181. To #172...anonymous

I didn't come on here to bash anyone or criticize peoples way of thinking, just give my opinion just like everyone on
here. If you think that carrying your kids everywhere you go is a great idea..go ahead. That is your decision. I am a parent
and choose not to. I will not reduce myself to silly "your kid is better than mine"games. If my post did not make sense to you...oh well. Nothing lost there.

As for Will and Jadas kids, I have better things to do than troll around boards to criticize people and the story is not
about them anyway. Everyone is different..you should learn to
respect that.

As for silence....I think not.

Posted at 12:52PM on May 5th 2008 by Wen

182. To jonalisa (#11)

So why are you giving them attention?

Posted at 2:41PM on May 5th 2008 by Progressive

183. To Suzinati (#14)

You must be joking!!!

Posted at 2:42PM on May 5th 2008 by Progressive

184. To Andy (#112)

Isn't everybody's, with one exception!

Posted at 2:43PM on May 5th 2008 by Progressive

185. I hope they pick 8/8/08 for the C-section!

Posted at 2:43PM on May 5th 2008 by Progressive

186. To WEHO LATIN (#134)

He or she?

Posted at 2:44PM on May 5th 2008 by Progressive

187. How come we never see them with ALL the kids? What do they do? Drop by the Nanny room ….."Gee I think we’ll pick this one to be with us today!!! The rest of you just have to wait your turn!!". Yeah kids!! Ain’t life grand!!

Posted at 2:46PM on May 5th 2008 by Obsidian

188. stop calling the children their adopted kids they are their children and should be called nothing less. they are loved and cared for all the same. when will you learn .

Posted at 2:56PM on May 5th 2008 by lois

189. Hey anonymous - whenever I hear or see the phrase 'taken out of context' I know that it's 'spindoctor' speak for 'I screwed up by telling the truth and I didn't think anyone was paying attention'... so ram it.

IF according to you, Angeloser was fed the word 'blob' (which I don't believe for a second), Angelala agreed with the term 'blob', she agreed with the assessment 'blob'. She never said 'wait a moment, I don't like the term blob'.

She herself referred to Shiloh as a blob, period.

He's the ACTUAL QUOTE from Elle magazine btw - without the editing, without the redaction, without your spindoctoring. In other words it's all in HER WORDS. To use YOUR quote - educate yourself.

Now for the Quote: "Jolie tells Elle magazine that she's more partial towards her adopted children, saying, "I think I feel so much more for Mad and Z because they're survivors, they came through so much. Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her... I met my other kids when they were six months old, they came with personality. A newborn really is this... yes, a blob!"

You notice that she also admits to having 'less inclination to feel for her' (meaning Shiloh)...more partial to the adoptees. Wow. That's real Mother of the Year material. That is also sarcasm, dearie.

You seem to be either a Brangeloser paid blogger, trying to counter some of the public's animosity engendered by those two self-absorbed, globe-trotting nitwits. Either that or you are someone close to them - a lawyer, publicist, family member or perhaps old Angeloser herself.

So take your 'out of context' comment and shove it sister. You're not convincing anyone but yourself.

As for your inane comment regarding her buying souvenirs - I mean adopting non-American children - your comment about it being a 'good deed' is a non-sequitor. Charity begins at home. But they flit off to third world countries and buy children - yes, that is what they are did - so they are indulging in human trafficking, and it's no different than buying a human as a slave. The person was bought regardless of what the purchased human is supposed to do... either totting barges, lifting bales or being photographed being carried by the nutcase or Mr. Mom.

...and in this case all that gallivanting around looking for 'ooohs and ahhhhh' from fawning fans, obsequious minions, smarmy syncophants and assorted idiot politicians - (including dolts at the UN) is solely for the purpose of massaging their Oh! so fragile egos and chasing the spotlight for imagined adulation.

She is no different than that other media whore, Princess Di.

They both felt lonely and ignored as children therefore they both adopted the 'I'll show you!' attitude as adults.

There is a very real backlash against Brangellollop. The public can see that she can't sit still, she feeds on the publicity and mainlines headlines. The kids have no stability as they are constantly buying and selling homes, flitting here and there -

The bile of their hypocrisy is rising in my gorge... go ahead and spin to someone actually gives a sh*t. Others might buy your baloney, but I won't. Those two might have half of Hollyweird fooled, but the public is starting to open their eyes and see those self-absorbed jerks for what they really are. So save your posturing for someone else.

Posted at 5:15PM on May 5th 2008 by Barfing on anonymous' stupid retorts

190. Why would the adopted kids need to have extra attention? All the kids should have equal attention.

Posted at 5:18PM on May 5th 2008 by Andrea

191. DELUDED IDIOTS.

Posted at 10:00PM on May 4th 2008 by Mia

Mia, you don't need to tell us, we know you are deluded.

Posted at 7:25AM on May 6th 2008 by feed the fetus

192. Way too over rated. All of them.

Posted at 10:41AM on May 7th 2008 by Sick of it all

193. This is a good post written by Jaxon at justjared.com

I get so tired of the "Angie doesn’t love Shiloh stories."
How anyone can believe that a woman who has a heart big enough to love a stranger’s child and make it hers would then be unable to love her own child created with the MAN SHE LOVES. It makes no sense whatsoever but ever since that stupid "blob" interview tabloids have made hay with this one.

I guess it helps being a long time fan of Angie that I understand her, how she speaks, what she means, where she’s coming from— because I have a thorough base of information on her. I started reading the interview absolutely KNOWING that she puts motherhood first in her life and that she LOVES all her children with all her heart. That is simply a given. So it did not disturb me a bit when she agreed with the reporter that Shiloh at this particular age was still a bit of a "blob" who eats and sleeps and doesn’t have as much personality as the bigger kids. I doubt Angie would have used this word herself, she simply agreed with the reporter. That is always left out of the repeated stories. Nor did it cause me to doubt Angie’s love for Shiloh, but those waiting to bash her grabbed that one and ran like the wind.

Then the choicest line for the haters. When Angie said she felt more for her adopted children. Oh boy was this payday for haters. Did Angie mean she loved her adopted children more? No, she did not. When she said she FELT more what she meant was nothing about love at all. She was saying she felt more–and not the good feelings we enjoy feeling. If you looked at her context what she was talking about was feeling more worry, unease, concern, and vigilance since her adopted chldren had begun life in an institutionalized environment which is not an ideal beginning for any child. She will always have to be vigilant to make sure those beginnings don’t hinder or inhibit her children’s future. When she says she "feels" more she isn’t talking about love feelings, she is talking about worry and fear feelings.

Does she have to "feel" these feelings with Shi? Of course not. She knows that Shiloh has been loved, welcomed, and cherished since conception. She doesn’t have to be vigilant that Shiloh never feel abandoned or rejected because of early imprinting. With Shiloh she can relax and know that she has had all she needs from the very beginning. So, being the vigilant mother she is she said she reminds herself not to neglect Shiloh’s needs because she has always been loved from the very start. That’s Angie for you, she is determined her children have everything possible to make their lives the best it can be. But even this was twisted to mean that Angie dismisses Shiloh because she is privileged. What a crock. No wonder Angie never bothered to set the record straight. Her commitment to motherhood speaks for itself. That she loves her children is a given.

All this interview demonstrated to me is that Angie is a woman who finds motherhood the most meaningful job she could ever have and that she is committed to loving each of her children as the individuals they are and responding to those individual needs with everything she has to offer.

But my heart also sank at the way the reporter purposely sat Angie up to be misinterpreted. I knew the minute I heard the sound bites that the haters were going to crucify Angie with her own candid and heartfelt openness. That reporter made sure her interview would be repeated again and again by leaving out many of Angie’s comments that would have given better context to the statements she did use. I hope she’s pleased with herself. I’m surprised Angie is willing to give interviews at all when so often she is purposely misinterpreted. They want her to be a wild child again for better headlines. They don’t want to hear that loving her children means more to her than the greatest film role or the next 20 million dollar paycheck.

So if she must talk only about her children then let’s slant the story like there is a competition between kids for Angie’s attention. LIke there can’t possibly be enough love to go around. And best sound bite of all: that Angie just doesn’t feel love for her own child. That blue eyed, blonde haired Shiloh just isn’t exotic enough to capture Angie’s attention. And I look at Shiloh and wonder how anyone in the known universe could believe that the mother of this beautiful child doesn’t love her.

Yet they do. Believe. Such ridiculous lies. Incredible.

And Angie doesn’t bother to set the record straight because I imagine she figures anyone stupid enough to believe her wonderful child is unloved by her mother is not worth educating with facts. She just carries on loving and tending to her family like they are the most important thing in her life. Because they are. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Obviously there are quite a few people walking around with less than half a brain.

Posted at 12:06PM on May 7th 2008 by anonymous

194. Why people adopt overseas?

Maybe because she knows most people aren't as fortune as her, in terms of wealth, to afford adopting internationally. Maybe because the kids in the US are better off than those in other third world countries, I'm comparing orphanages. In the end I think it has to do with personal choice. It seems that way anyway,as some prefer international, some domestic. The rate of internationally adoptions is the same as domestic. Don't just ask Angelina, go ask all the normal Americans who did it. I'm sure you'd find the answers vary, but the bottom line remains they opened their homes to give another child a home and a better life.

Posted at 12:08PM on May 7th 2008 by anonymous

195. This is a good article from parade magazine on adoption

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_09-30-2007/Intelligence_Report

Intelligence Report®
By Lyric Wallwork Winik
Published: September 30, 2007

Do Celebrities Have an Advantage in Adoption?

Gwyneth Paltrow recently said she may adopt a child. Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Meg Ryan already are toting their Asian and African tots. With Americans adopting about 20,000 children overseas each year—and an average wait of up to two years—do celebs get special treatment? No, insists Richard Klarberg, president of the Council on Accreditation, which certifies more than 250 adoption agencies in the U.S. "Celebrities must go through the same process as everyone else," he says. "In their case, however, the beginning of the process is masked from public view. We don’t know who hasn’t been successful."

Where celebrities do have a leg up is in handling the cost, which can go from $15,000 to $50,000. But all adoptive families have to be prepared for an intensive home-study process, says Klarberg. In addition to proving you can financially support a child, and that you have a stable family and a home that can accommodate him or her, you also must deal with the immigration issue of intercountry adoption, which is dependent on the U.S. and the foreign government.

China is the source of most foreign adoptions by Americans, but Klarberg expects the emphasis to shift to Africa, including trouble spots such as Ethiopia. "It would be a form of humanitarian outreach to provide these children with a safe environment," he says. Also, China recently imposed tough restrictions on adoptive families, including body weight, age and marital status (designed mainly to prevent gay singles and couples from adopting).

Posted at 12:11PM on May 7th 2008 by anonymous