Britney Spears "Loves Her Baby..." [Archive]

jsw

Feb 17, 2006, 10:23 AM

Dumb whore.
There you go again, iGary. Blatantly asserting that she is paid for sex. I think the facts would show that she, in all actuality, pays an enormous amount of money for sex, in that her backup-dancer husband spends extravagantly. Please, consider getting your facts straight before you post. She is merely dumb. Not a whore.
Does she realize that she jumped the shark about four years ago?Oh, you mean she did it again that recently? I think she put on those water skis as soon as she decided to release her second song.

miloblithe

Feb 17, 2006, 10:24 AM

I don't think the pic is what is seems.

Not only does her door look like it is slightly open, but the passenger door is clearly open (or missing lol).

Just a mom, sitting in a parked car with her baby.

No, she was driving. Read the articles.

mpw

Feb 17, 2006, 10:35 AM

No, she was driving. Read the articles.
Wasn't a great decision on her part, but I do feel sorry for her, and other 'celebs', who can't do anything in public(or even private) without it turning up on the front page of every tabloid and crappy weekly magazine.

I've asserted for a while that banning those stupid publications would do more for the environment then all the Toyota Prius' in the world....oh and did you see Leonardo di Caprio drives one of those!

jsw

Feb 17, 2006, 10:41 AM

Wasn't a great decision on her part, but I do feel sorry for her, and other 'celebs', who can't do anything in public(or even private) without it turning up on the front page of every tabloid and crappy weekly magazine.I feel sorry for people who never intended to be celebrities - people in tragic news stories or whatnot - who are pursued by the tabloids.

I do not feel sorry for celebrities who have pursued fame. Like Britney. This is part of the price. Don't like it? Step out from the limelight, and the photogs will go away faster than you can snap your fingers.

miloblithe

Feb 17, 2006, 10:48 AM

It would be nice if people had other interests so the market for celebrity photos and mags didn't create these circumstances. Unfortunately, the symbiotic relationship between stupid people and stupid celebrities seems kind of unavoidable.

mpw

Feb 17, 2006, 10:49 AM

...I do not feel sorry for celebrities who have pursued fame. Like Britney. This is part of the price...
I don't buy that argument.

If I'm at work I accept that I get paid to take some crap from customers and be polite and professional, once I get home I don't expect them to call me there or hassel me in the supermarket.

Britney is a performer; she's paid to perform so when she steps on the stage she has to accept the critisim that she's not a good singer, actress or whatever. I don't see why she has to put up with the hassle when she's out shopping with her kids.

jsw

Feb 17, 2006, 10:51 AM

I don't buy that argument.

If I'm at work I accept that I get paid to take some crap from customers and be polite and professional, once I get home I don't expect them to call me there or hassel me in the supermarket.

Britney is a performer; she's paid to perform so when she steps on the stage she has to accept the critisim that she's not a good singer, actress or whatever. I don't see why she has to put up with the hassle when she's out shopping with her kids.
It is a known job hazard, as it were. If she doesn't like the working conditions, she, like anyone, can quit the job.

She makes a fortune off of the public buying her albums and seeing her in concert. If she were never in the news, that fortune would be significantly smaller.

miloblithe

Feb 17, 2006, 10:52 AM

To a certain degree though, her job is 24/7. It's not comparable to a 9-5 office job that you can leave at the office.

AndyR

Feb 17, 2006, 10:52 AM

Dumb whore.

HEY! Don't talk about my future ex-wife like that :)

iGary

Feb 17, 2006, 10:54 AM

I am intrigued by Josh's comment, though -

Wher the frack is the passneger door? :confused:

miloblithe

Feb 17, 2006, 11:03 AM

I am intrigued by Josh's comment, though -

Wher the frack is the passneger door? :confused:

On the car???

Looks like it's there to me.

iGary

Feb 17, 2006, 11:04 AM

On the car???

Looks like it's there to me.

Looks awfully empty on the other side to me.

joepunk

Feb 17, 2006, 11:10 AM

I am guessing from the photo that the interior is grey. So, the passenger door sort of blends with the concrete.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 17, 2006, 12:26 PM

faintember

Feb 17, 2006, 12:32 PM

^^^^^Yep, not to mention that Brit and baby are relatively in focus while the background is slightly blurred, indicating movement.

Oh, she isnt paid to be an entertainer, she is paid to be a "star" whether she signed up for the job or not. This the American way....

iBlue

Feb 22, 2006, 09:22 PM

stupid slutbag.

2nyRiggz

Feb 22, 2006, 09:27 PM

the passenger door looks missing.....it's her baby, she can drive her car with the baby on top of it for all i care(she will spend 20years in jail not me)

Bless

kretzy

Feb 22, 2006, 09:35 PM

Hit me baby one more time. I hope she sings this to her baby every night.

CompUser

Feb 22, 2006, 09:52 PM

I am intrigued by Josh's comment, though -

Wher the frack is the passneger door? :confused:

Did you just say frack? Oh my god what is the world coming to...

What kind of car was it

Xtremehkr

Feb 23, 2006, 12:28 AM

People whom are accustomed to being spoilt and considering only their own needs are often very inconsiderate of the needs of others. Their perceptions concerning others tend to be tainted by their learned instinct to consider how they are first perceived. Just an observation.

People whom are accustomed to considering their needs before and spite of what others may need are not usually not the people whom you will look to, to be a good friend or parent. In my experience at least.

I mean, spoilt is not generally a positive term is it? Except for those who are spoilt, but only because of why they are... "spoilt."

Britney is what her adoring public have made her, even her baby becomes a prop used to defend/justify her own needs.

It's not like she doesn't know what happens when she ventures out, or that she can't afford privacy and protection for her own offspring.

AndyR

Feb 23, 2006, 04:24 AM

I'll offer to sit on her lap while she drives the car. I'm willing to take that chance to save her baby from harm :D :D :D

mpw

Feb 23, 2006, 04:25 AM

I do think it was wrong to drive with the child out of a suitable car seat etc. but:
People whom are accustomed to being spoilt and considering only their own needs are often very inconsiderate of the needs of others. Their perceptions concerning others tend to be tainted by their learned instinct to consider how they are first perceived...
She claims to have done this because she was being hounded by the press, so any learned instint to consider how she is perceived doesn't ring true, so it sounds more like an instinct to flee from danger with her child. Would she have acted on fear before she had a child? If the answer's no than maybe it's her maternal instinct that's kicking in and who could blame a mother for that?

...Britney is what her adoring public have made her, even her baby becomes a prop used to defend/justify her own needs...
Like I said if she was fleeing through a fear for her child that hardly makes it a prop, and she’s acting to defend her child not her ‘needs’.

...It's not like she doesn't know what happens when she ventures out, or that she can't afford privacy and protection for her own offspring.
Why should anyone have to take action to prevent someone else needlessly intruding in their life? It’s not just rich people who get hounded by the press so how do you expect poor people defend themselves? Should there be different rules/laws for rich & poor? Should rich kids not be allowed a ‘normal’ life?

MattG

Feb 23, 2006, 06:38 AM

I like Bill Maher's take on it:

"Let Britney be Britney. Darwin's survival of the fittest depends on hillbillies being left alone to do stupid hillbilly things. Like sticking forks in toasters and leaving babies in front seats, and going hunting with Dick Cheney. She's Britney Spears. Of course, she's going to drive with the baby on her lap. We're just lucky she didn't mix it up with an empty and throw it out the window."

Xtremehkr

Feb 23, 2006, 09:48 PM

I do think it was wrong to drive with the child out of a suitable car seat etc. but:

She claims to have done this because she was being hounded by the press, so any learned instint to consider how she is perceived doesn't ring true, so it sounds more like an instinct to flee from danger with her child. Would she have acted on fear before she had a child? If the answer's no than maybe it's her maternal instinct that's kicking in and who could blame a mother for that?

Like I said if she was fleeing through a fear for her child that hardly makes it a prop, and she’s acting to defend her child not her ‘needs’.

Why should anyone have to take action to prevent someone else needlessly intruding in their life? It’s not just rich people who get hounded by the press so how do you expect poor people defend themselves? Should there be different rules/laws for rich & poor? Should rich kids not be allowed a ‘normal’ life?

I don't think you got it. You are making issues out of things that were not there to begin with.

Xtremehkr

Feb 24, 2006, 12:36 AM

I mean, when has a picture getting taking of the child you chose to take out in public (in Hollywood) ever been more dangerous than not properly securing them in a child safety seat before driving?

The Paparazzi got their pictures, regardless. She chose to put wee Sean Preston in danger by driving away with him in her lap.

Either way, it should not have been too big a surprise that Paparazzi were going to be around (in Hollywood, or the immediate area) to take pictures of them.

I dunno, maybe she's just dumb.

Either way, why is anyone apologizing for her?

It was a stupid, selfish thing to do.

mpw

Feb 24, 2006, 04:42 AM

I don't think you got it. You are making issues out of things that were not there to begin with.
:confused:
How am I making issues of things that aren't there when I'm reply to a post by you?

ezekielrage_99

Feb 24, 2006, 07:52 AM

There should be a law against people like that being able the reproduce......

We are being out bred by stupid idiotic morons.......

So much for Darwinism.......

AndyR

Feb 24, 2006, 08:49 AM

There should be a law against people like that being able the reproduce......

Can I try with her though?? hubba hubba! :D

mpw

Feb 24, 2006, 09:02 AM

There should be a law against people like that being able the reproduce......

We are being out bred by stupid idiotic morons.......

So much for Darwinism.......

By ‘people like that’ I assume you mean people who’d drive with their off-spring on their knee, thus endangering the child life.

By ‘We’ I assume that you mean people who think the child should be safely secured in an appropriate child safety seat, and thus passed a law making not to do so illegal.

By ‘Darwinism’ I assume you mean survival of the fittest.

I don’t see what your problem is with Britney in this case, she’s doing exactly what you want her too, as a ‘stupid idiotic moron’ by taking the opportunity to put right her out-breeding of people like you.

You might like to ban healthcare aswell in the interests of Darwinism.:rolleyes:

macartistkel

Feb 24, 2006, 11:50 AM

This is old news but I will give an objective opinion even though I am a huge Britney fan!

Britney has at least 20 people on her ass EVERYDAY following her every move--she hardly takes Sean P. out in public and this girl is not COMPLAINING ABOUT HER LIFE AT ALL. If any of you had picked of the current issue of People this week then you would have known how blessed she feels and threatened she felt at that particular moment in her car.

At any time some lunatic person could try to abduct her baby or try to harm him if they want. She has stopped to talk to LAPD many times about the papparazi driving dangerously behind her and the cops tell her they can do NOTHING about this.

Now she should have known better than to walk in any public restroom barefoot--this is another famous shot! Oh well--it proves she cannot get away with ANYTHING. Imagine all the stupid things you do everyday and wonder if someone always took a pic of it! ;)

Josh

Feb 24, 2006, 12:25 PM

If you look at the relationship between the two "sissybar" handles on the A-pillars you'll see that the vehicle is leaning slightly away from the camera; thus the passenger door is lower than the driver door that hides it from view, and I've just wasted a few precious moments of my life commenting on this.:rolleyes:

Time for some analysis :D

Using the picture below as reference:

The green line indicates the length of the nearest "sissybar" handle, which has a length of 130 pixels.

The purple line, which indicates the length of the furthest "sissybar" handle is 109.34 pixels in length.

What this tells us is that objects of exactly the same size experience a visual size change due to the width of the car (distance from one door to the other, ie pespective). The size change factor is roughly 84.1%.

Now the red bar demonstrates the distance from the top of the driver's side door to the bottom cliff of the window. The length is 272 pixels (because we cannot see the top from this picture, I've estimated it a little higher, and drew in a white "edge" roughly where the top would be).

Now, with the size factor we determined earler, the length from the passenger door's top to bottom of the window should be 272*0.841 = 228.752 pixels.

I've created a 228.752 pixel-long yellow line to show where the window's bottom edge "should" be.

Because it is not there, we can, with reasonable confidence, conclude that the door does not exist; most likely because Chuck Norris tore it off in persuit, which explains why Ms. Spears has the baby in such a position (ie far from Chuck) as she speeds away.

(also attatched is the original, un-edited image the media did not want you to see)

clayj

Feb 24, 2006, 12:37 PM

macartistkel

Feb 24, 2006, 12:49 PM

Eh.

With her money, she could easily afford, you know, a DRIVER and maybe even a BODYGUARD so that she could ride in the back seat of the car with her baby (in his child seat) and not have to worry about the mean ol' paparazzi.

She oughta have the book thrown at her for what she did... driving a car with a child in your lap is illegal and she should be punished just as any non-celebrity would be.

Okay obviously you do not know the facts in this case....SHE DOES have a bodyguard and again we are talking 20 dudes with cameras on her ALL THE TIME...can you actually picture that?? There is no one that is going to threaten me or my own nieces and I would do WHATEVER it takes to protect them in any situation--even if I had to throw them in my car without being buckled up---OBVIOUSLY Britney does not go driving around with her kid in her lap everyday. This would not even be debated if everyone READS the facts and the PEOPLE mag that is on stands right now.

clayj

Feb 24, 2006, 01:03 PM

Okay obviously you do not know the facts in this case....SHE DOES have a bodyguard and again we are talking 20 dudes with cameras on her ALL THE TIME...can you actually picture that?? There is no one that is going to threaten me or my own nieces and I would do WHATEVER it takes to protect them in any situation--even if I had to throw them in my car without being buckled up---OBVIOUSLY Britney does not go driving around with her kid in her lap everyday. This would not even be debated if everyone READS the facts and the PEOPLE mag that is on stands right now.Come on, Kelly:

1. Since I don't see him in the pictures, I'm forced to ask: Where was the bodyguard? In a different car? (In which case he's an idiot. How can you protect your principal if you're in a different car?) Was he in the back seat? If so, the child should have been in his car seat, in the back seat with the bodyguard. I'm sure he can do a MUCH better job of protecting the child than Britney can.

2. If she felt like SHE needed to protect the child, SHE could have sat in the back seat with the child in his car seat, while the bodyguard drove the car. This is common sense.

3. The fact is that SHE was driving the car with her kid in her lap. There is a picture of it, we've all seen it. There is NO excuse for this if she really has a bodyguard and/or a driver. And if they were not available at the time, she should have stayed at home or left her child with her nanny (and you KNOW she has one... probably two or three). She's treating her child like a fashion accessory... "Oh, gotta go out and take my kid with me so I can extend my already way-past-its-expiration-date time in the sun!"

4. I don't care if she does this every day... she did it ONCE (that we know of) and she got caught. She should face whatever the customary punishment is for doing this. What if she'd been in an accident while her child was in her lap, and he DIED? We have laws about child seats for a reason. Just because she is a celebrity should not give her flexibility where this is concerned.

5. People is hardly known for its facts.

freeny

Feb 24, 2006, 01:58 PM

The bodyguard was on the grassy knoll!

Com'on people, enough with all the conspiracy crap!
Shes a new mom that made a dumb mistake that she has appologised for and I'm pretty sure she wont make the same mistake again.

Lets all just be thankfull the baby is okay and move on...

Note to Britney; You've got the cash, just splurge and buy yourself a damn driver if only for your childs sake.

macartistkel

Feb 24, 2006, 02:04 PM

Ok, I just need to share some more of my thoughts on this because pictures can be decieving and the cops went to her house and after hearing her story they decided to not pursue it any further.

Come on, Kelly:

1. Since I don't see him in the pictures, I'm forced to ask: Where was the bodyguard? In a different car? (In which case he's an idiot. How can you protect your principal if you're in a different car?) Was he in the back seat? If so, the child should have been in his car seat, in the back seat with the bodyguard. I'm sure he can do a MUCH better job of protecting the child than Britney can.

Ok, he happened to be getting coffee that day and Britney was waiting on him went it all happened. :rolleyes:

2. If she felt like SHE needed to protect the child, SHE could have sat in the back seat with the child in his car seat, while the bodyguard drove the car. This is common sense.

Common sense never gets used in emergencies it seems like. Sounds to me that they frightened her so she jumped in the car immediately to get away. People are scary and I am sure she has come across many people that she fears will hurt her.

3. The fact is that SHE was driving the car with her kid in her lap. There is a picture of it, we've all seen it. There is NO excuse for this if she really has a bodyguard and/or a driver. And if they were not available at the time, she should have stayed at home or left her child with her nanny (and you KNOW she has one... probably two or three). She's treating her child like a fashion accessory... "Oh, gotta go out and take my kid with me so I can extend my already way-past-its-expiration-date time in the sun!"

She hardly ever takes Sean P. out in public or else HE would be on the cover of every magazine. :)

4. I don't care if she does this every day... she did it ONCE (that we know of) and she got caught. She should face whatever the customary punishment is for doing this. What if she'd been in an accident while her child was in her lap, and he DIED? We have laws about child seats for a reason. Just because she is a celebrity should not give her flexibility where this is concerned.

I think she does get some flexibility when it comes to people crossing limits and stalking her.

5. People is hardly known for its facts.

Actually its the one mag that is always dead on right! ;)
People has more credibility than any of them!

mpw

Feb 24, 2006, 02:08 PM

...she should be punished just as any non-celebrity would be.
And what would the judge say to that non-celebrity when they offer "I was being chased by 20 people with cameras and fear for mine and my childs safety." as mitigating circumstances?

Why should she HAVE to pay for body guards / drivers/ nannies when all she may want to do is try to care for her child herself?

clayj

Feb 24, 2006, 02:15 PM

And what would the judge say to that non-celebrity when they offer "I was being chased by 20 people with cameras and fear for mine and my childs safety." as mitigating circumstances?

Why should she HAVE to pay for body guards / drivers/ nannies when all she may want to do is try to care for her child herself?The judge would say, "You do NOT operate a motor vehicle with a child sitting in your lap. We have child seat laws for a reason." She could easily have put him in his car seat, gotten into the back seat with him, locked all the doors and raised the windows, and called the cops from her cellphone.

Celebrity comes with a price. Sure, you shouldn't have to fear for your safety when it comes to paparazzi, but the fact is that she is immensely wealthy and the cost to protect herself AND her child would be negligible for her.

That her bodyguard was off getting coffee is no excuse... he's obviously not doing his job correctly if he left her unguarded for any period of time. This is more a case of a spoiled-brat, white-trash (and you know I don't use that phrase lightly) celebrity doing whatever the hell she feels like doing and not thinking about the consequences of her actions.

I don't know the punishment for driving with a child not in a car seat, but I'm sure she can afford to take it... it's not like she NEEDS to drive, anyway. She can pay someone else to do that, like any other person who lost their license would.

Josh

Feb 24, 2006, 02:17 PM

That her bodyguard was off getting coffee is no excuse... he's obviously not doing his job correctly if he left her unguarded for any period of time. This is more a case of a spoiled-brat, white-trash (and you know I don't use that phrase lightly) celebrity doing whatever the hell she feels like doing and not thinking about the consequences of her actions.

You're exactly right.

Considering today's bodyguards are bred using artificial DNA, or like the more expensive ones, crafted out of T6160 Aluminum, and no longer have to eat, drink, or use the restroom like normal human beings, they have absolutely no excuse to do any of the above.

It's also interesting how her body guard's actions make her white-trash.

macartistkel

Feb 24, 2006, 02:21 PM

The judge would say, "You do NOT operate a motor vehicle with a child sitting in your lap. We have child seat laws for a reason." She could easily have put him in his car seat, gotten into the back seat with him, locked all the doors and raised the windows, and called the cops from her cellphone.

Celebrity comes with a price. Sure, you shouldn't have to fear for your safety when it comes to paparazzi, but the fact is that she is immensely wealthy and the cost to protect herself AND her child would be negligible for her.

That her bodyguard was off getting coffee is no excuse... he's obviously not doing his job correctly if he left her unguarded for any period of time. This is more a case of a spoiled-brat, white-trash (and you know I don't use that phrase lightly) celebrity doing whatever the hell she feels like doing and not thinking about the consequences of her actions.

I don't know the punishment for driving with a child not in a car seat, but I'm sure she can afford to take it... it's not like she NEEDS to drive, anyway. She can pay someone else to do that, like any other person who lost their license would.

Everything always black and white....no gray huh? Ok lets just crucify her and say she doesn't love her baby.

I am not about to act like she doesn't deserve a break on this (and I think the judge would have given her one as well)....and hell she is happy that the whole thing has actually sparked attention to this problem. Who knows how many lives she could be saving by making policemen and citizens more aware of this danger.

freeny

Feb 24, 2006, 03:55 PM

Time for some analysis :D

Using the picture below as reference:

The green line indicates the length of the nearest "sissybar" handle, which has a length of 130 pixels.

The purple line, which indicates the length of the furthest "sissybar" handle is 109.34 pixels in length.

What this tells us is that objects of exactly the same size experience a visual size change due to the width of the car (distance from one door to the other, ie pespective). The size change factor is roughly 84.1%.

Now the red bar demonstrates the distance from the top of the driver's side door to the bottom cliff of the window. The length is 272 pixels (because we cannot see the top from this picture, I've estimated it a little higher, and drew in a white "edge" roughly where the top would be).

Now, with the size factor we determined earler, the length from the passenger door's top to bottom of the window should be 272*0.841 = 228.752 pixels.

I've created a 228.752 pixel-long yellow line to show where the window's bottom edge "should" be.

Because it is not there, we can, with reasonable confidence, conclude that the door does not exist; most likely because Chuck Norris tore it off in persuit, which explains why Ms. Spears has the baby in such a position (ie far from Chuck) as she speeds away.

(also attatched is the original, un-edited image the media did not want you to see)

Okay you've got me there. It's true, Britney doesnt really love her baby after all.

clayj

Feb 24, 2006, 04:11 PM

Everything always black and white....no gray huh? Ok lets just crucify her and say she doesn't love her baby.I didn't say she doesn't love her child.

What I am saying is that she should be punished for her illegal actions, just as any other normal person would be for doing the same thing.

And the way to raise public awareness is NOT to do the thing you're not supposed to do so that everyone else can go "oh, I see now that you shouldn't do that". The proper way to raise public awareness, if one felt that this was a big enough problem, would be to film a public service announcement or organize some sort of "keep your kids in car seats" event that the press could cover.

mpw

Feb 25, 2006, 03:09 AM