing or how these people react to all this harassment.

Jay said:

They put pass laws to deny the ability for this 3rd rate newspapers from writing this type of shit. In fact, do something about the fucken paparazzis as well. They are a bane to society. As a Canadian, I find it fucken weird as fuck to see 50-100 people following people around as they go about doing normal things, like get a coffee at Starbucks or doing some Groceries then pass judgment on them on a fucken loser show like TMZ and make slow-wit sarcastic comments about what they are wearing, what they were doing or how these people react to all this harassment.

Click to expand...

In America, we are guaranteed a right to free press. So long as they tell the truth and you're a pubic figure, nothing can be done. Sucks, but the alternative is worse/

Yeah, where would we be in a world without paparazzi flashing several dozen cameras at once at a driver causing him to crash and kill the occupants?

Okay, yeah, I know that was a stretch, but seriously, I think we can reach a compromise where can guarantee a free press WITHOUT guaranteeing the press the right to stalk somebody. I don't think putting more restrictions on photographing or publishing photographs of people without their permission would bring us closer to China's government-fed media system. Journalism existed before cameras did, after all.

Yes, but once the firstlaw is laid down, the next comes easier.

If you want to stop the paparazzi, you must eliminate the demand for celebrity gossip and guerilla photos of stars in their everyday life. People consume this trash at an alarming rate, so there's an incredible incentive for photographers to be more and more outrageous. I don't know how to fix it and make people stop being so fucking stupid about celebrities, but until someone does there won't be any real way to stop the paparazzi without burning the constitution.