The Chosen One For What?

Do you really need another reason to dislike LeBron James? Seriously, I have never seen someone's public stock drop quicker than LeBron's. Just go back a couple of years when he was still playing in Cleveland and he's this revered figure. Now, people all over the place just hate the guy. The only other sports person (or maybe person in general) that I can think of who everybody thought was great and then all of a sudden everyone couldn't stand was OJ Simpson. Don't get me wrong. It was definitely warranted. I'm just saying that he's the only other one that I could think of and look what he had to do to be reviled by the masses. Allegedly. (Ha! I crack myself up.) Whether you needed another reason or not, I think I'm going to give you one. See, LeBron didn't play all that great during the championship series against Dallas. (How come LeBron doesn't have a college degree? Because he didn't want to show up for the finals.) In fact, in the six games that they played during the series, LeBron scored a total of 18 points in all of the fourth quarters combined. (That's why you never loan LeBron a dollar. He always pays you back the seventy-five cents, but he never gives you that fourth quarter.) That's an average of three points per fourth quarter. That means that in each fourth quarter that LeBron James only scored three points more than I did when I was sitting on my couch watching the games. (I'd also like to take this moment to note that as of last night, I have exactly the same number of championship rings that LeBron James has. And truthfully, I haven't been trying all that hard, really.) And all of this after leaving Cleveland and setting up his little "dream team" in Miami with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. (Maybe LeBron should try hockey. They only play for three periods in that sport.) There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy. Here's one more: According to the Sporting News, "James insisted that the enmity he has gotten from fans and media isn’t going to stick with him." In what way LeBron? (Mind you, this is the guy who has "The Chosen One" tattooed on his back. I don't know what he thinks he was chosen to do, but I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to be a little more than just play basketball.) He responded thusly: "At the end of the day, all the people who want to see me fail, they gotta wake up tomorrow and have the same life they had when they woke up today. Same personal problems they had today. I am going to continue to live and do the things I want to do and be happy with that.” Wait. What?So, what he's saying is that at the end of the day, whether he wins or loses, all of the people who hate him are going to have to go back to their crappy little lives and their crappy little jobs and their crappy little existence and he's going to just get to keep on being awesome? Nice way to alienate yourself even more, oh, Chosen One. You know, even though the folks who hate you are going to wake up with their same lives and their same problems, so are you, LeBron. Way to make it obvious that you don't care about the fans. Way to make it obvious that you don't care about the game. Way to make it obvious that all you care about is you and YOU don't seem to care if you don't win championships. You seem to have made it pretty clear that you like your life just fine without a ring. Good. I hope it stays that way. At least it will help quell the non-argument about who is better, LeBron James or Michael Jordan. You're a jackass, LeBron.

Sphere: Related Content

He Shouldn't Be Using Food Stamps

Contrary to my tone and demeanor around here, there are very few people and/or things that I actually hate. Sure, I despise things. Many, many things annoy the holy hell out of me. But I don't hate a lot of things or a lot of people. This Leroy Fick guy in Michigan, though? Yeah, I might hate him.

Here's the story: Leroy won $2 million dollars in a Michigan state lottery game called "Make Me Rich". Interestingly, the show is hosted by Peter Knight who played Peter on "The Brady Bunch". Good to know that he could find work. But back to Mr. Fick. You know. The guy I might hate? Yeah, him.

After Mr. Fick won his two million dollars, it appears that he was given the option of having it paid to him in installments (which usually are spread out over a ridiculous number of years, like 20) or taking the lump sum payment. He took the lump sum payment. Now, while you get a big pile of cash all at once, they do take out a boat load of taxes. It ends up being right around half. So, Mr. Fick still won about a million dollars. He's a millionaire. On food stamps. Wait a minute. He what?

That's right. He still uses food stamps. According to WNEM, there is some sort of idiotic loophole in the federal regulations that are used to determine who is eligible to receive food stamps. For reasons which I cannot even begin to fathom, the system does not take into account your liquid assets when you are applying for aid. Soooo...they don't ask you if you have any money to spend? Thus, if you have money, it doesn't matter because they don't ask you that? What in the hell are the requirements based on? With that low of a standard, I can't imagine that ANYONE would not qualify. Who's idea was THAT?!

He's not breaking any laws by doing what he's doing. He's just a jackass, that's all. A rich jackass who doesn't want to pay for his own food even though he is perfectly able to pay for his own food. And he apparently doesn't care, as he told the reporter guy, "Well, I think it's fair because of the way that they took the taxes." They're supposed to take out taxes, you moron! That's how the system works! Just because they take taxes out doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your own food when you have the means to do so! He also thinks that using the food stamps instead of his own money is the "prudent" thing to do. Uh, listen here, sir. If you were so worried about being "prudent" with your money, you shouldn't have been spending the pittance that you did have every month on the freaking lottery! Playing the lottery is the absolute opposite of freaking prudent!


The reporter who spoke to this asshat continues to probe into what other services Mr. Fick receives a(s someone who has about a million dollars) and Mr. Fick tells him that he is also on disability. (I could say that he looks like he's fine, but I know that there are things that can be wrong with a person that you can't see. For example, this guy has the moral compass of a jackrabbit in heat. You can't just tell that simply by looking at the guy.) And from his point of view, he thinks that all of this is ethical.

The reporter asks him what he thinks that a single mother with two jobs and working eighty hours a week would think about him and all of his money collecting from social services that are offered.
"If you're going to sit there and try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it. It ain't gonna happen. So you might as well just ship on out. Goodbye." Do you hate him yet? Because I'm pretty sure that I do.

If this guy is able to totally take advantage of this system with as much money as he has, you know that there are others doing it. The country is going freaking broke and yet we have a system that allows for loopholes like this one. The guy drives a convertible Audi and is on freaking food stamps! We are so effing screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

The Sad Cheater

Tiger Woods is just completely void of any human emotions, isn't he? Well, wait. Is horny an emotion? What about jackassery? OK, if those two count, then he has two human emotions. But if they don't, then he's just a freaking robot. A lying, cheating, home-wrecking, whore-loving, freaking robot.

Elin's divorce from Tiger was finalized a couple of days ago. Immediately afterward, People magazine announced that she had done an interview with them. There don't seem to be any huge revelations in the interview, just more of what we had all pretty much surmised. After all, how many ways are there to feel when you find out that your husband is a scumbag who has cheated on you with every porn star he could find? Not many ways that people aren't going to be familiar with, that's what I'm guessing.

And naturally, Tiger felt the need to address the issue in the only way that he seems to know how. That is, without any sort of feeling or emotion being expressed and by completely minimizing the entire situation. Here's what he had to say at a press conference at The Barclays golf tournament in New Jersey, according to People Magazine:

"It's a sad time in our lives. And we're looking forward to how we can help our kids the best way we possibly can. And that's the most important thing." Um, are you kidding me? It's a sad time? SAD? I don't know if sad is the word that I would choose. It's so minimal, considering that he slept with every whore out there (and even a few whores in there). I'm also taking issue with how the most important thing is his kids. Hey, Tiger! If the most important things were your kids while you were still married, perhaps you would have been such a man-whore and been doing the Perkins waitress! What a buffoon.

He didn't stop there with his hollow statements. "Asked if he was "relieved" with the split, Woods paused. "I don't think that's the word...I think it's just more sadness. Because I don't think you ever – you don't ever go into a marriage looking to get divorced. That's the thing. That's why it is sad." Good Lord, sir. Does he not understand that this isn't something that has happened to him?! It's not like you just suddenly found yourself divorced, you cheater! And you're right! No one expects what you bestowed upon your completely clueless and rather hot Swedish wife! Did you go into the marriage expecting to never get caught, cheater? He's so in love with himself, he probably did.

He did semi-allude to this possibly being his fault when he said, "My actions certainly led us to this decision...And I've certainly made a lot of errors in my life and that's something I'm going to have to live with." Once again, it's all about him. You know who else has to live with your "errors", you cheater? Your now ex-wife AND your children! And I don't know that they're going to grow up thinking that their father made some simple "errors" and that's why mom and dad divorced before they had even entered kindergarten. Cheater.

And in his final statement (for now) of completely not accepting responsibility OR reality, he said, "I certainly understand that she is sad...And I feel the same way." Oh, my God. Really? Really, cheater? I don't know that sad is a completely accurate description of how she is feeling. Betrayed? Lied to? Cheated on? Humiliated? Embarrassed? Duped? Deceived? I think she feels all of those in addition to being sad! And if Tiger does feel sad, it's simply because he got caught. Cheater. Are you going to dig up your dad's ol' bones again to ease some of your pain? Cheater.

Sphere: Related Content

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

Sphere: Related Content

Just Read The Law

Ready for this? You're not. Trust me. You know that awesome law they passed down there in Arizona? The one that, essentially, mirrors the federal laws on immigration enforcement almost exactly? Yeah, that's the one. The one in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, 70% of Arizonans favor, 60% of Americans favor, and 50% of Hispanics favor. That's the one. (Man, you sure wouldn't get the idea that those are the numbers in favor of it when all you hear about are people protesting it and boycotting Arizona...as if they are representing the majority, which they are clearly not.) That's the law I'm talking about.

Now, when this law passed, the Attorney General of the United States, a one mustachioed Eric Holder, was critical of the law and said that the federal government may challenge it because " Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse", according to CBS News That same report also told use that there were "A number of options are under consideration including "the possibility of a court challenge," Holder said in response to questions on the Arizona law". The article also states that President Barry "...has instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona law". It also says that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That was on April 27, 2010.

The law is ten pages long. Have you ever seen how these things are wrote up? For some reason, legislation is always written in a four inch wide column (if that) that has two inch margins on the top and bottom of the page. And it's always double-spaced. It might even be triple spaced. And it's not like it's a teeny-tiny font either. No, it's a fair sized font and they format the stuff on the page like it's a Reader's Digest Condensed Version for the Blind. You can read it from at least five feet away with no trouble at all....with dim lighting! The point here is that while it may be ten pages long, there are probably only 50 words on each page. (Mind you, the health care bill was over two thousand pages long.)

Fast forward to May 13, 2010 at some sort of hearing that Eric Holder was being questioned at. That's over two full weeks since Mr. Holder voiced his concern about this law. That's over two full weeks since we were told that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That's over two full weeks since we were told that President Barry has instructed the Justice Department to check out the law. That would be the Justice Department that Eric Holder is technically over. Ten pages. Over two weeks. Do you see where this is going? Of course you do.

Mr. Holder has not actually read the law. That is correct. He hasn't read it. Now, I realize that being Attorney General of the United States is a job that would probably tend to keep you pretty busy. But if you're telling me that you can't read ten pages of legislation over the course of at least two weeks, then there's something wrong with you and I seriously question your ability to serve in the capacity for which you were appointed. My God, man, what's wrong with you?

According to Fox News it was during these hearings that a one Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas (also now known as "my hero"), asked Holder if he had read the law. Holder responding weakly by stating, "I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it." Luckily Rep. Poe offered to give Mr. Holder his copy of the law. It's not like it's a difficult document to lay your hands on. Oh, but this gets better. Or worse. Hard to say. Hard. To. Say.

"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law." Um, wait. What now?

He's going by what he has "been able to glean" from the freaking newspapers and television and talking to folks?! Why hasn't he just started consulting bloggers?! Or those folks at those rallies? Why don't you just read the freaking thing yourself?! He can read, right? I mean, I'm kind of assuming that's some sort of a qualification or a necessity in order to be the Attorney General of the most powerful nation on the planet, but I'm kinda starting to wonder.

It's not even so much that he hasn't read it that just burns my toast. It's that he is SO SURE that it MUST be racist or have this HUGE potential for abuse that he's already talking about challenging it in court! Hey, Mr. Holder! What say that before you go all full blown spending taxpayer money on some sort of legal challenge to something, how about you read the damned thing first, all right? Yes, I'm actually suggesting that you READ all ten pages! Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you compare those ten pages to the federal immigration laws on enforcement and see how much they differ?! Guess what? They're almost identical, you jackass.

While I'm glad that Rep. Poe brought this up and got him to admit that he hadn't actually read the law himself and was relying on the town crier to bring him up to speed, I really wish he had held his feet to the fire a little bit more and asked him WHY he hadn't read the whopping ten pages of legislation by now. That would have been great. It's times like these when I miss Tim Russert. He would have had Holder on Meet the Press and would have asked him why he didn't read it. I long for the days when there was at least one journalist out there that would do that. These days, however, we'd be lucky if someone were to ask Eric Holder why he has such a creepy moustache. :: sigh :: Yep, I miss Tim Russert. Heart disease kills, kids! Keep yourselves healthy.

This video here shows Eric Holder being interviewed by the adorable, extremely capable, and frequently scarf-wearing Jake Tapper. In it, Tapper asks him why he doesn't think that the Arizona immigration enforcement law is a good idea. Keep in mind that the answer that he gives is one that he has formulated based on what he's read in some newspapers and heard on TV. Below, you will find the video of Eric Holder at that hearing when he admits to Rep. Poe (still known as "my hero") that he hasn't read the whopping 10 page bill. I think it's somewhere around the 1:00 mark if you want to skip ahead. While I really like Rep. Poe, he tends to drone whenst speaking.

Sphere: Related Content

Jacket Jackass

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you're a lawyer. OK, let's say that you're a douchebag lawyer. (I realize that's not much of a stretch for you to make and that's the only reason why I threw that in. It's not like I want to make reading this blog some sort of chore for any of you.) And let's say that you're in an airport. Not just any airport. Let's say that you're in the airport in Houston. With me so far? You're a douchebag lawyer at an airport in Houston. Good. Continue.

While at said Houston airport, you decide that you're a hungry douchebag and stop at one of the food vendors at the airport food court. Let's say...pizza. Pizza it is. You stop for pizza. Maybe at a place named Famiglia. Maybe not. You're not sure. But what you are pretty sure of is that you want to take off your coat. And not just any coat. You want to take off your Polo leather coat, size extra large (that's XL in clothing lingo) and sporting a spiffy plaid lining and cost you $800. That's right. $800. (I said you were a douchebag lawyer. Why are you surprised?) Still with me? You're coatless and enjoying pizza in the airport. Got it? Good. Continue.

Then, after consuming your pizza, you leave and catch your flight. Oh, wait a minute. You seem to have forgotten your jacket! Dang it! Well, crap. You can always call when you land and see if it's been turned in somewhere. I mean, it probably hasn't. After all, it had a plaid lining! If someone just saw that bad boy lying around without an owner, how long do you think it would last? Ahhh...see? You're with me, aren't you? I thought so!

Now, at some point after you've landed, you call the airport. You call the food court. You call the pizza joint, whatever it was called. No such luck. None of them have your coat. Bummer. Well, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to sue the City of Houston, sue Continental Airlines, and sue the management company of the food court. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 62-year old William Ogletree. He's a lawyer at Ogletree & Abbott, a law firm in Houston. He is said douchebag alluded to above in my not-so-hypothetical scenario that I laid out. All of those hypothetical things really did happen to Mr. Ogletree and he really is suing all three entities because he believes that they failed to keep his coat in a safe place for him. Wait. They what?

That's right. For some reason, Mr. Ogletree does not seem to be a big believer in personal responsibility. Seriously. He forgets his coat and he thinks that because someone else didn't pick up after him that they are at fault for his coat disappearing. It's an $800 leather coat. What did he think was going to happen to it if he left it lying around? (I'm assuming that the sharp plaid lining wasn't noticeably visible.)

But he is, in fact, suing all three. What a jackass. He states that, in order to avoid everyone "blaming each other" in court "...all of the three entities need to come to an agreement on which party is responsible and notify me (Mr. Jackass), in writing, signed by all three". Uh-huh. He also feels the need to throw in "I am looking forward to discovering how all of you deal with lost property in the airport. I suspect that your record is dismal and that employee theft runs rampant." Well then. (You can click to enlarge the images above and below if you'd like to read this douchebaggery for yourself. If they don't enlarge correctly, try over here at The Smoking Gun. They have this in perfectly readable form. After all, that's where I found it.)

The part of his own argument that Mr. Ogletree fails to grasp is the part which includes the term "lost". Lost property. Property that is lost. It's lost. It's gone. It can't be found. Hence the term, lost! On top of that, who is the one who lost it in the first place? That's right! NOT the airport. NOT the food court! And certainly NOT the airline! (How did he think that he could drag the airline into this whole mess? The plane had nothing to do with it!) How in the world is this anyone's fault other than Mr. Ogletree's?!

I have no idea what Mr. Ogletree's perception of what it means to take responsibility for one's self, but I'm guessing that it's a lot different than mine. While I find it ridiculous that anyone should have to answer to such an asinine lawsuit, I certainly hope that none of the three parties involves caves into this extortionist. You're a grown man, sir. You lost your coat! It's your fault! Get over it! And buy yourself a new coat while you're at it. You're going to need it because I highly doubt you have much of a case here. Moron.

Sphere: Related Content

Chris Brown Beats Women

Call me crazy but I'm of the bent that if you do something to harm another human being, how they deal with the aftermath of that, not to mention how they deal with you, is none of your business. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think that if you're a victim of violence that there is a "correct" way for you to deal with that. So if you're the perpetrator of said violence against another, what say you just pipe right down, OK?

If you're not familiar with the Rihanna-Chris Brown story, let me summarize it briefly. Rihanna was dating Chris Brown. Rihanna did not realize that Chris Brown was a lunatic. Rihanna realized that Chris Brown was a lunatic the night that he beat the holy hell out of her. Consider yourself up to date.

So, the one they call Rihanna did an interview the other night with with patronizing voiced Diane Sawyer. According to People Magazine, she says that the whole thing started when "I caught him in a lie, and he wouldn't tell the truth. And I wouldn't drop it." Yeah, funny thing with liars. They always want you to drop it when they're busted. Funny how that works, eh? For God's sake, don't ask them about the lie! That just won't do!

Since she wouldn't drop the confrontation of the liar, he decided that the appropriate measure to take would be to just start beating on her. "I was battered, I was bleeding, I was swollen in my face." Any guy who hits a woman is such a lowlife I don't even know where to start. But a guy who hits a woman because she catches him lying?! Spare me, dude. God, you're pathetic. But enough about the guy who beats women. Back to Rihanna.

What did she do next? "My next option was to get out of the car and walk, start walking in a gown and a bloody face. I didn't have a plan. That whole night was not part of my plan." Um, no. I can't imagine that would be part of anyone's plan, really.

Now, most people knew that she had really been hammered on by this jackass who beats women. That we knew. We also knew that Chris Brown had issued a "public" apology (if you can call putting some dumbass video on YouTube an "apology") and had done a couple of interviews. And let's just say that those interviews were less than well received by the public. (I don't know how anyone can expect to be "well received" when you're going on Larry King wearing a baby blue sweater and a matching bow tie. Who dressed him for that interview? June Cleaver?) He claimed on Larry King that he didn't remember hitting her. Amnesia? Never a good excuse for a woman beater. NOT going to be well received at all.

So when it was revealed that Rihanna was finally doing a sit down interview for the first time since all of this happened just hours before the Grammy awards last February, MTV contacted the now convicted and sentenced and still woman beater Chris Brown to see if he had anything to say about her finally doing an interview. (By the way, it should probably be noted that Rihanna said that she was "embarrassed" that she ever loved Chris Brown and that she said that she finally did an interview because she realized that by talking about her experience, it could really help others who have been or are in that situation, as well as perhaps help prevent others from getting into such a situation. Got that, women beaters?! People are embarrassed that they ever loved you. It should also probably be noted that I abhor Chris Brown and any other man who ever raises a fist to a woman. Other than his publicly stating, "I beat women because I am a piece of crap", there really isn't much that he can do to redeem himself in my viewpoint. Just so you know where I'm coming from. By the way, that would be I'm coming from the side of reason.) Oh, he had something to say, all right.

"While I respect Rihanna's right to discuss the specific events of February 8, I maintain my position that all of the details should remain a private matter between us." Um, what?

You think that she should just keep it all to herself? You think that she shouldn't talk to anyone about it? You think that she should just keep quiet and not tell everyone how you beat her face to a bloody pulp? Really? That's what you think? Why am I not surprised by that? Oh, that's right. Because he hasn't learned a damned thing from all of this and it's likely that he will do it again.

It should remain a private matter. Good Lord. That's rich. And dude, soon? You won't be! If all goes well, you won't be rich at all. You are pathetic. What say you elaborate on that little sentiment there, woman beater? How about you explain why it is that the woman that you beat up and bloodied because you were lying to her and got busted should not be publicly talking about what you did to her? Tell us why you think that! Afraid it's going to ruin your little comeback trail that you're hoping to get on sooner than you deserve to?

This ordeal is far beyond anything that should remain a "private matter", you jackass. The only thing that I would like to see remain a "private matter" is you because having your name come up in the public realm ever again can only serve to sicken people. What say you go become your own "private matter" and leave everyone else alone? Moron.

Sphere: Related Content