Re: So, is this real love we're seeing? Or just a publicity stunt?

by Joanna Fri 17 Oct 2014, 16:08

I sincerely think it's a good idea to ignore the negative rude comments by our friend Atalante about George's wife.
She obviously is entitled to her opinions, as are the rest of us, but sometimes rude comments are
best ignored.
IMO anyway. flower

by Donnamarie Fri 17 Oct 2014, 16:57

Sorry. Joanna you are right. I should just bite my tongue. Sometimes it's hard.

by iamnoone Fri 17 Oct 2014, 18:19

I agree with everything Katiedot said, especially that any woman that married George would have and will get major publicity, paps all over the place. its not like Amal was a complete unknown. as far as the spending we all overspend sometimes, its their money their wedding and they earned the right to do what they please. thats just my opinion, and we don't really know WHAT they spent we are only going by media reports aren't we?

Btw as a side note there is a way to hide posts from people that you find offensive or upsetting. if you go to your profile at the top of the forum, then click friends & foes tab, toward the bottom of friends & foes there is a 'foes' box. if you click search and type the poster name, select the name then click add you will hide their posts.

(edit) in a thread where they post you will not see the text of their post there will be a sentence that says " This post was made by ####### who is currently on your ignore list. display this post"

by Cece42 Fri 17 Oct 2014, 18:59

It's a shame you can't come on this forum and give your opinion without being slammed by so many, I guess it was ok for so many of you to give your opinions (and still are) of the ex's, especially Elisabetta and Stacy.

by LornaDoone Fri 17 Oct 2014, 20:48

Oh Cece42 - you don't seem to understand how discussion forums work - someone gives an opinion - others either agree or disagree and say so.

Someone tries to sell an opinion as absolute fact - and yes - they'll probably be slammed multiple times by multiple users cause most folks on this forum know bullshit when they read it.

by Silje Sat 01 Nov 2014, 21:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Clooney blew it with glitzy wedding in Venice

Last updated 12:00 08/10/2014

KARL DU FRESNE

I've always rather liked George Clooney. I particularly enjoyed the films he made with the directors Joel and Ethan Coen, namely O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty.

Both movies bore the Coen brothers' trademark storyline of greedy, evil or stupid people - sometimes all three - getting caught up in bizarrely complex events that spiral out of control, usually with disastrous and outrageously funny consequences.

Clooney seemed a natural fit with the Coen brothers' darkly whimsical view of the world. What especially impressed me was that even with his matinee-idol looks, he was happy to play roles that required a degree of self-mockery.

He didn't seem to take himself too seriously - a quality he shares with a similarly suave heart-throb from an earlier era, Cary Grant.

I was less impressed with the over-rated Good Night, and Good Luck, Clooney's directorial debut, in which he starred as a colleague of the legendary American broadcaster Edward R Murrow, and I probably should resent him for his involvement as producer of Argo, which wilfully misrepresented New Zealand's role in a plot to spirit six American diplomats out of hostile Iran.

But his best films have been brilliant and even his poorer ones are better than most, so he remained one of the few Hollywood stars I admired.

His efforts on behalf of war victims in Sudan seemed to mark him as a decent man, too - a genuine humanitarian, albeit without the irritating sanctimony and self-promotion that has made U2's Bono a figure of ridicule.

On top of all this, Clooney seemed endearingly immune to the hype, humbug and glitz customarily associated with big box-office names. Still more reason to like him.

That is, until last week. Then he blew it.

Clooney could have got married quietly and discreetly. Instead, his wedding was the centre of a media event that was extravagant even by Hollywood standards.

We can only conclude this was deliberate. Why else choose Venice as the venue?

It's hard to imagine any city in the world where there would be less prospect of privacy. In Venice, people get around in open boats. This meant that virtually every move by Clooney and his bride, the Lebanese-born civil rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, would be witnessed and recorded by paparazzi and TV cameras.

Again, we can only assume it was orchestrated with this intent. The media seemed to have been advised in advance of the wedding party's movements, so they could be on hand to capture every moment.

Certainly Clooney seemed to revel in the attention, beaming and waving for the cameras. Not for him the raised hand to fend off prying lenses or the phalanx of bodyguards to keep the press at bay, as we've come to expect of celebrity weddings.

On the contrary, there seemed an inordinate amount of very public cruising back and forth on the canals in the company of his illustrious guests, the purpose of which was presumably to ensure maximum exposure.

George, George, what were you thinking?

Journalists, clearly so mesmerised by the occasion they momentarily took leave of their professional scepticism, wittered on about the prospect of Clooney's female fans worldwide being plunged into despair at the sight of the man they called the world's most desirable bachelor giving his heart to someone else.

A more probable consequence was that many people who had previously respected Clooney as an intelligent and sensible man, with an admirable disregard for the excesses of Hollywood stardom, would be wondering how he could have let them down so badly. Or perhaps they, like me, were quietly rebuking themselves for having so naively misread him.

Several questions arise from the extravaganza in Venice. The first and most obvious is why so many stars feel an apparent compulsion to live their lives so publicly. Is it because they depend on the constant affirmation of the crowd? Does stardom get inside their heads to the point where public adulation eventually becomes the only way they can measure their worth?

Another is why celebrities appear to need the company of other celebrities. Is this another form of validation for insecure egos? (Matt Damon, Bono, Cindy Crawford and Bill Murray are at my wedding - ergo, I must be up there in the celebrity stratosphere.) Did they have a life, friends, before they became stars?

But perhaps the most perplexing question of all relates to our own fascination with the cult of stardom, without which the Clooney-Alamuddin wedding would have been ignored.

After all, what are actors? They are people who are famous for pretending to be someone else. In essence, their status is based on deception.

We wrongly attribute to them the characteristics of the fictional people they play. The extent to which we worship them hinges on how convincingly they pull off this feat.

So we're the suckers, and Clooney is simply taking advantage of our gullibility.

But I can't help liking him less as a result.

by premiere Sat 01 Nov 2014, 22:24

Yep, yep, and you got it, mister. Hence the Halloween costumes.

by Way2Old4Dis Sat 01 Nov 2014, 22:27

Anybody who doesn't bother to acknowledge that (1) working in any industry for more than half a person's lifetime will probably lead to having many friends in that industry, and (2) George Clooney has non-celebrity friends of more than 30 years standing, does not deserve to have their opinion taken too seriously.

by premiere Sat 01 Nov 2014, 22:38

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Anybody who doesn't bother to acknowledge that (1) working in any industry for more than half a person's lifetime will probably lead to having many friends in that industry, and (2) George Clooney has non-celebrity friends of more than 30 years standing, does not deserve to have their opinion taken too seriously.

Actually, those were the only things I read in the article that I didn't agree with. And, please, please, let's not take any of this too seriously. I don't know about you, but this is pure escapism for me. If truth be told, I sincerely don't give a rat's ass about GC and his love life. I just love to think about something other than work and family issues and a dirty house.

by LizzyNY Sat 01 Nov 2014, 22:44

The writer of this article had an interesting point about our obsession with celebrity. But then he blew it when he showed himself to be so misinformed about George's long-standing friendships and the fact, as Way2Old says, that quite often you find your friends where you work. If your job makes you a celebrity, chances are many of your friends will be famous, too - just like if you're a lawyer, most of your friends will probably work in the legal profession. It's a question of proximity.

by ldg Sat 01 Nov 2014, 23:52

"""""""""""Actually, those were the only things I read in the article that I didn't agree with. And, please, please, let's not take any of this too seriously. I don't know about you, but this is pure escapism for me. If truth be told, I sincerely don't give a rat's ass about GC and his love life. I just love to think about something other than work and family issues and a dirty house.""""""

so agree with this! LOL

by Donnamarie Sun 02 Nov 2014, 01:25

So Karl Du Fresne is no longer a Clooney fan/admirer. Fine. I don't think George will lose sleep over it. Or anyone else who is disappointed in him and doesn't think he lives up to their expectations of him. George leads his life the way he wants to. If it hurts his fan base, affects box office sales, well he will have to live with that won't he. At this stage of his life at 53 he makes his own decisions. He seems to have the support of his family and his friends, people he cares about and values the most.

by globalchick Sun 02 Nov 2014, 03:48

I agree with Karl's article. It is what I have been saying all along and the fact that so many celebrities dressed as Amal and George at Halloween this week shows that George blew it. He and Stan went too far and George and Amal have became a figure of fun and ridicule. I don't think that's what George intended - he seems to have become so arrogant that I think he thought he could control the media and the messaging on Amal. But you can't control the media.

The backlash has started. The negative stories about the body language between the 2 of them in the car. Amal's mother saying "we're famous now". All the stories about Amal's extreme weight loss and them being made fun of at Halloween. The trip advisor story.

I'm sure George will have followed how he and Amal have been turned into Halloween characters and I think he will now reassess. Maybe there will be less famewhoring now. For example you would have expected a loved up picture of Amal and George to emerge to counteract the negative photos of them in the back of the car recently but it didn't happen.

He and Amal being made fun of publicly at Halloween IMO will hopefully be the wake up call George needs that he has to stop shoving his relationship with Amal in front of the cameras. And if he is smart he will tell Amal to stay out of sight until the Awards season starts when I would expect them to be at every red carpet event together this year.

by Philippago Sun 02 Nov 2014, 10:55

sincerely in this report led to flash marriage, I do not see passion and love, but so much long project ends, well-researched, politically to climb a chair, perhaps a governor? The governor's wife Jackie-Style modern is perfect for the role ![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by louisvillelaura Sun 02 Nov 2014, 12:27

ldg wrote:"""""""""""Actually, those were the only things I read in the article that I didn't agree with. And, please, please, let's not take any of this too seriously. I don't know about you, but this is pure escapism for me. If truth be told, I sincerely don't give a rat's ass about GC and his love life. I just love to think about something other than work and family issues and a dirty house.""""""

so agree with this! LOL

I totally agree wit this... I too love thinking/daydreaming about something other than my dirty house and piles of laundry! Love that comment!

by louisvillelaura Sun 02 Nov 2014, 12:35

Philippago wrote:sincerely in this report led to flash marriage, I do not see passion and love, but so much long project ends, well-researched, politically to climb a chair, perhaps a governor? The governor's wife Jackie-Style modern is perfect for the role ![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am a HUGE Jackie fan... but it's not because of her fashion. It's how she conducted herself under the most extreme circumstances. Her husband was assisinated right next to her and the way she held it together at such a young age and put her children first, protecting them, teaching them, loving them is IMO no comparison to any other living person. Princess Diana is in this category as well. She too lived a public life in a loveless marriage and above all put her children first always. Yes these women had amazing style... but just because someone has chanel sunglasses and designer dresses does not a Jackie or Diana make. I DO see the physical similarities, but the substance is not the same. AND this is NOT to criticize Amal or the writer of the post. Amal is an accomplished attorney and I'm sure a lovely person. But Jackie & Diana are two women in a leage of their own that no one can just copy. I'm passionate about Jackie & Diana so I hope I didn't offend anyone in this post!

by Joanna Sun 02 Nov 2014, 12:51

Obviously there's no comparison between Amal and Jackie & our late Princess Diana.
If anyone is writing such things then they must be deluded surely ?
People are people are people....not copies of others IMO.

by louisvillelaura Sun 02 Nov 2014, 13:19

Joanna wrote:Obviously there's no comparison between Amal and Jackie & our late Princess Diana.
If anyone is writing such things then they must be deluded surely ?
People are people are people....not copies of others IMO.

yep - totally agree

by louisvillelaura Sun 02 Nov 2014, 13:40

globalchick wrote:I agree with Karl's article. It is what I have been saying all along and the fact that so many celebrities dressed as Amal and George at Halloween this week shows that George blew it. He and Stan went too far and George and Amal have became a figure of fun and ridicule. I don't think that's what George intended - he seems to have become so arrogant that I think he thought he could control the media and the messaging on Amal. But you can't control the media.

The backlash has started. The negative stories about the body language between the 2 of them in the car. Amal's mother saying "we're famous now". All the stories about Amal's extreme weight loss and them being made fun of at Halloween. The trip advisor story.

I'm sure George will have followed how he and Amal have been turned into Halloween characters and I think he will now reassess. Maybe there will be less famewhoring now. For example you would have expected a loved up picture of Amal and George to emerge to counteract the negative photos of them in the back of the car recently but it didn't happen.

He and Amal being made fun of publicly at Halloween IMO will hopefully be the wake up call George needs that he has to stop shoving his relationship with Amal in front of the cameras. And if he is smart he will tell Amal to stay out of sight until the Awards season starts when I would expect them to be at every red carpet event together this year.

I love that you say what some may be thinking but don't want to post Smile

I see you get alot of feedback some not positive. I respect and enjoy all posts. For me, I adore George and still feel like I'm "the one" not Amal and he'll wake up and realize it one day. I mean come on, I'm a Kentucky gal. I'm his people - lol Smile

Keep on postin'

by Carla97 Sun 02 Nov 2014, 19:14

Well I hope it´s réel, after all, life is short and to save everyone´s and their brothers time, focus only meaningful relationships…who has time for other kinds? Really ?

I think the question is degrating --in a way Smile

by party animal - not! Sun 02 Nov 2014, 20:36

Really simple question. Why, oh why, on the face of this earth would George Clooney go to such enormous lengths, including a little matter of moving house and country, for a publicity stunt!!!??

Is his name actually Kardashian?

Does he really need the publicity?

For what?!

Is it al part of the 'Tomorrowland' script??!! Oh, of course. That's it. I've got it now!

by Joanna Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:47

Very funny pan....yes you've got it alright. LOL

MY opinion ? It's Real Love.
Period.

by globalchick Mon 03 Nov 2014, 08:59

party animal - not! wrote:Really simple question. Why, oh why, on the face of this earth would George Clooney go to such enormous lengths, including a little matter of moving house and country, for a publicity stunt!!!??

Is his name actually Kardashian?

Does he really need the publicity?

For what?!

Is it al part of the 'Tomorrowland' script??!! Oh, of course. That's it. I've got it now!

I don't think the relationship is fake. I think he cares about Amal as much as he cared about Stacey, Lisa Snowdon, Sarah Larson, Krista Allen, Elisabetta and all the others. I think it's that depth of emotion but NOT more. I think he chose to get married to Amal for other reasons one of which was getting everyone off his case for not being married.

And I think George fancies himself as a human rights figure on the world stage but personally lacks the intellectual gravitas for it - so he is hoping to enhance his personal prestige with an Oxford educated wife who will impress the political types he associates with when he gets involved in things like the Sudan. And his "buddies" like the Prez. Laughing

It's the same thinking behind older billionaire rich men and their trophy wives. The trophy wife is not really a person merely an adornment who makes them look good. Then when she gets older, they trade her in for a younger model. It's about their egos.

And the PR stunt wedding in my opinion was about launching Amal as a celebrity human rights lawyer. The relationship with Amal is no more fake than all the other women. IMO it was convenient for George to marry her. I don't believe it's true love not by any stretch of the imagination and it will not last. And then George will never get married again. Simple.

Amal will get a ton of money in the divorce, more than she could have ever earned, the non disclosure agreement will seal her lips forever, she'll get the British house and that will be the end of it. Amal's the same as all the others, no better. She just got a ring and the status of being his legal wife (for a while) whereas the others didn't. I don't think George is capable of loving a woman more than he loves himself. I think he's married to his career. And I think he loves his friends much more than he loves Amal or any of the women he's been with.

There is more genuine love and warmth in the photo of him hugging Rande in LA than I've ever seen between George and a woman and that includes his current "wife". I'm not suggesting George is gay. I am just saying that for George every woman is temporary whereas his friends are forever.

by louisvillelaura Mon 03 Nov 2014, 12:02

globalchick wrote:
party animal - not! wrote:Really simple question. Why, oh why, on the face of this earth would George Clooney go to such enormous lengths, including a little matter of moving house and country, for a publicity stunt!!!??

Is his name actually Kardashian?

Does he really need the publicity?

For what?!

Is it al part of the 'Tomorrowland' script??!! Oh, of course. That's it. I've got it now!
I don't think the relationship is fake. I think he cares about Amal as much as he cared about Stacey, Lisa Snowdon, Sarah Larson, Krista Allen, Elisabetta and all the others. I think it's that depth of emotion but NOT more. I think he chose to get married to Amal for other reasons one of which was getting everyone off his case for not being married.

And I think George fancies himself as a human rights figure on the world stage but personally lacks the intellectual gravitas for it - so he is hoping to enhance his personal prestige with an Oxford educated wife who will impress the political types he associates with when he gets involved in things like the Sudan. And his "buddies" like the Prez.

It's the same thinking behind older billionaire rich men and their trophy wives. The trophy wife is not really a person merely an adornment who makes them look good. Then when she gets older, they trade her in for a younger model. It's about their egos.

And the PR stunt wedding in my opinion was about launching Amal as a celebrity human rights lawyer. The relationship with Amal is no more fake than all the other women. IMO it was convenient for George to marry her. I don't believe it's true love not by any stretch of the imagination and it will not last. And then George will never get married again. Simple.

Amal will get a ton of money in the divorce, more than she could have ever earned, the non disclosure agreement will seal her lips forever, she'll get the British house and that will be the end of it. Amal's the same as all the others, no better. She just got a ring and the status of being his legal wife (for a while) whereas the others didn't. I don't think George is capable of loving a woman more than he loves himself. I think he's married to his career. And I think he loves his friends much more than he loves Amal or any of the women he's been with.

There is more genuine love and warmth in the photo of him hugging Rande in LA than I've ever seen between George and a woman and that includes his current "wife". I'm not suggesting George is gay. I am just saying that for George every woman is temporary whereas his friends are forever.

I think global chick nailed it when she says she sees "more genuine love in the photos of him with Rande...". He's said time and again that his friends mean so much to him. He lights up when he's around his friends. You see it when he's around his parents too.

Part of me wonders how much he must miss his home in LA and his friends there. I don't know when he was there last and yeah, you can connect by cell phone face time, yadda yadda, but there is nothing like kickin' back on a Sunday watching his beloved Cincinnati Bengals play football surronded by friends. Is Amal a true friend, true love? Who knows?

I think I'm still wanting to hear from his own mouth why the 180 degree turn on marriage. Why when he said he would never marry and he's said he isn't good at marriage, he wouldn't be a good dad (these are clips I've seen - his co-star from Decendents said he would be a lousy father, but is a great guy) why all of a sudden he's married, living on another continent far from what he loves most. He loves LA, his job & his friends. And still he gave that interview back in September when he HAD met Amal saying "I haven't met the love of my life". So either he didn't know that she was the one, or something else changed. If it's true love, which it very well COULD be... then cupid really struck him hard. True love is the only reason one WOULD make you want to parade your bride in front of the pap's in Venice, have a 4 day celebration and another in London - probably book another in LA. Heck, if I were marrying George Clooney I'd book St. Patrick's Cathedral ASAP and invite the world and have a multi-continental celebration as well. Wink

Oh rats... the kids are up and now I have to return to the kitchen, dishes and packing school lunches. Glamor at its finest Smile

Thank you ladies for my morning break from reality Smile

I love reading all your posts! Check back with all y'all soon!

by LizzyNY Mon 03 Nov 2014, 13:45

globalchick wrote:I don't think the relationship is fake. I think he cares about Amal as much as he cared about Stacey, Lisa Snowdon, Sarah Larson, Krista Allen, Elisabetta and all the others. I think it's that depth of emotion but NOT more. I think he chose to get married to Amal for other reasons one of which was getting everyone off his case for not being married.

And I think George fancies himself as a human rights figure on the world stage but personally lacks the intellectual gravitas for it - so he is hoping to enhance his personal prestige with an Oxford educated wife who will impress the political types he associates with when he gets involved in things like the Sudan. And his "buddies" like the Prez.

It's the same thinking behind older billionaire rich men and their trophy wives. The trophy wife is not really a person merely an adornment who makes them look good. Then when she gets older, they trade her in for a younger model. It's about their egos.
.
. I don't think George is capable of loving a woman more than he loves himself. I think he's married to his career. And I think he loves his friends much more than he loves Amal or any of the women he's been with.

There is more genuine love and warmth in the photo of him hugging Rande in LA than I've ever seen between George and a woman and that includes his current "wife". I'm not suggesting George is gay. I am just saying that for George every woman is temporary whereas his friends are forever.

globalchick - Wow! For a minute there I thought we might finally agree on something. There is logic in what you say about George wanting to get everyone off his back about getting married. And a wife with Amal's professional qualifications and contacts would definitely be an asset if he fancies himself a human rights figure. Those might be some of the reasons he married her, but I'm sure there are many more. And then you went right back into the "publicity stunt" - "trophy wife" argument, and you lost me.

I'm not sure any of us is capable of loving another person more than we love ourselves, but that doesn't mean we don't love. And,yes, he has been "married to his career" for many years. Maybe he realized that it just wasn't enough. Or maybe he's gotten to a point where he's established his career and can finally, now that he's met someone special, focus on his personal life. He might not have felt any of the other women was worth splitting his focus between home and work. I don't know (and neither do you).

Yes, there is genuine love and warmth between George and his friends. They've been together for years and seen each other through all kinds of things. That builds affection and trust. That kind of relationship takes time to build and he hasn't known Amal very long. They're just beginning to really get to know each other. Now that all the excitement of courtship and the frenzy of the wedding has died down (much of which I think can be attributed to her family - not to George) they'll see if this is a relationship that can last. I like George, so for his sake I hope it does and that it makes him happy.

by Dior Mon 03 Nov 2014, 15:47

I agree with globalchick.

Her fashion makeover reminds me of Stacy's sudden First Lady tryout outfits, and to make the press sing praises of Amal is not really different from presenting Stacy as the epitome of beauty and health.

It's the same treatment just on another level, as this one comes from a rich influential family, and they would not let him get away with his usual strategy.

I wonder if Amal, while she was being smitten with her image of the famous intelligent beauty, who tamed George Clooney, ever realized, that people would not only admire her, but wait for any unflattering picture to shred her into pieces.

by Cece42 Mon 03 Nov 2014, 16:17

Well said globalchick, you are saying what a lot of people are thinking but afraid to say.

by blubelle Mon 03 Nov 2014, 16:25

I also agree with globalchick. Some people on here can say what they want, others get their heads chopped. I used to post on here but lately all I do is read. It seems it is more difficult to express ideas or opinions that fly against acceptance of positive opinions.

by LizzyNY Mon 03 Nov 2014, 16:59

blubelle - Post away! Even Katie isn't an over-the-top Amal fan. Neither are a lot of us. People get jumped on when. they state something as fact when it is really only opinion or post as if they have inside information, when they really don't. You can be negative without being nasty.

I don't know what kind of relationship George and Amal really have. I'm not privy to their private moments, and I'm not a psychic. I can, and do, speculate from what I see and read. But I also know that it's only speculation and guesswork. The only way we'll ever know "the truth" is if George decides to tell it. Even then, I'm sure there would be some people who would claim they know better and it's all a publicity stunt or spin. IMO, not fans.

by Donnamarie Mon 03 Nov 2014, 18:16

If someone is going to say something negative about George or Amal then back it up with something concrete. People are not convincing when they make critical remarks without anything but inneuendo to back it up. When someone says that George and Stan are manipulating Amal's career then I have to assume the person making that claim actually knows these people personally or knows someone who knows them. Cause how else could they claim something so "inside" as that. I will assume that this relationship is about love and is totally legitimate until someone gives me some facts, and I mean facts, to the contrary.

I still really think that the bulk of the negativity on this site is about the women in George's life. I've said it before I do not believe there will ever be a woman who will get the stamp of approval for being with George.

by Way2Old4Dis Mon 03 Nov 2014, 18:22

Here's one thing that I don't get. On the one hand, as some here say, Stan and the rest of Team George are so powerful that they can orchestrate media coverage to build any particular image, yet on the other tout the backlash that George is experiencing because "they can't control the media." It can't be both ways.

The misrepresentations and half-truths and opinion-as-fact, I can have a good laugh at if I'm in the mood; and those can be pointed out pretty directly. But the nonsensical 'logic' drives me crazy, because there's no way to discuss it without getting caught in the cycle of nonsense.

by Dior Mon 03 Nov 2014, 19:03

Donnamarie, people do criticize where there is a lot to criticize.

Of course you do not buy the innocent sweetheart Stacy, when you can see videos on the net where she is rubbing her genitals on the ringrope or kicking women into their belly to entertain her male audience.
People feel fooled and that's why they unload their anger!

The same with Canalis, people were just fed up with her presenting her half naked butt at every occasion. What is this behaviour? An adult woman??

Please, don't get me started, why these women were criticized...

And now people see Amal walking around wearing the biggest diamonds (to buy coffee!), grinning from ear to ear and waving to the cameras like a popstar on tour, while she is presented as a hard working woman who is going to save the world.
Really?

by LornaDoone Mon 03 Nov 2014, 20:22

Dior wrote:Donnamarie, people do criticize where there is a lot to criticize.

Of course you do not buy the innocent sweetheart Stacy, when you can see videos on the net where she is rubbing her genitals on the ringrope or kicking women into their belly to entertain her male audience.
People feel fooled and that's why they unload their anger!

The same with Canalis, people were just fed up with her presenting her half naked butt at every occasion. What is this behaviour? An adult woman??

Please, don't get me started, why these women were criticized...

And now people see Amal walking around wearing the biggest diamonds (to buy coffee!), grinning from ear to ear and waving to the cameras like a popstar on tour, while she is presented as a hard working woman who is going to save the world.
Really?

Well I agree with you on the Stacy and Canalis points. Have had those opinons all along. Amal - I'm trying to stay positive and NOT automatically ascribe to the notion that she is being orchestrated into some new Jacki O wannabee.

As to smiling at the camera - if she scowled she'd be ripped a new one for not smiling. I'd rather look like a smiling fool than get ripped for looking like a sourpuss. Maybe that's how she's handling the attention. Some of those paps can call out some nasty stuff (hence the pictures you'll see of some celebrity trying to punch them out - they do it to try to get a rise or reaction out of the celebrity). So for all we know, Amal might be smiling through pretty rough comments and if so, I give her credit for grinning and bearing it.

As to her clothes. If she's seen in the same outfits over and over LIKE ALL OF THE REST OF NON CELEBRITY HUMANITY she would be ripped a new for for that too. "George has money, why is she wearing the same outfit again." Same comments on George and his denim shirt or his Casamigos t-shirt.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So I say, keep smiling Amal they're gonna hate you either way = at least by smiling it's your way of saying " Hey haters, fuck you! I married him - you didn't!" brahahahahahaha

by Nicky80 Mon 03 Nov 2014, 20:33

LornaDoone wrote:

So I say, keep smiling Amal they're gonna hate you either way = at least by smiling it's your way of saying " Hey haters, fuck you! I married him - you didn't!" brahahahahahaha

....but I thought I'm next GTFO

you destroyed my hope Angry

.....

And back to the chocolate and i thought my diat is going well...... Razz

by Donnamarie Mon 03 Nov 2014, 20:48

There are some incredible bitchy and judgemental women Here. Get over yourselves. Incredibly self-righteous.

by Nicky80 Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:03

Oh Boy, ....I was joking not bitching.....sorry...German humor is special Razz

like the British hehe ... Bricks

by Donnamarie Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:12

Nicky80 I was definitely not referring to your comments. It certainly is not everyone here. Those who continually judge the women in George's life, my comments were meant for them.

by Silje Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:37

The Germans have humour?

by Nicky80 Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:39

EY YO MAN...we are the funnierst People in the world....you just don't know it tongue

by PigPen Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:49

News Bulletin... the wedding was over a month ago. There have been 2 European receptions. They supposedly have 1 or 2 new dogs, and a new house. Both have reportedly returned to work.

I can say with some confidence, inspite of the fact that I do not know George personally, that an announcement of divorce is not emminent.

Could we move on, please. My fragile mental health regarding this matter thanks you from the depth of my existance. Surrender

by Silje Mon 03 Nov 2014, 21:53

Okey Nicky. If you say so. Very Happy

by Katiedot Tue 04 Nov 2014, 17:02

Yeah, I'm with you on that one, Silje!

blubelle wrote: Some people on here can say what they want, others get their heads chopped. I used to post on here but lately all I do is read. It seems it is more difficult to express ideas or opinions that fly against acceptance of positive opinions.

Sigh. So not true.

Anyone can say anything as long as there's a good reason for it. You can't just write "George Clooney is bad man" and think everyone will just nod in agreement. You need to give a good reason. And by 'good reason' I mean a genuinely thought-through, realistic, reason. Not wishful thinking, not an opinion based on no reason at all, and definitely not something you want to convince others to believe because your life won't function any other way.

If you don't like something, say so. Just don't make assertions that are untrue, don't confuse opinion with facts, don't stretch the truth beyond reality to make a point and don't make claims that have no basis in reality.

by Philippago Tue 04 Nov 2014, 20:12

Katiedot it took years but eventually you got there you too, discredit and defame a person based solely on personal opinions or low-level gossip is always to be condemned, must always be defended is that the victim is or is Clooney and Canalis still others. Unless you have a twisted view of the rights of the people, that is, if a person you love (Clooney) always defend him, and the person who does not love (Canalis) allow you always to be offended.

by Way2Old4Dis Tue 04 Nov 2014, 20:32

Philippago wrote:Katiedot it took years but eventually you got there you too, discredit and defame a person based solely on personal opinions or low-level gossip is always to be condemned, must always be defended is that the victim is or is Clooney and Canalis still others. Unless you have a twisted view of the rights of the people, that is, if a person you love (Clooney) always defend him, and the person who does not love (Canalis) allow you always to be offended.

Okay, that's it. I'm taking the grave marker from this dead horse's resting place so nobody can find it to beat the fuck out of its corpse ever again.

by melbert Tue 04 Nov 2014, 20:37

YAY W2O4D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Nicky80 Tue 04 Nov 2014, 20:42

by LizzyNY Tue 04 Nov 2014, 21:03

Way to go, Way2Old!!! Give 'em hell!! Yeah Right

by Katiedot Tue 04 Nov 2014, 22:27

by blubelle Wed 05 Nov 2014, 00:37

Katiedot I think you just proved my point. The list of qualifiers to make a statement acceptable is often based on who made that statement and subject to interpretation by all who read it. Opinion is just that, nothing more, ...IMO. And yes, it is time to move on.

by LornaDoone Wed 05 Nov 2014, 03:03

Ok when someone says George and Amal were caught frowning in the back seat of a car so I predict they will get divorced it is opinion.

And it's opinion based not on common sense but on wishful thinking. And frankly, comments like that are so absurd I have difficulty not making fun of them.

Amal wears a dress that not everyone likes. Ok we can express our opinions, I like it, I don't like it and I can live with that.

When someone comments - Amal is wearing a new dress and she's trying to be Jackie O and she's trying to be a diva and she thinks she's better than everyone else, then it's opinion with qualifiers that are out to make her some evil person who's only goal is to make someone else feel small.

So yes, there are qualifiers. Hate speak being sold as "only opinion" is disengenuous.

by Sponsored content